Federal judge rules gathering limits, closures unconstitutional
In a 66-page opinion released Monday morning, a U.S. District Court judge based in Pittsburgh declared the actions of Gov. Tom Wolf and Dr. Rachel Levine unconstitutional, although “undertaken with good intention of addressing a public health emergency.”
Judge William S. Stickman IV wrote the administration’s “stay-at-home orders far exceeded any reasonable claim, that limits on the size of gatherings violate the right of assembly; and that business shutdowns violated the due process clause of the Constitution by exercising unprecedented power over every business, business owner and employee in the Commonwealth” during the novel coronavirus pandemic.
“The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures,” Stickman wrote.
By mid-afternoon, a spokeswoman for the Wolf administration expressed disappointment with the ruling, for which it will seek a stay and file an appeal with the federal Third Circuit.
Lyndsay Kensinger, press secretary for the governor’s office, wrote in response to an email inquiry, “The actions taken by the administration were mirrored by governors across the country and saved, and continue to save, lives in the absence of federal action.
“This decision is especially worrying as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are likely to face a challenging time with the possible resurgence of COVID-19 and the flu in the fall and winter.”
According to Kensinger, Stickman’s ruling is limited to the business closure and the stay-at-home orders issued in March, later suspended, as well as indoor and outdoor gathering limitations.
“This ruling does not impact any of the other mitigation orders currently in place including, but not limited to the targeted mitigation orders announced in July, mandatory telework, mandatory mask order, worker safety order, and the building safety order,” she noted.
Stickman’s ruling harked back to Wolf declaring a state of emergency in March, but “it is now September. The record makes clear that (Wolf and Levine) have no anticipated end-date to their emergency interventions.
“But here, the duration of the crisis – in which days have turned into weeks and weeks into months – already exceeds natural disasters or other episodic emergencies and its length remains uncertain,” he wrote.
Stickman cited a July dissent by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when the majority of the nation’s nine members declined to review a case brought by Calvary Chapel, Dayton Valley, over limits on the number of people who could attend religious services.
While noting neither this case nor Alito’s dissent set legal precedent, Stickman quoted Alito, who had written, “As public health emergency does not give governors and other public official carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists. As more medical and scientific evidence becomes available, and as states have time to craft policies in light of that evidence, courts should expect policies that more carefully account for constitutional rights.”
While ruling in favor of businesses and Republican office-seekers who said their campaigns geared toward the June 2 primary were hindered, Stickman dismissed the plaintiffs Washington, Greene, Fayette and Butler counties that spearheaded the legal action.
“He found the counties do not have ‘standing’ in the case,” said Washington County Commission Chairman Diana Irey Vaughan.
Regarding businesses, Stickman enumerated that Pennsylvania received 42,380 waiver requests between March 19 and April 3. Of these, 6,124 were granted, 12,812 were denied and 11,636 were determined not to need a waiver to operate.
Owners of small businesses were among the 18 witnesses who testified at hearings in June and July that they weren’t permitted to operate while big-box stores remained open.