Challenge To Stay-At-Home Order Belongs In Illinois

Judge McHaney words from the case against Illinois governor pritzker executive order. This judge should be governor.

“Before I rule, I’m advising everybody in this room, no public outbursts or displays. The court is still in session until you are told otherwise.
Since the inception of this insanity, the following regulations, rules or consequences have occurred: I won’t get COVID if I get an abortion but I will get COVID if I get a colonoscopy. Selling pot is essential but selling goods and services at a family- owned business is not. Pot wasn’t even legal and pot dispensaries didn’t even exist in this state until five months ago and, in that five months, they have become essential but a family-owned business in existence for five generations is not.
A family of six can pile in their car and drive to Carlyle Lake without contracting COVID but, if they all get in the same boat, they will. We are told that kids rarely contract the virus and sunlight kills it, but summer youth programs, sports programs are cancelled. Four people can drive to the golf course and not get COVID but, if they play in a foursome, they will. If I go to Walmart, I won’t get COVID but, if I go to church, I will. Murderers are released from custody while small business owners are threatened with arrest if they have the audacity to attempt to feed their families.
These are just a few of examples of rules, regulations and consequences that are arbitrary, capricious, and completely devoid of anything even remotely approaching common sense.
State’s attorneys in this state, county sheriffs, mayors, city councils and county boards have openly and publicly defied these orders followed by threats to withhold funding and revocation of necessary licenses and certifications unless you obey.
Our economy is shut down because of a flu virus with a 98 percent plus survival rate. Doctors and experts say different things weekly. The defendant cites models in his opposition. The only thing experts will agree on is that all models are wrong and some are useful. The Centers for Disease Control now says the virus is not easily spread on surfaces.
The defendant in this case orders you to stay home and pronounces that, if you leave the state, you are putting people in danger, but his family members traveled to Florida and Wisconsin because he deems such travel essential. One initial rationale why the rules don’t apply to him is that his family farm had animals that needed fed. Try selling that argument to farmers who have had to slaughter their herds because of disruption in the supply chain.
When laws do not apply to those who make them, people are not being governed, they are being ruled. Make no mistake, these executive orders are not laws. They are royal decrees. Illinois citizens are not being governed, they are being ruled. The last time I checked Illinois citizens are also Americans and Americans don’t get ruled. The last time a monarch tried to rule Americans, a shot was fired that was heard around the world. That day led to the birth of a nation consensually governed based upon a document which ensures that on this day in this, any American courtroom tyrannical despotism will always lose and liberty, freedom and the constitution will always win.”

______________________________________________________________________________

US intervenes in case challenging Pritzker’s COVID-19 moves

• 1 / 2Virus Outbreak IllinoisIllinois Gov. JB Pritzker answers questions from the media during his daily press briefing on the COVID-19 pandemic from his office at the Illinois State Capitol, Friday, May 22, 2020, in Springfield, Ill. (Justin L. Fowler/The State Journal-Register via AP, Pool)
• 2 / 2Virus Outbreak IllinoisIllinois Gov. JB Pritzker answers questions from the media during his daily press briefing on the COVID-19 pandemic from his office at the Illinois State Capitol, Friday, May 22, 2020, in Springfield, Ill. (Justin L. Fowler/The State Journal-Register via AP, Pool)

43HERBERT G. McCANNMay 22, 2020, 6:50 PM CDT

CHICAGO (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department intervened Friday in a lawsuit challenging Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s stay-at-home order to stem the spread of the coronavirus.

The federal government filed a statement of interest in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis supporting the lawsuit filed by Republican state Rep. Darren Bailey challenging some of Pritzker’s actions in response to the pandemic. The department is also challenging the moving of Bailey’s lawsuit to federal court and asserts Pritzker is acting in violation of Illinois law.

“However well-intended they may be, the executive orders appear to reach far beyond the scope of the 30-day emergency authority granted to the Governor under Illinois law,” Steven D. Weinhoeft, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, said in a written statement. “Even during times of crisis, executive actions undertaken in the name of public safety must be lawful.”

Bailey last month filed the lawsuit challenging Pritzker’s order, which included shutting down most businesses and churches. Clay County Judge Michael McHaney ruled Bailey was not bound by the order.

McHaney on Friday again ruled against Pritzker’s stay-at-home order in a separate case but didn’t issue a statewide temporary restraining order.

Bailey is now attempting to broaden that ruling to make the order invalid for all state residents. He contends the stay-at-home order is too restrictive and is unnecessarily jeopardizing people’s livelihoods.

Bailey’s attorney, Thomas G. DeVore, did not immediately return calls for comment. However, he has accused Pritzker of “forum shopping” by sending Bailey’s case to federal court just hours before the governor was due to file a brief in Clay County Circuit Court.

Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office stated Thursday in its court filing that it was moving the case from state court because it involves U.S. constitutional rights of free religion and due process. Annie Thompson, a spokeswoman for the office, said Friday that Raoul hand no comment on the Justice Department’s action.

Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement that Pritzker owes it to Illinois residents to allow the state courts to determine if the state’s laws allow orders he issued in response to the pandemic.

“The United States Constitution and state constitutions established a system of divided and limited governmental power, and they did so to secure the blessings of liberty to all people in our country,” Dreiband said.

McHaney’s ruling Friday applied to a lawsuit filed by James Mainer, owner of HCL Deluxe Tan shop. Mainer sought to have Pritzker’s executive order vacated, but McHaney’s ruling only exempted Mainer and his business from the stay-at-home order until June 5, when the judge will hold a hearing on a permanent injunction.

In a Friday news conference before the ruling, Pritzker said it was clear McHaney “has his own political agenda.”

---

Challenge To Stay-At-Home Order Belongs In State Court, DOJ Says

Jonah MeadowsMay 23, 2020, 4:22 PM CDT

FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, IL — Justice Department attorneys asked a federal judge Friday to reject Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s attempt to move a legal challenge to his exercise of emergency powers back to state court.

Steven Weinhoeft, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, filed a statement of interest in Bailey v. Pritzker — the suit brought by State Rep. Darren Bailey against the governor in Clay County Court.

Weinhoeft argues recent executive orders issued by Pritzker are unsupported by state law, federal courts lack jurisdiction, the representative’s complaint does not raise any federal questions and any constitutional issues it implicates do not justify moving it out of state court. Judges, according to the federal prosecutor, are generally deferential to state actions aimed at protecting public health during pandemic.

“But that deferential standard of review is not an abdication of judicial review. Even in the context of a pandemic, State actions undertaken pursuant to the police power are subject to important limitations,” Weinhoeft argued in the statement, which was jointly signed by Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alexander Maugeri, Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination Eric Treene and a pair of line prosecutors.

“The Court should remand this matter to the Illinois Circuit Court, which is limited to the question whether the Governor has overstepped his authority under the Illinois statute. While this case is important, it does not arise under federal law and thus falls outside this Court’s jurisdiction. It is up to the Illinois courts to rule on [Bailey’s] claims, which, because of the sweeping nature of the Orders, may affect millions of lives and raise significant constitutional concerns in other litigation,” he said.

“Even in the face of a pandemic—indeed, one might say especially in the face of a pandemic—States must follow the legal processes they have established to protect their people’s health, while also protecting their people’s rights. Such legal processes enable the States to make the sensitive policy choices in a manner responsive to the people and, in doing so, both respect and serve the goals of our broader federal structure, including the guarantee of due process in the U.S.
Constitution.”

According to Department of Justice release, the statement of interest was filed as part of an effort launched last month by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to ensure local policies do not violate civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It says the “sweeping limitations on nearly all aspects of life” contained in Pritzker’s stay-at-home orders rely on authority granted by the Illinois Emergency Management Act. But Bailey argues that governor’s repeated extensions of a disaster declaration beyond 30 days goes beyond what the law allows.

“The Governor of Illinois owes it to the people of Illinois to allow his state’s courts to adjudicate the question of whether Illinois law authorizes orders he issued to respond to COVID-19,” Eric Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a release.

“The United States Constitution and state constitutions established a system of divided and limited governmental power, and they did so to secure the blessings of liberty to all people in our country,” Dreiband said. “Under our system, all public officials, including governors, must comply with the law, especially during times of crisis. The Department of Justice remains committed to defending the rule of law and the American people at all times, especially during this difficult time as we deal with COVID-19 pandemic.”

Related:

• Gov. Pritzker Moves Rep. Bailey’s Legal Challenge To Federal Court
• Poopy’s v. Pritzker: Business Owners Sue Over Stay-At-Home Order
• Judge Blocks Pritzker From Enforcing Coronavirus Executive Order On Lawmaker

After earlier legal wrangling in Bailey’s case saw the Illinois Supreme Court decline to intervene and the presiding judge refuse a request for a change of venue, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, which represents the governor in such cases, filed notice Thursday to remove the case from state court and get it in front of a federal judge.

“The law gives a defendant the right to remove a case to federal court when a plaintiff files a complaint in state court alleging a violation of rights that are enshrined the U.S. Constitution, and we have done so in several other cases challenging the governor’s executive orders,” a spokesperson for Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said.

The state attorney general’s office has also moved legal challenges to Pritzker’s stay-at-home order on behalf of the owners of a pair of biker bars and a downstate hair salon. And two federal judges have already ruled in the governor’s favor, finding his order does not violate constitutional religious freedoms.

The Justice Department filing came the same day Clay County Circuit Judge Michael McHaney had been due to hear a motion for summary judgement in favor of the downstate legislator. If McHaney had ruled in Bailey’s favor, as his past rulings suggested he would, the governor would have been able to state appellate court.

In a separate case Friday, McHaney granted a temporary restraining order to James Mainer, the owner of HCL Deluxe Tan in Clay City, exempting him and his business from the governor’s stay-at-home order until the next hearing on the case, currently set for June 5.

An initial hearing on Bailey’s now-federal case is scheduled Tuesday before Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison.

This article originally appeared on the Across Illinois Patch