Photo by Iñaki del Olmo on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
The most compelling moral justification for using health policing powers in an emergency is that the issued order will have a profound and positive impact on the entire emergency situation: a close causal nexus. A strong causal relationship with a large-scale objective should protect effective and time-sensitive public health orders and should be assessed by the Jacobson test, regardless of the type of right violated. With more than 500,000 deaths from COVID-19, preparedness for future emergencies must include legal and ethical clarity about which orders will be evaluated under a different approach and which will require intensive or rigorous scrutiny.
INTRODUCTION
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, states and municipalities have varied and diversified their use of police first responders, the traditional tool for public health and safety emergencies. Some states have adopted emergency measures that appear to serve less useful purposes and may constitute an excess or abuse of power, while others have adopted more public health-oriented measures. The pandemic comes with populism and a dangerous political undercurrent that is popularizing absolutism in religion, language, the Second Amendment, business, and even corporate rights. However, other important rights are threatened by executive orders. It is difficult to distinguish which of the numerous controversial emergency orders are justified. Distinguishing the rights to exercise freedom from everyone else, or valuing the right to travel interstate over the right to reproductive health services, has caused confusion during the pandemic. Unwarranted executive orders, orders that last too long, do not use the least restrictive means, or do not provide reasonable exceptions are evidence that the government is going too far and may needlessly endanger individual freedoms.
Consistent moral justification and judicial review of emergency orders that violate fundamental rights would ensure civil liberties are protected, allowing exceptions to save lives and contain the virus. This article argues that whatever the nature of the violated right, the moral factors that justify a temporary breach of law in an emergency are the purpose of the government's action, its relationship to the emergency, and the order's ability to provide meaningful relief. For future national emergencies, clear guidance would help shape offending measures, allowing these rules to have a greater impact on public health and other control measures. This approach differs from current legal and ethical approaches, where in many courts the fundamental meaning of the right violated determines the analysis used. In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rights-based protest provoked hesitation in some states to introduce public health measures and remained a ubiquitous voice limiting public health powers during the pandemic. Other executive regulations were less linked to the overall effect that triggered rights-based legal challenges. Circles are currently split on which analysis to apply to specific entitlements. There is an opportunity to reconcile two conflicting needs: the need to limit government abuses and the need to protect the public.
TO ANALYZE
big. The moral justification for rights violations in public health emergencies
The moral justification of an order is based on its potential usefulness and its ability to reasonably achieve a legitimate public health objective. Ending the pandemic, containing the virus, and saving lives are all reasonable policy goals that justify major violations. Secondary guidelines may justify minor interventions. The use of the least restrictive means, although not required by law in emergency situations, must strike a balance between rights and public health. The possibility of gross violation of rights and even forcing people to quarantine is widespread, making inconsistent treatment of some rights at the expense of others suspect. The freedom to behave in ways that encourage transmission of the virus and social conditions that encourage people to sue their elected representatives over restrictions (and local authorities to sue governors) pose challenges to the power of health policing.
Public health emergencies, while potentially infringing fundamental rights, represent a long-recognized exception to substantive jurisdiction.[1] Jacobson contra MassachusettsThis permits executive and legislative emergency action within police powers when action is appropriate, and sometimes controls emergency orders.[2]When applying to a liberty interest affected by an emergency order, courts interpretby JacobsonThe deviation rule is intended to function more like a rational baseline test. However, courts apply stricter or stricter scrutiny to emergency orders which are not always based on the nature of the law. Rather than merely restricting religious practices, there is a hodgepodge of case law that is making valuable emergency public health measures increasingly vulnerable to injunctions. Recent cases in district courts and the Supreme Court may have ramifications beyond religious freedom. Other mandates such as Restricting Access to Abortion, for example, serve lesser purposes in an emergency, and the lingering challenges could be moral or legal wrong.
