This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/coronavirus-wisconsin-supreme-court.html

The article has changed 30 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Stay-at-Home Order Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Stay-at-Home Order
(about 1 hour later)
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court rejected the extension of a stay-at-home order by Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday, siding with Republicans in a high-profile challenge of the emergency authority of a statewide official during the coronavirus pandemic. The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the extension of a stay-at-home order by Gov. Tony Evers, siding with Republican legislators in the state in a high-profile challenge of the emergency authority of a statewide official during the coronavirus pandemic.
Mr. Evers, a Democrat, had extended the prohibition on most travel and operations of nonessential businesses until May 26. But in a 4-to-3 ruling, the court said that the measure had exceeded the authority given to Wisconsin’s top health official under state law. Mr. Evers, a Democrat, had extended the prohibition on most travel and operations of nonessential businesses until May 26. But in a 4-to-3 ruling, the court said the measure had exceeded the authority given to Wisconsin’s top health official under state law.
“An agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the order does without reaching beyond the executive branch’s authority,” the justices wrote. “This comprehensive claim to control virtually every aspect of a person’s life is something we normally associate with a prison, not a free society governed by the rule of law,” Justice Daniel Kelly wrote in a concurring opinion.
The ruling, a spokeswoman for Mr. Evers said, appears to immediately end all provisions that have required Wisconsin residents to stay home. “We’re definitely concerned,” Melissa Baldauff, the spokeswoman said, of the safety and health of residents. The ruling, Mr. Evers’s office said, appears to immediately end statewide provisions that have required many Wisconsin residents to stay home. Within hours of the ruling, some taverns were making plans for reopening, the governor’s office said.
“We’re at a loss,” she said, adding of options for appeal, “Our understanding is that this is the end of the road.” “This turns the state to chaos,” Mr. Evers said in an interview. “People will get sick. And the Republicans own the chaos.”
There have been legal challenges to stay-at-home orders in Michigan, California, Kentucky and Illinois, but none of those were successful in persuading a court to fully strike down the order, as the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case were. More than 10,000 cases of the coronavirus have been identified in the state, a New York Times database shows, and at least 421 people have died.
Wisconsin has been riven by an intense partisan battle for much of the last decade. Republicans control the Legislature but Mr. Evers was elected governor in 2018, setting off a sharp battle over its direction. After President Trump surprised many by narrowly winning Wisconsin in 2016, it is considered a swing state in the November presidential election. There have been legal challenges to stay-at-home orders in Michigan, California, Kentucky and Illinois, but none of those were successful in persuading a court to fully strike down the order, as the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case were. Wisconsin’s stay-at-home order took effect on March 25 and was extended by the governor on April 16, leading to a protest at the State Capitol.
At a 90-minute hearing about the stay-at-home order that was conducted over video chat last week, members of the court’s conservative majority asked tough questions of the lawyer defending Andrea Palm, the state’s top health official. The ruling appears to leave Mr. Evers and Republican leaders of the State Legislature in a position of negotiating any next steps for limits on businesses amid the pandemic. But their work relations have been extraordinarily tense, and many observers said the possibility of fruitful negotiation seemed remote.
Mr. Evers, who has already announced plans for a gradual reopening of businesses, said that he hoped to work with Republican lawmakers on next steps, but that in the meantime, he hoped that Wisconsin residents would remain safe, and at home.
“We are in a very perilous place,” he said.
Scott Fitzgerald, the leader of the Republican majority in the Wisconsin Senate, said lawmakers had long been seeking a voice in the conversation about how to respond to the pandemic, but that the governor’s office had, until now, kept them out of the process. “We’re more than willing to sit down with the governor,” he said.
For the moment, Mr. Fitzgerald said, residents would use their own judgment. “People understand, if you don’t want to go to church, you don’t go to church,” he said. “If you don’t want to go to work, you don’t go.”
For much of the last decade, Wisconsin, considered a swing state in November’s presidential election, has been riven by an intense partisan battle.
Republicans control the Legislature so when Mr. Evers was elected governor in 2018, it set off a sharp battle over the state’s direction on all sorts of policies. Republicans had full control of the state before that, during a period in which they curtailed bargaining rights for many public labor unions and moved the state sharply to the right.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, while officially nonpartisan, has long been sharply divided along conservative-liberal lines that are well understood by the state’s voters. Conservatives hold a majority on the court, and they will even after a new justice — a liberal challenger who upset Justice Kelly this spring — is seated in August.
In the stay-at-home case, some justices asked tough questions of the lawyer defending Andrea Palm, the state’s top health official, during a 90-minute hearing conducted over video chat last week.
“Isn’t it the very definition of tyranny for one person to order people to be imprisoned for going to work, among other ordinarily lawful activities?” Justice Rebecca Bradley asked.“Isn’t it the very definition of tyranny for one person to order people to be imprisoned for going to work, among other ordinarily lawful activities?” Justice Rebecca Bradley asked.
Colin Roth, an assistant attorney general, argued that the Legislature had given Ms. Palm such power and that “people will die” if the justices were to strike down the order without anything replacing it. Later, the lawyer, Colin Roth, an assistant attorney general, argued that the Legislature had given Ms. Palm broad authority and that “people will die” if the justices were to strike down the order without anything replacing it.
The court ruling did not provide a mechanism for a stay so that Republicans and Democrats could reach a compromise on reopening Wisconsin, which the dissenting justices wrote could endanger residents.The court ruling did not provide a mechanism for a stay so that Republicans and Democrats could reach a compromise on reopening Wisconsin, which the dissenting justices wrote could endanger residents.
“The lack of a stay would be particularly breathtaking given the testimony yesterday before Congress by one of our nation’s top infectious disease experts, Dr. Anthony Fauci,” one of the dissenting opinions said. “He warned against lifting too quickly stay-at-home orders.”“The lack of a stay would be particularly breathtaking given the testimony yesterday before Congress by one of our nation’s top infectious disease experts, Dr. Anthony Fauci,” one of the dissenting opinions said. “He warned against lifting too quickly stay-at-home orders.”
Rick Esenberg, the president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which had filed an amicus brief siding with the Legislature, commended the court on Wednesday.Rick Esenberg, the president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which had filed an amicus brief siding with the Legislature, commended the court on Wednesday.
“The court’s decision ensures that Wisconsin’s response to Covid-19 must involve both the executive and the legislative branch,” Mr. Esenberg said. “Wisconsin will be better for it. The grave nature of the pandemic cannot be used to subvert our very form of government.”“The court’s decision ensures that Wisconsin’s response to Covid-19 must involve both the executive and the legislative branch,” Mr. Esenberg said. “Wisconsin will be better for it. The grave nature of the pandemic cannot be used to subvert our very form of government.”
Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs contributed reporting. Monica Davey and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs contributed reporting.