SJC backs Baker’s pandemic powers
Says governor did not overstep his bounds
Gov. Charlie Baker has the right to issue lockdown and reopening orders during the pandemic, the state’s highest court ruled in a decision opponents say goes against recent trends by other courts to hold governors accountable for “unconstrained assaults on civil liberties.”
In rejecting a challenge to the governor’s authority brought on behalf of a group of local business owners and pastors, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that Baker has the authority to enact sweeping emergency orders, saying they “do not violate the plaintiffs’ federal or state constitutional rights.”
“The emergency orders as a whole were informed by public health recommendations and serve the State interest of slowing the spread of COVID-19, which is a legitimate State interest,” Supreme Judicial Court justices wrote in their 41-page decision.
Justices said their decision does not give blanket permission for a reliance on executive orders to manage future health emergencies.
“We’ve tried pretty hard to be balanced and as reasonable and as fair as we could be in this very difficult time and this very difficult circumstance and I appreciate the SJC’s decision with respect to those issues,” Baker said in a statement.
Representatives from the Washington, D.C.-based New Civil Liberties Alliance following the ruling said they are exploring an appeal to the nation’s highest court.
“The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court bucked a growing trend by state and federal courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court — that was holding governors accountable for their unconstrained assaults on civil liberties and structural constitutional protections … that exist in state constitutions,” said senior litigator Michael DeGrandis, who argued the case before the SJC.
A June lawsuit filed by NCLA and Hubbardston hairstylist Dawn Desrosiers argued Baker overstepped his authority in invoking the wide-ranging Cold War-era Civil Defense Act as the basis for sweeping COVID-19 orders shuttering businesses and schools, dictating how reopenings were done and requiring face coverings, accusing the governor of the “exercise of police power.”
“Massachusetts has now shepherded the liberty-loving principles of the American Revolution from cradle to grave,” DeGrandis said. “There’s absolutely no reason why the Legislature hasn’t been brought into the fold to enact whatever laws the Legislature needs to protect the public health,” DeGrandis continued.
The NCLA sought to invalidate dozens of executive orders Baker issued amid the ongoing public health emergency, arguing it is the job of the Legislature — not the executive branch — to issue directives. As of Thursday, Baker has issued 57 pandemic executive orders since declaring a state of emergency on March 10.
Plaintiffs argued that local boards of health should have taken the lead on COVID-19 response under the Public Health Act rather than Baker declaring the state of emergency under the Civil Defense Act. Justices disagreed, saying the pandemic clearly falls into the “other natural causes” category in the Civil Defense Act.
View the ruling online at: https://bit.ly/374dR2a.