More consistent rules can be devised to distinguish the orders in whichby JacobsonThose calling for greater or tighter control, even during a public health crisis, should take a discretionary approach or rational bottom-up control. instead of applyingJacobsonInconsistently, the objective of government action and its relation to the emergency must prevail, which is consistent with the divergences inCatholic Diocese of New York against CuomoESouth Bay Pentecostal gegen Newsom (2021),that suggest respect for the State and experts.[3]Public health emergencies, according to the legislative and executive branches, inevitably require public health expertiseJacobsonis intended for people with special knowledge of the crisis. In an emergency, orders must be issued and executed quickly to have the greatest impact on public health and safety. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."[4]The law must reflect a moral justification that protects fundamental rights from arbitrary subjugation, respecting the objectives of public health and safety within the framework of a social compact. An important limitation is that public health policies must be effective or have a high probability of success in the short term. There must be no possibility of extending the state of emergency or exercising unnecessary police powers in the area of public health. The moral obligation of public health officials is high when the public renounces the right to follow recommendations or demands for intervention.
Some of the legal challenges to public health regulations during the pandemic may stem from the public's lack of trust in health officials advising government agencies. The failure of some mandates to adequately protect populations has opened the door to challenges and false claims, such as the widespread official public health statement that masks are ineffective and are undermining public confidence in the facilities that provide them to protect the public in case of public health emergencies. The constitutional rights we hold dear must not be violated by reckless orders. This analysis should be extended to those jobs that are predictably materially related to the desired outcomes.
ll. Jacobson contra Massachusettsand respect for policy makers
Jacobsonrespects legislators and public health authorities (police power).[5]EmJacobsonJudge Harlan wrote, "...a state's police force must, at a minimum, comply with reasonable regulations made directly by the legislature and protect public health and safety."[6] by JacobsonThe use of the term "social pact" advocated the fulfillment of mandates that support public health. In his words, the court discussed both quarantines and compulsory joining the armed forces against one's will, stating that "the collective protection of the public against danger" does not depend on the "readiness" of the people.[7]The language of the social compact is the basis of public health laws and must be balanced to avoid unnecessary interference with freedoms. Right-wing absolutism became part of partisan populist culture, leading to an extreme view of the sanctity of rights and a downgrading of social contract theory.
Jacobsonstates that rights are not absolute. Lindsay Wiley and Stephen Vladeck Warn Against ItJacobsonUsed to suspend constitutional rights in emergency situations, the rights they claim must not be violated without full judicial review.[8]His argument essentially supports constitutional jurisprudence that would apply even in the absence of a state of emergency. Instead of repealing the constitution, I demandJacobsonacts on it, balances rights and opportunities to protect the public, and includes language to prevent abuse of power. However, there may be cases where strict control should be applied rather thanJacobson. In the majority opinion, Judge Harlan said, "...are exercised by regulations which, in certain cases, are so arbitrary and repressive as to justify the intervention of the courts to prevent crime and oppression."Jacobsonthe court predictedJacobsoncould be interpreted as denying judicial review of the arbitrary use of state police powers, leaving them vulnerable to abuse. OJacobsonBalancing affirms the power of state police to protect public health, but does not preclude judicial review of laws or orders to eliminate those that do not serve a legitimate public health purpose or do so in an overly invasive manner.
