Florida Education Association v. DeSantis: On August 3, 2020, the Florida Education Association, the state`s largest teachers` union, filed an emergency motion calling for a status conference in its case against Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and the Florida Commission of Education. The union tried to block a government order that it said required schools to physically reopen five days a week or lose critical funding. In response, Judge Spencer Eig of the Eleventh Miami County Court of Justice set a hearing for August 6, 2020, during which he would likely decide whether the lawsuit was filed in the right court. In its initial complaint, the union argued that the state`s emergency order to reopen physical classrooms in schools “imposes mandates that make it impossible to comply with CDC guidelines on physical distancing, hygiene, and hygiene.” The union further argued that the order comes with “strong pressure” to physically reopen schools, as only schools with state-approved reopening plans would benefit from flexibility in reporting student enrollment, including funding based on full-time enrollment forecasts before COVID. According to the union, the state order violated Article IX, Section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution, which mandated safety in public schools. The union also claimed that the order constituted an “inappropriate, inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious” deprivation of the plaintiffs` due process rights. The union therefore sought an “injunction to prohibit all named defendants from taking steps to unconstitutionally force millions of students and public school employees to report to physical schools that are expected to remain closed during the resurgence of COVID-19 cases.” A lawyer representing DeSantis said that if the case was not referred to another court, they would appeal. [60] [61] [62] Alabama Association of Realtors v.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Am 5. In May 2021, Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed by Donald Trump (right) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, overturned the national moratorium on deportations issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In their complaint, the plaintiffs, a group of brokers and property management companies, argued that the moratorium on evictions was an “inappropriate exercise of executive power that is not in accordance with federal law.” In his decision, Friedrich framed the legal question as narrow-minded: “Does the Public Health Services Act give the CDC the legal authority to impose a national moratorium on evictions?” Friedrich noted that while the Public Health Services Act “empowers the ministry to combat the spread of the disease through a series of measures,” it “clearly excludes the national moratorium on evictions.” The Justice Department filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, requesting that Friedrich`s order be stayed until the appeal. The application for a stay was granted, a decision against which the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. [8] [9] [10] On August 13, 2020, Kemp withdrew his appeal.
On August 15, 2020, Kemp issued an executive order authorizing any city or county government to implement mask requirements on state property. The order also allowed places that reach a certain COVID-19 prevalence threshold (at least 100 cases per 100,000 people in the previous 14-day period) to introduce broader mask requirements. [83] [84] Kemp v. Bottoms: Am 16. In July 2020, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (right) sued Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D) and atlanta City Council members, asking the Fulton County Supreme Court to invalidate and enforce enforcement of local orders related to COVID-19. These orders required people from all businesses to wear face coverings and limited the number of people who could gather on municipal property, requirements that went beyond the requirements imposed by the state. Kemp`s complaint argued that Atlanta “can only exercise the powers conferred on it by the state, and Mayor Bottoms` attempts to exercise undelegated authority against the state are beyond its legal powers. Kemp also claimed that Georgian law gives him “the power to suspend municipal ordinances that are contrary to a state law or its executive orders.” Kemp asked the court to strike down the orders. Bottoms responded to the lawsuit on Twitter: “3104 Georgians have died and I and my family are among the 106,000 people testing positive for COVID-19,” adding that “a better use of taxpayers` money would be to expand testing and contact tracing.” [80] [81] [82] Armed with a recently extended statute of limitations, state prosecutors are constructing increasingly complex fraud cases that focus on abusing COVID-19 aid loans, involving larger amounts of dollars and more defendants, and demanding the vigilance of lenders, polsinelli`s lawyers say.
This article describes the lawsuits filed in response to the guidelines to combat the coronavirus pandemic. If you know of a case that we missed, please send us an email. You will find: A.A. v. Newsom: On March 17, 2021, a San Diego County judge temporarily blocked enforcement of various regulations on reopening schools in California after a group of parents of children filed a lawsuit in public schools. As part of the state`s school reopening plan, middle and high schools in “purple” counties (i.e., counties with 7 to 10 cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 residents) have been banned from reopening. The plaintiffs also challenged the plan`s requirement that reopened schools keep at least four feet between students in classrooms. The plaintiffs argued that these provisions violated California`s constitutional and legal guarantees of quality education, educational equality, separation of powers, and due process. In her order, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Cynthia Freeland sided with the plaintiffs, calling the state`s proposed reopening of the school “selective in its applicability, vague in its terms, and arbitrary in its revenue.” In response to Freeland`s order, California Health and Human Services Agency spokesman Rodger Butler said the state “will continue to lead the way with science and health as we review that order and evaluate our legal options with a focus on the health and safety of California children and schools.” Scott Davidson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the decision “a great confirmation of our position that distance learning is a failure, that education is a constitutional right, and that these children have been deprived of their right to distance education.” [21] [22] [23] Scroll from left to right to see more columns.