Peter Jankowski
2020-05-15 04:44:08 UTC
Justices say Tony Evers lacked authority to extend order through May in
ruling that reopens state
Wisconsins supreme court struck down the states stay-at-home order on
Thursday, ruling that the governor, Tony Evers, overstepped his authority
by extending the order through the end of May.
The ruling reopens the state, lifting caps on the size of gatherings,
allowing people to travel as they please and allowing shuttered businesses
to reopen, including bars and restaurants. The Tavern League of Wisconsin
swiftly posted the news on its website, telling members: You can OPEN
IMMEDIATELY!
The 4-3 decision, written by the courts conservative justices, also chips
away at Evers authority to slow the spread of coronavirus and will force
the Democratic governor to work with the Republican legislature as the
state continues to grapple with the outbreak.
Evers issued a stay-at-home order in March and extended it in late April.
Republicans asked the supreme court to block the extension, arguing that
move required legislative approval.
Nearly seven out of 10 Wisconsin residents support the governors safer
at home order, according to a Marquette University Law School poll. But
Republican lawmakers in the state worried about the economic impacts of an
extended shutdown.
Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin, which filed a friend-of-the-court
brief on Republicans behalf, praised the ruling. The state director, Eric
Bott, called it a win for the protection of the separation of powers and
the necessary legislative and public oversight in the administrative rule-
making process.
But top health officials, including Dr Anthony Fauci, have warned against
reopening too quickly.
The sheltering orders will remain in place until 20 May to give lawmakers
time to develop a new coronavirus plan.
Republican lawmakers have yet to offer an alternative outbreak response
plan. The states chamber of commerce proposed allowing all the states
businesses to open at once, while asking high-risk establishments to take
some safety measures.
Local governments can still impose their own health restrictions, however.
In Dane county, home to the capital, Madison, officials quickly imposed a
mandate incorporating most of the statewide order.
The GOP move against Evers mirrors actions taken by Republican-controlled
legislatures in other states, most notably against the Democratic
governors in the nearby blue wall states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.
All three are critical presidential battlegrounds in November.
The GOP has been working to weaken Evers powers since he ousted incumbent
Republican governor Scott Walker in 2018.
Speaking on the courts decision, the chief justice, Patience Roggensack,
wrote for the majority that the stay-at-home order issued by Wisconsin
health secretary, Andrea Palm, amounted to an emergency rule that she did
not have the power to create on her own, and also imposes criminal
penalties beyond her powers.
Rule-making exists precisely to ensure that kind of controlling,
subjective judgement asserted by one unelected official, Palm, is not
imposed in Wisconsin, Roggensack, part of the courts 5-2 conservative
majority, wrote.
Rebecca Dallet, one of the courts liberal justices, dissented. She wrote
that the courts decision will undoubtedly go down as one of the most
blatant examples of judicial activism in this courts history. And it will
be Wisconsinites who pay the price.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/13/wisconsin-supreme-court-
stay-at-home-order
ruling that reopens state
Wisconsins supreme court struck down the states stay-at-home order on
Thursday, ruling that the governor, Tony Evers, overstepped his authority
by extending the order through the end of May.
The ruling reopens the state, lifting caps on the size of gatherings,
allowing people to travel as they please and allowing shuttered businesses
to reopen, including bars and restaurants. The Tavern League of Wisconsin
swiftly posted the news on its website, telling members: You can OPEN
IMMEDIATELY!
The 4-3 decision, written by the courts conservative justices, also chips
away at Evers authority to slow the spread of coronavirus and will force
the Democratic governor to work with the Republican legislature as the
state continues to grapple with the outbreak.
Evers issued a stay-at-home order in March and extended it in late April.
Republicans asked the supreme court to block the extension, arguing that
move required legislative approval.
Nearly seven out of 10 Wisconsin residents support the governors safer
at home order, according to a Marquette University Law School poll. But
Republican lawmakers in the state worried about the economic impacts of an
extended shutdown.
Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin, which filed a friend-of-the-court
brief on Republicans behalf, praised the ruling. The state director, Eric
Bott, called it a win for the protection of the separation of powers and
the necessary legislative and public oversight in the administrative rule-
making process.
But top health officials, including Dr Anthony Fauci, have warned against
reopening too quickly.
The sheltering orders will remain in place until 20 May to give lawmakers
time to develop a new coronavirus plan.
Republican lawmakers have yet to offer an alternative outbreak response
plan. The states chamber of commerce proposed allowing all the states
businesses to open at once, while asking high-risk establishments to take
some safety measures.
Local governments can still impose their own health restrictions, however.
In Dane county, home to the capital, Madison, officials quickly imposed a
mandate incorporating most of the statewide order.
The GOP move against Evers mirrors actions taken by Republican-controlled
legislatures in other states, most notably against the Democratic
governors in the nearby blue wall states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.
All three are critical presidential battlegrounds in November.
The GOP has been working to weaken Evers powers since he ousted incumbent
Republican governor Scott Walker in 2018.
Speaking on the courts decision, the chief justice, Patience Roggensack,
wrote for the majority that the stay-at-home order issued by Wisconsin
health secretary, Andrea Palm, amounted to an emergency rule that she did
not have the power to create on her own, and also imposes criminal
penalties beyond her powers.
Rule-making exists precisely to ensure that kind of controlling,
subjective judgement asserted by one unelected official, Palm, is not
imposed in Wisconsin, Roggensack, part of the courts 5-2 conservative
majority, wrote.
Rebecca Dallet, one of the courts liberal justices, dissented. She wrote
that the courts decision will undoubtedly go down as one of the most
blatant examples of judicial activism in this courts history. And it will
be Wisconsinites who pay the price.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/13/wisconsin-supreme-court-
stay-at-home-order