One of the States in the court order cancelled the order of the Governor of isolation

The Supreme court of Wisconsin reversed the order of the Governor Tony Evers on the regime of isolation to limit the spread of the coronavirus. It was the first case when a judicial body of last resort has rejected the ruling of this kind across the state, writes USA Today.

Один из штатов в судебном порядке отменил приказ губернатора о самоизоляции

Photo: Shutterstock

13 may court, controlled by conservatives, sided with legislators-Republicans in the decision, limiting the authority of the administration Evers to act unilaterally in emergency situations in public health.

The decision of the court immediately abolishes all restrictions against enterprises and meetings imposed by the order of administration, but retains the ban on school closures until the fall. It happened after Evers had already started to remove some restrictions, because the spread of the virus slowed down.

The Republicans who filed the lawsuit, asked that the judges have chosen their side, but the order remained in force for about a week, giving Evers and legislators to develop a new plan to combat the pandemic. The judge refused to do so, and their decision entered into force immediately.

To install any new restrictions, a Democrat for Governor and the legislature, controlled by Republicans, will be forced to work together to cope with the increase and decrease in the cases of coronavirus — what the two parties have rarely been able to achieve before.

In the absence of the policy of containment COVID-19, bars, restaurants and concert halls can be reopened if local officials do not impose their own limits. This increases the likelihood that policy will be changed.

The majority leader in the Senate, Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau, said that Evers “has created a space for chaos”, removing restrictions on the retail business in the second week of may, instead of taking steps to implement the plan open, which requires certain criteria.

In less than an hour after the decision was published, the League “Taverns” of Wisconsin told his participants that they can once again greet customers in their bars, and urged them to adopt safety rules.

While most of the state can open their businesses and enterprises, the judiciary has no plans to do that. Litigation with participation of jurymen and personal hearings suspended due to the hazards associated with COVID-19.

Legislators of the Republican party who filed the suit, said the legal challenge was necessary to take a place among those who, together with Evercom and health officials make decisions about the response to the outbreak of coronavirus, which resulted in two months in the state killed 418 people.

The decision was issued the day after the poll showed that the public trusts AVERS more than the legislature, the question of when to begin opening and the easing of restrictions related to the outbreak.

State Senator Dan Feyen said that officials soon plan to open a state, and in the meantime citizens must show “good old common sense and personal responsibility.” But Fitzgerald said he wanted to focus on large-scale testing and tracing of contacts, to get a good idea of where spreads the virus, but was not told about the introduction of new restrictions.

Press Secretary Evers Melissa Baldauff said on Twitter that the desire to Fitzgerald to focus on testing without restrictions “sounds horrible.”

Not all judges are equally reacted to the decision.

“This decision will undoubtedly be considered one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism in the history of this court. Residents of Wisconsin will pay a high price for it,” wrote judge Rebecca Dallet.

Most of the judges came to the conclusion that Evers has broader powers in times of emergency, but those powers have limits.

“If you break out a forest fire, there will be no time for debate. You need to act. The Governor may declare a state of emergency and react accordingly. But in the event of a pandemic that lasts for months, the Governor cannot indefinitely rely on emergency powers,” wrote chief justice Peshns Roggensack.

Michael Maistelman, a lawyer who sometimes represented Evers, said that the judges “made this decision in order to establish their own laws to achieve their political goals.”

“This action will inevitably lead to increased morbidity and mortality, he said. — The judges will have blood on his hands, and the people of Wisconsin will never forget that”.

Wisconsin was one of the 43 States where the Governor issued an order on the regime of isolation. The decision to lift restrictions were made also after weakened public support for bans. Several thousand people protested against the quarantine at rallies across the state in recent weeks, some have compared the Evers with the dictator, while others complained that the regime almost destroyed their livelihood.

More than 500,000 people in the state have applied for unemployment benefits after Evers was ordered to close “non-essential” businesses such as bars, barbershops and tattoo shops.

But the regime of self-isolation also still has widespread support from the public. The survey, published on 12 may, law school of Marquette University showed that 69% of respondents believe the actions of the Evers is appropriate, although in March it was supported by more than 80%.

Evers and his lawyer said that the trial will reduce the effectiveness of measures to save life and increase the threat to the health and lives of the residents of the state.




Special projects