Jacobson, a case dating back to 1905, was tried before the levels of testing now applied to constitutional cases developed,[9]This makes it arguably out of date and ripe for clarity.by JacobsonThe tone and wording are very similar to the reasoning developed later: Economic or other violating laws and regulations usually involve a minor review that, however, does not require an intensive review.[10]
I must. COVID-19 cases vary in their applicationJacobson
one. Religious cases of COVID-19
EmRoman Catholic Diocese of New York against Cuomo, the Supreme Courtdo tribunalordered an injunction preventing New York from enforcing an executive order limiting attendance at religious services.[11]Gorsuch saw it as a simple case of free exercise, arguing that some commercial spaces considered essential services had no capacity restrictions, while religious services were limited to 10 to 25 people. According to Gorsuch, the executive order highlighted religion as a violation of the First Amendment and warned against the potential use of religion.Jacobsonto avoid the traditional rigorous examination. However, Gorsuch did not file an applicationDivision of Employment, Oregon Department of Human Resources gegen Smith,[12]It states that states can require individuals to comply with neutral laws.blacksmithconfirms that a law not intended for a religion can be observed. Instead, Gorsuch notedClick Download to save Lukumi Babalu – Best of Lukumi Babalu mp3 youtube com,Inc. v.Hialeah.[13] EmRoman Catholic Diocese of New YorkJudge Cavanaugh ruled that New York's mandate was not neutral, finding a violationblacksmithCavanaugh is expandingby SmithArgument of neutrality beyond reason, as emphasized by Judge Sotomayor.[14]While restrictions in many states treat church services like other similar events and don't require them to be treated like grocery stores or other businesses where people don't sit, sing, or gather for long periods of time, Kavanaugh's vision expands on the point appropriate group for the sake of religious neutrality and distancingblacksmith.
The cases clearly indicate a preference for religious gatherings. Through the use of technology and various tests of how integral monitoring services are to the practice of a given religion, religion may not have been improperly or fundamentally compromised, which is beyond the scope of this article and pertains to religious beliefs sincere in people. As with quarantine, which is much more drastic, the public health benefits of suspending or limiting the size of gatherings are great. InSouth Bay Pentecostal Church in Newsom(2021)[15]Kagan, along with Breyer and Sotomayor, warn of armchair epidemiology, a warning expressed through respect for health authorities, scientists and experts who are consistent with it.by Jacobsonkeep but don't mention it.[16]Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor Opinion Softens Need for Petitionhe is standingTo dieblacksmith.
In one case, a federal court ruledJacobsonIt does not cover freedom of religion, suggesting limited sculpture that might fit Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's positions.[17]Next, the question that really needs to be resolved is whether courts should apply varying degrees of review, as they would in non-urgent cases and other constitutional rights.
you Application beyond religious freedom
EmNational Union of Theater Owners Against Murphy, a COVID-19 business closure case, a New Jersey court saidJacobsonfor the basic rational test a view that confirmsJacobsonconsistent with the later developed rationale test,[18]He also said, "The COVID-19 pandemic is exactly the kind of health crisis that was envisioned."Jacobson.»[19]The New Jersey court referred to Roberts' approvalSouth Bay Pentecostes(2020)[20]to support their claim that the courts should appeal to elected officials, which the petition didJacobson. An ethical review of business closures should justify them in terms of their significant impact on reducing transmission.
EmBayley's Campground por Janet Mills,[21]Tour companies and travelers are suing Maine under Executive Order 64, which imposed a 14-day quarantine on people entering Maine. The judge ruled thatJacobsonis unenforceable and too lenient and that the hierarchical structure of modern constitutional jurisprudence provides for thisJacobsonunenforceable and perhaps not even a good law. Judge Walker, a federal district court judge, stated: “Freedom of movementJacobsonThe rule hangs in the air, stamping all but the most irrational and outrageous restrictions on constitutional freedoms, free from the burden of substantive judicial review.[22]Like all states, Maine had "a keen interest in managing the impact of the pandemic."[23]The First District confirmed. From a legal standpoint, was it correct if the court made a review based on cases involving the right to interstate travel or the impositionJacobsonThe justification for the use of public health powers has not been clarified among circles. From a moral point of view, the context of the pandemic justified the invasion.
