Pandemics can’t be fought off by committee

When it comes to a publichealth crisis of this magnitude, you can’t fight city hall — in this case the state’s chief executive officer.

As expected, the state’s highest court last week upheld Gov. Charlie Baker’s exercise of emergency powers enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the governor’s actions, including the mandatory shuttering or curtailing of business activities, did not violate the constitutional rights of businesses and organizations affected by these executive orders.

“I think we’ve tried pretty hard to be balanced and to be as reasonable and fair as we could be in this very difficult time and very difficult circumstances, and I appreciate the SJC’s decision with respect to those issues,” Baker said in reaction to this decision.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance — which bills itself as a nonprofit civil rights organization founded to defend constitutional freedoms against overreaching administrative power — sued Massachusetts on behalf of business owners and religious institutions, but the SJC concluded that Baker acted within the emergency powers afforded to governors under a 1950 state law.

That law, the Civil Defense Act, grants the governor emergency powers to deal with crises such as wars and natural disasters, but doesn’t specifically mention the pandemic.

That constitutes an overreach according to the NCLA, which argued that local boards of health should have taken the lead on COVID-19 response under the Public Health Act.

We haven’t always agreed with the governor’s decisions to curb this pandemic’s effects, which at one point left this state with one of the country’s highest jobless rates.

But an emergency of this scale requires decisive, expeditious and all-encompassing action, something that can only occur when the commonwealth speaks with one voice.

Our state legislative leaders obviously agreed with that premise, since there hasn’t been any noticeable push to have lawmakers take a major role in combating this crisis.

And leaving local health boards to combat a pandemic would lead to a plethora of unintended, likely adverse, consequences.

Even Baker’s decision to limit business activity in just some particularly hard-hit communities came in for criticism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which indicated that would simply invite residents of those high-COVID-19 communities to spread their business — and possibly the virus — to less contaminated cities and towns.

The SJC did clarify that this decision doesn’t give the corner office carte blanche to automatically assume executive powers in future health emergencies, and that the governor should ease up on the reins once the COVID-19 outlook improves.

We’re sure the governor would like nothing more than to remove himself from the difficult decisions and daily spotlight brought on by this pandemic. Representatives from NCLA and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which also supported the lawsuit, indicated they’re weighing the possibility of appealing portions of the case to the U. S. Supreme Court.

We doubt the high court would entertain this case, since it would invite similar suits from disgruntled parties in every other state.

Neither Baker nor any other governor had a blueprint to follow for neutralizing the effects of this novel virus, which has wreaked havoc worldwide. We’re sure the lessons learned from the actions of the Baker administration during this pandemic will pay dividends should an event of this scale occur in the future.