SCOTUS sides with Gov on stay-at-home against desperate businesses

10
1731

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to lift an executive order from Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf that mandated the closure of all businesses in the state deemed nonessential as part of efforts to curb the spread of the coronavirus, CBS News reported.

A group of businesses and other entities in the state asked the high court last week to block enforcement of Wolf’s executive order, which was issued March 19 in response to the coronavirus. There were no noted dissents.

The Pennsylvania businesses argued on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and filed an emergency request. The Court sided with Wolf.

The businesses then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision.

“The executive order and similar orders by governors across the country is doing substantial, unprecedented damage to the economy,” the group wrote in its request to the high court.

The ruling from the lower court, they added, “permits the continued closure of petitioners and tens of thousands of other businesses across Pennsylvania and as such constitutes severe, immediate and ongoing deprivation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.”

Under Wolf’s order, businesses and entities that are non-life-sustaining were ordered to temporarily close their doors, though the state created a waiver process through which entities could seek an exemption. Those that were allowed to stay open were required to comply with social distancing and other mitigation measures.

Governors of nearly all 50 states have issued orders requiring nonessential businesses to close and urging residents to severely limit their activities. Legal challenges to the orders, however, have begun to crop up.

Residents of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and other cities in the state have protested, but the majority, according to polls, still support closing down everything. That’s despite the fact that many areas of the state have few cases.


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rick McAchren
Guest
Rick McAchren
3 years ago

They are only going by established law, if we want to do something about it we have to get the law changed, which won’t be easy.

Tim Kuehl
Guest
Tim Kuehl
3 years ago

Edicts by incompetent, unqualified tyrants is not government of the people, by the people and for the people. This is nothing more than Democrats not letting a crisis go to waste in pushing their communist agenda. And this isn’t even a true crisis as the mortality rate of 0.5% is far less than the annual flue and nobody gets upset by that. I agree with a post in another story. Open your businesses en masse if you want to. The goons cannot arrest everybody.

jpacord
Guest
jpacord
3 years ago

The Supreme Court is aiding and abetting the destruction of the US economy by the Chinese Communist Party who have their tentacles wrapped around the Commiecrats and the Dog Fart Media. Mass defiance ios the only answer. These wannabe Stalins don’t have enough LE who will follow their orders to stop the people when they defy these edicts in mass.

Greg
Guest
Greg
3 years ago

THIS IS IT?

“The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied..”

Maybe their ages has something to do with the decision.

Greg
Guest
Greg
3 years ago

It’s not really surprising that SCOTUS would rule against defined Constitutional parameters. They’ve allowed asset forfeiture which is about as egregious as can be. I suspect they view this as just a temporary measure, which other cases have been adjudicated in the same manner. Now, a person would think a Court that is attuned to “precedent” would consider ramifications of such actions. Surely they had to realize This case IS a precedent. Does anyone know of a case in “history” that a similar action was enacted across an entire country. Normally SCOTUS sees an action which is arbitrary as problematic but not so in this case? By This case it will allow a Governor to arbitrarily close down commerce in a state. Since their rulings can have authority over all states then what consideration was given to the Commerce Clause, if any. I’ll have to see their decision on the matter and what it all includes.

Bob
Guest
Bob
3 years ago
Reply to  Greg

terrible reporting. Always report the vote breakdown of every scotus decision.

Greg
Guest
Greg
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob

I posted it right below, double I see.This is it, in it’s entirety.

There Was no vote breakdown. This is All there is:

(ORDER LIST: 590 U.S.)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
19A1032 FRIENDS OF DANNY DEVITO, ET AL. V. WOLF, GOV. OF PA, ET AL.

The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

It’s under Miscellaneous Order. It’s Not a Judicial Decision.