For reasons of consistency, if cases restricting access to abortion made it to the Supreme Court, justices would have to give them appropriate scrutiny. InHi Abbott,[24]The Fifth Circuit was usedJacobsonavoid itPlanned Parenthood gegen Caseyimproper stress test. The Eighth Circuit later upheld an Arkansas law as well.[25]This contradicts the analysis of the Supreme CourtCatholic Diocese of New York, where the court did not differJacobson,though religion is the difference. As the reasoning inCatholic Diocese, the Eleventh and Sixth Circuit Courts ruled that theCaseyThe examination of the unjustified burden must regulate[26]Like thisblacksmithTo diehe is standingshould regulate cases of free exercise.[27]
Cases have been filed in every state during the pandemic to protect personal freedoms[28]including Second Amendment rights,[29]the right to go to school (basic education and educational equality),[30]be free from unconstitutional downloads,[31]keep businesses open[32]don't wear a mask[33]Stay at home[34]block or organize a fundraiser;[35]rights of other organizations to equal treatment with churches;[36]and many other topics. Constitutional challenges show how widespread rights-based objections to restrictions on liberty are.[37]The expanded or more rigorous analysis of religious freedom could be extended to other constitutional claims (for example, the right to travel).Bayleys Campingplatz), as claimed by many plaintiffs. This trend may indicate populist views on the absolutism of certain rights that go beyond legal protections of long-established rights. The liberal judges' approach would weigh the contributions of elected officials, who rely more heavily on experts, while the conservative judges' approach would apply the same level of scrutiny that would apply in the absence of an emergency. As long as there is a close causal link between harm reduction and crisis resolution and the arrangements are fit for purpose, there is disagreementCatholic Dioceseoffers a more functional and practical solution that has the potential to save many more lives. Controls of this power are needed and are present in itJacobsonStructure. The rationale for relying on health professionals is limited to their ability to implement meaningful policies to protect the public. overuse of itJacobsonJustifying non-emergency public health laws may have contributed to public distrust, which is not the case here.
4. Power of causality with total solution, harm reduction and life saving
one. Justification of time-sensitive results - fixed orders of limited duration
In the case of time-critical commands, a distinction is made between executing actions or commands with adirect relationshipfor a big goal in an emergency and those with aindirect relationshipIt could bring ethics and law closer together. Urgent emergency orders that are of immediate and obvious benefit, even if they violate something that normally could not be violated, can be reviewed belowJacobsonIt is a test very similar to the basic rationale standard used throughout constitutional law, or, on closer analysis, it may also serve a compelling interest. They must not, of course, be arbitrary or distinguish a protected class. The justification for applying a rigorous test to claims to free exercise, but not to other fundamental rights, is an inconsistency that needs to be corrected. However, in any analysis, only arrangements linked to a legitimate purpose will survive.
All emergency measures violate normally reserved rights – quarantine and stay-at-home orders are arguably greater intrusions on protected rights than the inability to attend church, but the legality of quarantine is enshrined. The moral justification should be to save many lives and the total restriction should be the end of the pandemic. Fair, short-lived pandemic measures designed to prevent overdispersal events should not provoke rights-based protests, and when they do, courts should engage in rigorous analysis to find appropriate limitations on those rights.
you Availability of regular legislative process and accountability for enactments that are not time sensitive or address less urgent needs
Orders that take too long, or that only indirectly contribute to containment but interfere with a constitutional right, must legitimately fail unless they are subject to the same level of liability as non-emergency public health laws. For example, bundling abortion restrictions with a mandate that delays electoral processes, while arguably false, is also morally unfounded, as the political goal is not to end or contain the pandemic. It addresses the limited goal of conserving a very small portion of a state's medical and human resources for COVID-19 treatment, which can be achieved in a number of ways. Similarly, but based on arguably less fundamental rights, only orders that prevent people from entering into contracts, terminating tenants and accessing voluntary, non-pandemic health services will apply.indirectlyGeneral health emergency benefits. These commands serve more narrow and valuable purposes, but they don't necessarily command special respect. The target may not justify the violation and there may be time for legislative and judicial process. In another emergency situation, such as a hurricane that could endanger the lives of the population and rescuers, a multi-day curfew or evacuation may be imposed to prevent loss of life.Jacobson, while a two-month lockdown that would have no direct impact on the immediate emergency, even if it had public health benefits and served the common good, e.g. B. Because it's easier to clean up, more control is needed.
