Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Pennsylvania Shutdown Order

[still_one]

"The U.S. Supreme Court turned away a challenge to Pennsylvania’s Covid-19 shutdown rules, rebuffing businesses and a political campaign that said their constitutional rights were being violated.

The challenge centered on Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s March 19 order closing all non-life-sustaining businesses to stem the spread of the coronavirus. The state has since eased its restrictions, and businesses are now allowed to operate physical locations at reduced capacity."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-pennsylvania-shutdown-order

Unfortunately the full piece seems to be blocked by a pay wall, but this summary is pretty clear

[Orrex]

1. Good. The Trump cultists in western PA have been howling about Wolf's tyranny

All while they line up to suckle at their orange god-king's festering taint.

[still_one]

2. +++

[DeminPennswoods]

3. Good, but not surprising

since this is essentially a state, not federal, issue.

Wolf ought to let up on the outdoor restrictions, specifically at high school sporting events (this is what is really making people mad in western PA). Shapiro had to concede in court that the 250 outdoor and 25 indoor limits were completely arbitrary. Silverman was correct to point out that at half capacity, some bars/restaurants could exceed 25, even 250, and still be ok to be open. Wolf should use the same percent of capacity for outdoor events.

[DarthDem]

4. More Details

Here's the original opinion from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, I believe (assuming I have the right case):

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2020/68-mm-2020.html

The PA Supreme Court is 5-2 Democratic and in this opinion, four Democrats made up the majority while the two GOPers and one Democrat filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, meaning they agreed in part and disagreed in part. (That opinion isn't at the link above.) And no, the plaintiff isn't THAT Danny DeVito.

The only thing I can find on today's SCOTUS docket is that the Court denied certiorari without an written order, as usual, meaning that there weren't four justices of the eight that wanted to hear this. When you think about the makeup of the Court, that may be significant, while understanding that space on the SCOTUS docket is limited, this case was probably decided on adequate and independent state grounds and therefore wasn't subject to SCOTUS review, etc.

[still_one]

5. Thanks Darth +++

[Roland99]

6. and a few more:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-05/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-pennsylvania-shutdown-order?srnd=premium

The Supreme Court refused to intervene on an emergency basis in the case in May. The high court has repeatedly refused to second-guess state and local officials trying to navigate the coronavirus outbreak.

The challengers included a golf course, laundromat, timber company, real-estate agent and political committee tied to a Republican state legislative candidate. They turned to the nation’s top court after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected their arguments.


In a separate case that could make its way to the Supreme Court, a federal trial judge on Sept. 14 declared Pennsylvania’s coronavirus restrictions unconstitutional. That case also involves the state’s size limits on indoor and outdoor gatherings.

The Supreme Court case is Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, 19-1265.

[DarthDem]

7. Yeah, and this language:

"The high court has repeatedly refused to second-guess state and local officials trying to navigate the coronavirus outbreak"

. . . is interesting. A cynic would say that it's because they don't want a bunch of suits from what we here view as right-minded people also making it up to SCOTUS, but it could also be that Roberts, the three liberals, and at least one other person (Gorsuch?) just don't see the role of the Court to become, in effect, the executive and decide what local communities can and can't do. That is, after all, in tension with reservation of rights to the states.