Judge Rules Wolf Administration COVID-19 Restrictions Unconstitutional
From staff reports/Center Square
HARRISBURG – A U.S. District Judge from western Pennsylvania has ruled that the Wolf administration’s restrictions to stem the coronavirus in the state are unconstitutional.
The ruling came in a 66-page opinion Monday from Judge William Stickman IV. He said a pandemic “cannot be permitted to undermine our system of constitutional liberties or the system of checks and balances protecting those liberties.”
The Wolf administration had no immediate comment on his ruling, saying it was under review.
Meanwhile the state House Republican leadership applauded the ruling. House Speaker Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster) and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R-Centre) issued a statement of support:
“For the millions of unemployed Pennsylvanians, the thousands of small business owners that have seen their livelihoods permanently ended, and all those looking for some relief from these unilaterally imposed, inconsistent and contradictory shutdown orders, this opinion offers some form of hope that a return to normalcy might be on the horizon.”
“Judge Stickman’s opinion confirms what Pennsylvania Republicans have been saying all along: The Wolf administration’s use of emergency authority is unconstitutionally overbroad. Given the nature of this opinion, we hope that Gov. Wolf will finally work with the General Assembly to develop a plan that keeps people safe, does not unconstitutionally penalize Pennsylvanians, and takes into account our geographical differences.”
Specifically at issue were the administration’s orders closing “non-life-sustaining businesses” and restricting the size of gatherings. In his ruling, Stickman said that while the administration’s restrictions were well intended, they violated the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
“However, good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge,” he wrote in his ruling. “Indeed, the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable, and the intent is good – especially in a time of emergency.”
Stickman wrote that liberties relinquished in times of crisis may be difficult to restore after the emergency has passed, leaving courts with the challenge of interpreting whether emergency measures have gone too far.
He wrote that the limit on the size of gatherings violated the right of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment, the stay at home and business closing orders violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and the business closures also violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The judge noted that while many of the restrictions have since been lifted as the state implemented its reopening plan, the Wolf administration had reserved the authority to reimpose them if the COVID-19 crisis showed signs of worsening again.
Among the plaintiffs in the case were several counties, a number of businesses, and individuals, including U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly and state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe, Marci Mustello and Tim Bonner. Stickman, in his ruling, excluded the county plaintiffs, saying they were excluded from bringing claims of constitutional violations.
Stickman wrote that the scope and scale of the Wolf administration’s orders was unprecedented in American history. He said the state had cited a similar response to the Spanish flu outbreak about 100 years ago, but he insisted that the orders issued at that time were not comparable.
