Rejecting the group of business owners’ challenge, Saif said Baker’s orders did not violate Article vio0 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provides for the separation of powers between the three branches of government, and “did not violate the plaintiff’s federal” or procedural and significant reasons. The constitutional right of the state to proceed or free assembly. “
Cypher noted the significant human toll of the epidemic.
“Covid-19 has taken a devastating toll on the Commonwealth, the United States and the world,” he wrote. “As of this writing, in Massachusetts alone, more than 250,000 people have been infected and 10,000 have died. During the April 2020 surge in Massachusetts, the number of infections often exceeded 1,500 per day and more than a hundred deaths per day from Covid-19 on most days of the month. Medical toll In addition to COVID-19, individual tolls resulting from virus and control measures are important. Behind every infection and every death are those who could not visit any loved ones in the hospital due to the limitation of visits or traditionally mourn the loss of a loved one with family and friends. “
Michael P. of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The lawsuit, filed by DeGrandis and attorney and board Daniel Huntley Webb – challenging Baker’s authority – was filed in favor of 10 plaintiffs – including hair and tanning salon owners, North End Restaurant and two church pastors. President of the Fiscal Alliance Foundation.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance advocates a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that calls it an “unconstitutional administrative state” and has received over 2 2 million in contributions from the Charles Koch Foundation, according to the nonprofit filings.
Degrandis, a senior attorney in the coalition, rebuked the SJC’s ruling in a statement.
“Massachusetts has now adhered to the principles of freedom from the cradle of the American Revolution to the grave,” DeGrandis said. “News must come to John Amsdoms in his tomb that he and his fellow patriots fought hard to get rid of arbitrary royal decrees, and established a republic and rule of law based on the rule of law. Be the one that Adams feared the most. ”
DeGrandis’ words resonated with Mark Chenoweth, the alliance’s executive director and general adviser.
“Among other problems, it rejects the notion that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relies so heavily today on its decision today on the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, which was overturned last month,” Chenoweth said. “What do the judges think? … The NCLA will closely examine the strong reasons for appealing this decision, notable in its equestrian disregard for the civil liberties of Americans. “
Baker’s office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in part, focused on the terms of the Civil Defense Act of 1950, the Enemy War era law, which deals with enemy attacks, vandalism, storms, fires, floods, or “other natural causes.” .
But there were differences among the judges. Cypher wrote to the court that, when examining the sentence ‘other natural causes’ … it is clear that this syntax is epidemic on the basis of the Covid-19 epidemic.
“Covid-19 is an epidemic that has affected one million people worldwide, spread from person to person, effective vaccines have not yet been distributed, there is no known cure, and an increase in cases has led to the overthrow of the Commonwealth hospital system. Has been threatened. , It is a natural cause for which measures need to be taken to ‘safeguard public peace, health, safety and security and to save the lives and property of the people of the Commonwealth’.
However, he acknowledged that the scope of the Civil Defense Act or CDA is limited and that not every public health emergency can justify the action taken during an epidemic.
“The distinguishing feature of the COVID-19 epidemic is that it has a condition that cannot be addressed locally,” Cypher wrote. “Only public health crises that exceed the resources and capabilities of local governments and health boards, and therefore require coordination and resources available under the CDA, are considered for coverage under the CDA. Therefore, although we believe that the COVID-19 epidemic occurs in the CDA, we cannot assume that all public health emergencies fall within the CDA, or that when we show COVID-19-related public health data showing steady improvement, We don’t hold on. The threshold will not be exceeded where it no longer constitutes an emergency under the CDA. “
The report used previous stories from the Globe.
Travis Anderson can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @ TAG will be b. Matstout can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter mattpstout. Martin Finuka can be reached at martin.finuka ન globe.com.
