Covid-19 Legal Questions: How Government Actions Are Measured

Covid-19 Legal Questions: How Government Actions Are Measured

State interest and thr action has to be sort of tailored to that interest in a way that- is what's called- narrowly tailored in so if we look at you know the way the corona virus shut downs have been orchestrated through the system beginning basically.

The first thing was- the stable border where was like okay- all nonessential people have to stay home work from home you can go anywhere- those are very onerous restrictions that really curtail people's freedoms to move about and then the reason for why.

Something like that could be constitutionally permissible is that when you identify what the compelling state interest is it is that we didn't want the health system to crash because if that happens then.

It becomes catastrophic for everybody and so the idea is you want to figure out what is the least intrusive measure that you can take to achieve that in obviously if the governor had said- everybody's gonna be tied to a radiator for the next six months that's the only way we're gonna stop this virus.

That's true that would that would basically guarantees also distancing and make sure that the virus doesn't spread but that's kind of the onerous that's a little heavy duty so that that would not be something that would pass muster so you have to figure out what is the least.

Restrictive thing that we could do that's what's called narrowly tailoring your your act and so the whole board was deemed to be the least restrictive thing that could make that goal happen- with that mask bad date.

I think the way they were arguing it is that.

If you look at what jeff landry had to say in his nine page opinion criticizing it he talks about that there is a lot of arbitrariness in the way that this.

Mandate was implemented with the business is that it's hard doesn't have to wear the mask- and how will gets divorced a lot of these things have these gray areas and so the question of is this the least restrictive thing that we could do to achieve this compelling state.

Interest is now a new question.

Because j.

Plagiarist.

About well i we had risk of having our houses crash if we're not.

Then all of a sudden that changes the game entirely and it might not be permissible to even put these restrictions.

In place even if they're not that bad because the state interest isn't strong enough because if you think about it.

The food was.

It has a relatively similar morbidity rate than that cold at this point.

But we don't have these types of state actions restricting people because of the flu.

So the closer the numbers make it look like the flu that more of an up hill battle these actions are going to have to maintain their constitutional status- there's a lot of factual intensive questions.

I don't know the answers to a mall.

But it looks like the way it was argued in baton rouge was that they just didn't think that the governor.

Had that authority- which was a bad argument because under under emergency powers the executive branch is expanded with new powers.

And so the question really is are those powers being implemented in a narrowly tailored way to achieve a compelling state interest without.

Intruding on freedoms more that absolutely has