Federal judge rejects bid to end Pa. mask mandate
Although he said he doesn’t take their concerns lightly, a federal judge Friday turned aside a bid by two Pennsylvania couples to at least temporarily void Gov. TomWolf’s face mask mandate and the state’s contact tracking system for COVID-19 infection.
U.S. Middle District Chief Judge John E. Jones III refused to grant a preliminary injunction to halt the mask mandate and tracking system after concluding neither couple had suffered any provable harm to their constitutional rights that would give them legal standing to challenge those measures.
Chad Parker, Rebecca Kenwick-Parker and Mark and Donna Redman, who were backed by the Michigan-based American Freedom LawCenter, filed their case in September. Jones’ ruling denying the injunction request came a day after the governor announced more stringent COVID-19 containment measures, which include a ban on indoor dining at restaurants, that took effect Saturday and will last until at least Jan. 4.
The Parkers and Redmans accused Wolf of acting like a “king” and trampling their rights. They argued the mask mandate amounted to a forced political statement and a symbol of government tyranny. The tracking system, which traces the contacts of known infected persons, could subject them to illegal government surveillance, they contended.
Jones found the couples failed to show they suffered any actual legally recognizable harm from either state directive, even though one member of the group tested positive for the coronavirus during the summer and had received a letter from the state advising a 14-day quarantine period. The couples claimed the quarantine demand was the equivalent of house arrest with no means of appeal. Jones was sympathetic in dismissing their request.
“Nearly nine months, and quickly approaching a full year, into this global pandemic we are all fatigued. … All of our lives have changed drastically and indeed many of us are weary of continued mitigation efforts,” the judge wrote. “But our Constitution does not permit us to consider such frustrations without concrete, particularized and non hypothetical allegations that are capable of full resolution by this court.”