![]() In its opinion, the court rejected the petitioners’ arguments and held that the emergency orders at issue did not abrogate any fundamental rights it therefore applied rational basis review and dismissed the challenge. The petitioners allege that the emergency orders, which place restrictions on daily activities including public gatherings, business occupancy, rights to earn a lawful wage, worship as a community, and educate children, affected their fundamental rights. The petitioners argued that the liberties burdened by the emergency orders are fundamental and therefore the court should apply strict scrutiny rather than rational basis review. There, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a complaint on behalf of small business owners, church pastors, and a headmaster of a private school, alleging a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a violation of the petitioners’ federal and state constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process. One example of a challenge to a COVID-19 order arose in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. ![]() Under strict scrutiny, a court considers whether a law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and the government must demonstrate that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling purpose by using the least restrictive means to do so. Intermediate scrutiny is often invoked when a state or government order negatively affects a protected class, and it asks whether a law furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to the interest. Under rational basis review, a court examines whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. When reviewing whether state or federal actions are constitutional, a court typically applies one of three standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. Court examinations of the constitutionality of such orders raise the question: is rational basis review the appropriate level of scrutiny, or should some form of heightened scrutiny apply when public health orders burden people’s rights? These legal challenges, which have been brought in both state and federal courts, have examined the power of state executives in particular as the COVID-19 crisis developed and raised questions spanning the economic, social, educational, and religious dimensions of our lives. Many of these legal challenges have tested the constitutionality of state emergency orders that restricted Americans’ daily activities. With such actions encroaching on freedoms we all took for granted just months ago-freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom to earn a livelihood-come substantial legal questions and legal challenges. In a year in which “quarantine” and “lock-down” have become colloquial terms, the country has seen unprecedented public action seeking to limit the spread of COVID-19 and protect those at risk.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |