Baker’s pandemic powers stand
SCOTUS won’t hear appeal challenging gov
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal of a state court decision that found Gov. Charlie Baker had the right to impose sweeping pandemic-era orders closing businesses, limiting gatherings and requiring masks in an attempt to limit the spread of coronavirus.
The nation’s highest court announced without comment on Monday that it would not consider an appeal by opponents.
“I take a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that those decisions have been validated by the court because we believe they were, in fact, legal and appropriate based on the facts,” Baker said, speaking to reporters at the State House on Monday.
Still, the Republican governor said he wouldn’t “take any kind of victory lap” on the court decision as the pandemic still rages in Massachusetts and around the nation. Instead, he said he takes “the most comfort and satisfaction” knowing 89% of people 18 and older in Massachusetts are vaccinated against COVID-19.
Michael DeGrandis, of the New Civil Liberties Alliance and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said he was “surprised” the court didn’t want to address the First Amendment issues raised by Baker’s sweeping orders.
“I was disappointed in the court’s decision because there are serious federal constitutional issues at stake here including the right to peaceably assemble. Gov. Baker limited private gatherings and private homes — never before has that been done before,” DeGrandis said.
The lawsuit brought by a group of pastors, salon owners and the headmaster of a private school accused the Republican governor of exercising “legislative police power” and argued that Baker had no authority to issue public healthrelated orders under the state’s Civil Defense Act.
It said the 1950s-era law was designed to protect the state from foreign invasions, insurrections, and catastrophic events like hurricanes and fires — not viral pandemics.
The state Supreme Judicial Court in December rejected the challenge, appealing to the nation’s high court.
The Massachusetts court ruled the governor was within his authority when he issued dozens of executive orders amid the pandemic. It also rejected the lawsuit’s argument that the governor’s actions infringed on people’s constitutional rights to due process and free assembly.
“Given that COVID-19 is a pandemic that has killed over a million people worldwide, it spreads from person to person, effective vaccines have not yet been distributed, there is no known cure, and a rise in cases threatens to overrun the Commonwealth’s hospital system, it is a natural cause for which action is needed,” stated the ruling by the state’s high court.