DIPLOMA
The most compelling moral justification for using health policing powers in an emergency is that the issued order will have a profound and positive impact on the entire emergency situation: a close causal nexus. A strong causal relationship with a large-scale objective must protect and be evaluated against effective and time-sensitive public health policiesby JacobsonControl regardless of the type of right violated. Additional orders for public health interventions should not be acceptedby Jacobsondiscretionary approach. The language Gorsuch used to justify tight control could limit the recognized power of the police force and cost lives for the sake of freedom, the exact finding isJacobsonhe tried to avoid it in his "socially compact" language. Populism coincides with the COVID-19 pandemic. From today's perspective, a consequence of this could be that, at the onset of the next public health emergency, theaters, classrooms, schools, and group fitness classes would be closed, but churches would be open despite a similar risk of HIV transmission. illnesses. The result can also be an unfair and unnecessary violation of other rights when policy is unlikely to determine the outcome. If people in emergency situations continue to enjoy the full range of emergency rights, or if courts continue to conduct divergent reviews of orders that violate these rights, many orders may face injunctions before they can save lives, while other orders restrict freedom unnecessarily. This outcome further undermines trust in public health professionals and elected officials. While civil liberties are the cornerstone of liberal democracy, a temporary restriction (the shortest possible specified period) of liberties is essential to the future enjoyment of those civil liberties. With more than 500,000 deaths from COVID-19, preparedness for future emergencies must include legal and ethical clarity about which orders will be evaluated under a different approach and which will require intensive or rigorous scrutiny. A crucial question arises: Will order contain the virus, save many lives, or end the crisis by any reasonable means given the circumstances? If so, it's probably worth orderingJacobsonTo analyze.
[1] They do not constitute suspension of constitutional rights. In emergency situations, public health policies within the scope of constitutional rights can harm freedom in the short term.but lookLindsay F. Wiley and Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Rights and the Courts: The Case Against the "Stay" of Judicial Review, Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol. 133, No. 9, July 2020. https://harvardlawreview . org/2020/07/coronavirus-civil-liberties-and-the-courts/ (arguing that Jacobson constitutes a suspension of rights and should not supersede case law on emergency of absence.)
[2] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905).
[3] Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 USA ____at ___ (by curiam); South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 U.S. __ (2021).
[4] Smith, George P., II, “Reshaping the Common Good in Times of Public Health Emergencies: Validating Medical Triage,” 18Annals of Health Law1 (2009). to quoteTerminello x Chicago, 337 US 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., abweichend). Smith disse também em Posner, Richard A., Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency, Oxford University Press (2006) publicado.
[5] Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, and Leonard Glantz, "Jacobson v. Massachusetts: Not Your Great-Grandfather's Public Health Law."American Journal of Public HealthVol. 95.4 (2005): 581-90. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.055160 (Most of Jacobson's Supreme Court citations concern public health and the theory of social repression.) "Whatever the object of this law may be, it cannot be said that it is undoubtedly in concrete conflict with the Constitution. Nor can it be said with certainty, given the methods used to eradicate smallpox, that the means prescribed by the State to that end have no real or significant connection with the protection of public health and safety." NoJacobson, vaccination against smallpox was mandatory and anyone who did not comply was fined five dollars. Vaccination had a clear and obvious link to public health.
[6] Jacobson, 27. "Under the principle of self-defence, a community has the right to protect itself from an outbreak of disease that threatens the safety of its members."
[7] Jacobson, 29.
