Can Public Officials Legally Require Masks?
During the worldwide 2020 Coronavirus pandemic, there have been a lot of questions about the legality of government imposition on individuals’ rights. Things such as stay-at-home orders, limitations on gatherings and requiring facial coverings have become commonplace from local, state and even federal governments. But is this type of infringement on an individual’s legal? In short, yes.
Constitutional Rights During a Pandemic
Generally speaking, many of these restrictions are violations of federal and state constitutional rights. However, the pandemic has been classified as a national emergency. During an emergency, whether it be on the state or national level, federal, state and local governments have broad powers to take actions and impose restrictions that would otherwise be considered violations of constitutional rights. For the Coronavirus specifically, the Commerce Clause and the Public Health Service Act come into play to allow such powers. This legislation allows governments to implement safety precautions en masse upon the public, whether or not an individual believes in the legitimacy of the aforementioned precautions.
Outside of the Coronavirus pandemic, there are other clauses and codes that dictate when and how powers become available.
Challenging the Legality of Restrictions
Though there have been several challenges of restrictions around the country, including requests for injunctions reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court – along with almost every state court – has found the restrictions permissible because of the Coronavirus’s classification as an emergency.
Examples seen throughout the country include that of a very recent federal court decision from Pennsylvania that found the governor’s restrictions unconstitutional. What makes that case so interesting is that the Judge justified his ruling by citing to a dissent from a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld restrictions by denying a request for an injunction. Federal judges are bound by precedent and the principle of stare decisis, and in this case the Judge’s only way of finding the restrictions unconstitutional was to argue that the current COVID-19 restrictions were ongoing and indefinite and not a finite, brief emergency.
Continuous Evaluation of the Law
History tells us that using “emergencies” to justify violating constitutional rights can result in actions that most now find abhorrent. Because the current pandemic is in fact ongoing and, at this point, indefinite, the impact of potentially unconstitutional restrictions will need to be continually re-evaluated in order to prevent history repeating itself. As it currently stands, the fact that the Coronavirus pandemic is prolonged and can most likely be classified as indefinite, lends itself to the argument that it is no longer an emergency. However, in light of the deaths of over 200,000 Americans from COVID-19 to date, along with the direct scientific correlation between restrictions (such as limited gatherings and wearing masks) and the reduction of the spread of the virus, we must continue to weigh the economic, psychological, and constitutional impact of these restrictions against the value of human lives.
Consulting with Law Firms in Gainesville, FL on Your Constitutional Rights
Understanding the intricacies of your constitutional rights can be overwhelming. If you or a loved one believe that your rights are being infringed, law firms in Gainesville, FL can help. Attorneys like those at Avera & Smith are experienced in many practices of law and can help you navigate any questions or concerns you may have. Give us a call at 800-654-4659or schedule a free consultation.