The legal case is entitled Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm, Julie Willems Van Dijk and Nicole Safar, In Their Official Capacities As Executives of Wisconsin Department of Health Services Respondents. (Appeal Number 2020AP000765), (Case History).
The Legislature wants a Court order, (temporary restraining order), that would bar enforcement of the stay-at-home order issued April 16, 2020, (Wisconsin Executive Orders).
In the response brief, the Evers administration asks the Court to deny the legislature's petition for an original action before the high state court, and the motion for a temporary injunction.
Observes believe the legal position of the administration is strong, but the Republican-led Wisconsin Supreme Court often acts an adjunct for the Republican Party in political cases.
The brief emphasizes the prominence of Wisconsin Statute § 252.02, the COMMUNICABLE DISEASES or Pandemic statutes.
States the brief:
Even if this Court were to accept jurisdiction, the claims should be dismissed as a matter of law.
A. The language, context, and history of Wis. Stat. § 252.02 make clear that DHS was authorized to issue Safer-at-Home.
It is well-accepted that statutes like Wis. Stat. § 252.02 provide broad grants of authority to respond to a very rare and narrow type of crisis—the very one we now face with a rapid spread of a novel communicable disease. These kinds of provisions appear in statutory codes throughout the country. To respondents’ knowledge, every state operates under laws vesting these duties in a department of health or similar executive agency, and the petitioners have not suggested otherwise. These laws are designed to provide an executive agency the tools to act quickly and with flexibility based on circumstances on the ground. Wisconsin’s version of these laws, in section 252.02, does just that. It gives DHS flexible powers to address the specific threat of a rapidly spreading disease. That makes sense: this Court has long acknowledged the commonsense proposition that public health officials must be able to react swiftly and effectively in the face of an imminent or existing crisis.
As it pertains to the pandemic here, the statutes contain three independent powers that authorize measures found in Safer-at -Home: Section 252.02(6) permits DHS to “authorize and implement all emergency measures to control communicable diseases.” Section 252.02(4) allows the agency to “issue orders . . . for the control and suppression of communicable diseases” that “may be made applicable to the whole . . . of the state[ ].” And Section 252.02(3) authorizes DHS to “close schools and forbid public gatherings . . . to control outbreaks and epidemics.”Petitioners’ approach to these statues is not only atextual, it also would lead to absurd, and dangerous, results. This is exactly the time when pandemic statutes should apply with their full force. [pp 22-23]
The Evers administration April 28 press release is linked here.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court currently bars in-person oral arguments, using video conferencing instead, due to "health concerns created by the COVID-19 pandemic," (Wisconsin Supreme Court).
No comments:
Post a Comment