[8] Lindsay F. Wiley e Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: The Case Against “Suspending” Judicial Review, Harvard Law Review Forum, Bd. 133, Αρ. 9 de novembro de 2020. https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/07/coronavirus-civil-liberties-and-the-courts/
[9] United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4, (The Court applies a rationale baseline test, and footnote 4 limits the consideration of legislators and states in economic matters, but suggests that laws that infringe certain fundamental rights be subjected to more serious scrutiny.) See Dandridge v. . Williams, 397 US 471 (1970) Judge Marshall, dissenting (Even where rigorous testing is not applied, intermediate stages should do so, thus providing a less binary approach to a rationale or rigorous testing.)
[10] Jacobson, page 25 (“Adequate Provisions”). Jacobson was applied to two different issues: police violence and public health regulation. Judges cited it to justify several government injunctions, including water fluoridation, Kraus v. Cleveland, 163 Ohio St. 559 (1953), mandatory non-emergency school vaccination race v. King, 260 US 174 (1922). and 24-hour waiting period before abortions (in a dissent) Thornburgh v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), Judge O'Connor, dissenting. But you see, Richards v. Texas, 757 SW 2d 723 (1988) (case challenges the seat-belt requirement; Judge Teague disagrees, quoting Jacobson as referring to the arbitrary legislation: "...has any significant bearing on these objects, or undoubtedly constitutes a clear and appreciable violation of the rights guaranteed by the Basic Law, it is the duty of the courts to rule on the Constitution and therefore to apply it.” Despite the lack of evidence to suggest that the seat belt law has any truly substantive connection with public health and safety generally, the principle of police authority in this case certainly cannot be in accordance with the established principles of police authority of a state." Applied must include such reasonable regulations, enacted directly by the legislature, that protect health and the safety of the general public and not just the health and safety of a select few.I understandGibbons contra Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1, 203, 6 L. Ed. 23, 71.")
[11] Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 US ___ (per court).
[12] 494 U.S. 872, (1990)
[13] Printed by Lukumi Babalu World, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993).
[14] Roman Catholic Diocese, dissent from Sotomayor (supported by Kagan).
[15] South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 US__(2021). (Roberts reiterates his view of the state's power, but qualifies it to stop the banning of religious services. He would act against the state if it limited capabilities and prohibited chanting and chanting. Gorsuch, along with Thomas and Alito, only conducts a severe scrutiny that there would be a First Amendment case, pandemic or not. Barrett and Kavanagh comment only that the ban on singing and speaking may be factually acceptable, but otherwise he agrees with Gorsuch. In short, the court's shifting balance sheet suggests that, of According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, free movement may be treated more favorably by public health experts.)
[16] South Bay Pentecostal Church vs. Newsom (2021) (Dissens).
[17] Wendy E. Parmet, "Rediscovering Jacobson in the Era of COVID-19", 100 B.U. L. Rev. Fr. Online 117 (2020) (citing First Baptist Church v. Kelly, #20-cv-01102, 2020 WL 1910021 (D. Kan.). April 18, 2020).)
[18] National Association of Theater Owners v. Murphy, Fall Nr. 3:20-cv-8298 (BRM) (TJB) 31 (D.N.J. 18. August 2020); see https://ij.org/cje-post/a-tale-of-two-cases-and-two-pandemics/
[19] National Association. Theater owner, 30 years old.
[20] National Association. Theater Owner, 30-31 Appealklein.Bay United Pentecostal Church vs..Newsom(2020) Roberts agrees.
[21] Bayley Campgrounds vs. Mills, #2:20-hp-00176-LEW, 463 F.Supp. 3d, 22 (D. Me. 2020) Request for response to the author's request for precautionary measure https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/bayley.pdf. Bayley's Campground Inc. Mills, no. 20-1559 (Cir. 1, 2021) (First Circuit confirms without citationJacobson.)
[22] US District Judge Lance Walker quotes Lindsay Wiley as asserting that the rights of the individual merit substantive constitutional review. (Although the judge disagrees with the Maine governor's motion for Jacobson, the judge is not granting the restraining order sought by the plaintiffs because the likelihood of success in the matter is uncertain.)
