4 ms·

What would the case look like? CA has laws on the books that gives county health officers the authority to do basically anything in a state of emergency. What w

by rrss 7y ago

What would the case look like? CA has laws on the books that gives county health officers the authority to do basically anything in a state of emergency. What would the argument be to overturn those laws?

fennecfoxen 7y ago
California law is indeed broad ("Each health officer knowing or having reason to believe that any case of the diseases made reportable by regulation of the department, or any other contagious, infectious or communicable disease exists, or has recently existed, within the territory under his or her jurisdiction, shall take measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or occurrence of additional cases.") If, for the purpose of argument, we stipulate as fact that the fears are overblown, he might be able to successfully attack this order as "unnecessary" under that law, but that sounds iffy, and the health officers will no doubt be afforded substantial deference. A better avenue for attack would be via the US Constitution and its basic protections for civil rights, liberty, and freedom of assembly. The Fifth Amendment specifically applies, forbidding that anyone "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The regional lockdown affects ~7 million people, to contain a disease that has affected ~300 (?) known patients (please correct me if this is badly wrong) so this lockdown may be serving a compelling government interest, but it is probably not doing so via the least restrictive means available, which would usually be the standard for abrogating civil liberties. It's a meaningful case, at least. Whether he wins or loses such a hypothetical case, though, it would leave things clearer than the situation which jgalt observes nearby: > it seems more like Musk is the sort to get sued, not the one to be suing Better to be fighting in the courts from the start, rather than being confronted by the sheriff partway through the workday.

by rrss 7y ago

fennecfoxen 7y ago

California law is indeed broad ("Each health officer knowing or having reason to believe that any case of the diseases made reportable by regulation of the department, or any other contagious, infectious or communicable disease exists, or has recently existed, within the territory under his or her jurisdiction, shall take measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or occurrence of additional cases.") If, for the purpose of argument, we stipulate as fact that the fears are overblown, he might be able to successfully attack this order as "unnecessary" under that law, but that sounds iffy, and the health officers will no doubt be afforded substantial deference. A better avenue for attack would be via the US Constitution and its basic protections for civil rights, liberty, and freedom of assembly. The Fifth Amendment specifically applies, forbidding that anyone "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The regional lockdown affects ~7 million people, to contain a disease that has affected ~300 (?) known patients (please correct me if this is badly wrong) so this lockdown may be serving a compelling government interest, but it is probably not doing so via the least restrictive means available, which would usually be the standard for abrogating civil liberties. It's a meaningful case, at least. Whether he wins or loses such a hypothetical case, though, it would leave things clearer than the situation which jgalt observes nearby: > it seems more like Musk is the sort to get sued, not the one to be suing Better to be fighting in the courts from the start, rather than being confronted by the sheriff partway through the workday.