[23] Bayley (1Stca.), I am 16 years old.
[24] In re Abbott, 954 F. 3d 772 (5youTo study. 2020).
[25] Referring to Rutledge, #1791-20 (8thyouTo study. 2020).
[26] Lindsay F. Wiley e Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: The Case Against “Suspending” Judicial Review, Harvard Law Review Forum, Bd. 133, Nº. 9 de julho de 2020. (sob Berufung auf Robinson gegen Procurador-Geral 957 F.3d 1171 (11youZir. 2020) von Adams & Boyle, P.C. em. Slatery, 956 F.3d 913 (6º Ciryouzir. 2020)) https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/07/coronavirus-civil-liberties-and-the-courts/; See also Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General of Tennessee, et al., Petitioners v. Adams & Boyle, P.C., et al. https://www.law360.com/cases/5f874cc95a7879003429af84?article_sidebar=1 and Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, et al., Petitioners v. Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. https://www.law360.com/cases/5f5928526e30c200346ec69f?article_sidebar=1 The Supreme Court vacated two (now contested) abortion courts in JanuaryJacobsonon legislation that does not further an apparent governmental purpose in the pandemic.
[27] 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993) (Convincing interest and use of less restrictive means needed when churches are treated differently from comparable secular organizations)
[28] “Statement of measures and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020–2021”, bollotpedia.org
https://ballotpedia.org/Lawsuits_about_state_actions_and_policies_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020-2021 (List of COVID-19 Lawsuits Related to Restrictive Policies.)
[29] The NRA filed lawsuits in several states that closed gun stores due to widespread closures of non-essential businesses. See, for example, Brandy, NRA et al. v. Villanueva, (Central Dist. Ca. 2020) Case 2:20-cv-02874, Claim for Injunctive and Declaratory Action (Case closed because plaintiff was unable to remedy discrepancy.) https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront .net/firearmspolicycoalition/ page/ 5562/attachments/original/1585333514/2020-3-27-ca-brandy-complaint.pdf?1585333514
[30] Looney v. Newsom (Parental action for the right to basic education and educational equity; argues against blended and online schooling.) https://ballotpedia.org/Lawsuits_about_state_actions_and_policies_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19_20)_pan
[31] Auracle Homes, LLC v. Lamont, #3:20-cv-00829 (VAB) (D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2020) CT (Law of Private Contracts, Eviction, Use of Courts for Evictions; Court Denies Injunction); Brown v Hazard, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-03702-JPB (N.D. Georgia, October 29, 2020) (The authors argue that the CDC moratorium on evictions violates the supremacy clause, enforcement and restrictions on access to courts. Court denies a temporary injunction .) .
[32] Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872 (p. 2020) (Defying strict business closures in Pennsylvania. The court denied the stay. The contested order fell within the governor's broad emergency powers and statutory powers.)
[33] Neville v. Polis (Colonel) (Petition filed August 26, 2020 to challenge Colorado Disaster Emergency Act and state orders. Rejected and Colorado court denies appeal.) https://ballotpedia.org/Lawsuits_about_state_actions_and_policies_virus_1_9 )_pandemic ,_2020-2021
[34] DeSantis v Fla. Education ass not 1D20-2633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2020) (Florida teachers have questioned the state mandate to keep schools open, arguing that local school boards have the authority.)
[35] State of Florida ex rel. Jackson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
[36] Illinois Republican Party against Pritzker,973 F.3d 760 (Cir. 7, 2020) (The Republican Party alleges violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because a state mandate favored one type of speech over another. The district court relied on Jacobson. 7you(The district emphasized the importance of free exercise but refused an injunction.)
[37] Anthony Sanders, “A Tale of Two Cases and Two Pandemics”, Institute for Justice https://ij.org/cje-post/a-tale-of-two-cases-and-two-pandemics/ (as (As of September 2020, Jacobson has had 120 reported cases since the start of the pandemic.)