Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Open thread
Posted in:
[Bumped up to Monday for visibility and comments opened for discussion.]
Students attending one of the 145 schools across Illinois who are part of a sweeping lawsuit won’t have to wear a mask if they don’t want to, unless they’re given due process. Same goes for certain school staff who don’t want to take weekly COVID-19 tests for not being vaccinated. They must also have due process.
In a 30-page ruling late Friday, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene Grischow “deemed null and void” the governor’s emergency rules through the Illinois Department of Public Health concerning COVID-19 mitigations for schools.
“The arbitrary method as to contact tracing and masking in general continue to raise fair questions as to the legality of the Executive Orders in light of violations of healthy children’s substantive due process rights,” Grischow wrote. “Statutory rights have attempted to be bypassed through the issuance of Executive Orders and Emergency Rules … This type of evil is exactly what the law was intended to constrain.”
Schools impacted by litigation brought by more than 700 parents and dozens of school staff are temporarily restrained from enforcing Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates.
Pritzker’s mandates for masks and exclusion policies in schools and vaccines or testing for teachers have been in place since last fall.
* The full “evil” quote…
The Illinois General Assembly had foresight when it created certain provisions limiting the authority of administrative agencies. When the Legislature created our laws, they did so knowing individuals have a fundamental right to due process when one’s liberty and freedom is taken away by forcing them to do something not otherwise required of all other citizens. Illinois law prohibits ISBE from making policies affecting school districts which have the effect of rules without following the procedures of the IAPA. Absent this statutory provision, ISBE would be able to on impulse, and depending on who held the Executive Branch, mandate whatever it felt necessary in the most arbitrary and capricious manner without having to follow any due process under the IAPA. As for the matters at hand, it is clear IDPH/ISBE were attempting to force local school districts to comply with this guidance without any compliance with rulemaking. This type of evil is exactly what the law was intended to constrain.
Moreover, the Joint Guidance is attempting to cloak the local school districts with the authority to mandate masks and require vaccination or testing without compliance with any due process under the IDPH Act. The Court has already ruled masks are a device intended to stop the spread of an infectious/contagious disease, and thus are a type of quarantine, and vaccination and testing are specifically covered under the IDPH Act, and as such any attempt to circumvent the statutory due process rights of the Plaintiffs by this Joint Guidance is void. Under no circumstances can guidance be issued which violates a statute. […]
The Court is told by the Defendants, should this Court grant relief to the Plaintiffs, the students in the districts, and the public as a whole, will be harmed by the further spread of COVID. While the Defendants offer no direct evidence of such a proposition, attached to their pleadings were affidavits of medical professionals who opined that masking, vaccination or testing, and other mitigations are the best chance of controlling the spread of COVID. It is worth noting the Plaintiffs do not seek any order of this Court dismantling masking, vaccination or testing policies in their totality. Only that due process under the law be afforded to them should they choose to object to being quarantined, which by definition includes masks, as well as being subjected to vaccination or testing. These Plaintiffs are not asking for anything other than what the Legislature said they were entitled. […]
Given the Legislature has changed the law and has chosen not change these relevant provisions, this Court must conclude the laws which have long been in place to protect the competing interests of individual liberty and public health satisfactorily balance these interest in the eyes of the Legislative branch of government. While the Defendants would seemingly ask this Court to second guess the Legislature’s adopted measures to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, which measures include due process of law, it will not do so.
* Quarantine…
Section 690 of Title 77 of the Illinois Administrative Code has been around since 1977. All State actors and citizens have operated under those set standards up to and including a time period when our State (and Nation) was faced with another highly contagious disease. In 2014, Ebola reared its ugly head and caused a number of public health challenges. As a result, the IDPH passed Emergency Rules that added new definitions for “quarantine, modified” and “quarantine, isolated” and amended the definitions of quarantine and isolation to include those new concepts. The IDPH, at that time, believed exclusion from school, due to a highly infectious or contagious disease (such as Ebola), was a form of quarantine, subject to the due process procedures as found in the IDPH Act. Those emergency amendments noted that IDPH and local health departments needed to have clear authority to monitor and restrict persons who were potentially at risk.
Since 2014 and prior to the recent 2021 Emergency Rules, tests and vaccines were also considered a form of “modified quarantine” because they were a procedures “intended to limit disease transmission.” Under the IDPH Act, individuals had the right to object to these procedures. If they objected, they were afforded due process of law. Likewise, “exclusion from school” was also a form of “modified quarantine” because it was considered a partial limitation on freedom of movement for those who may have been exposed to a contagious disease. At no time did the 2014 emergency amendments take away a person’s due process rights.
On September 17, 2021, under the guise of an emergency, the Emergency Rules deleted or modified these terms and definitions. Subsection (d) was added pertaining to schools and added a new provision which delegated authority to the local school districts to require vaccination, masking, and testing of school personnel, in addition to masking for all students regardless of vaccine status, exclusion from school, and testing for unvaccinated, healthy students who were deemed “close contacts” by the school. The question before this Court is whether the Governor, under his executive authority, can require his agencies to promulgate emergency rules that go beyond what the Legislature intended or without utilizing the legislative branch of government.
* Order…
1) The IDPH Emergency Rules enacted on September 17, 2021 changing sections 690.10 (Definitions); 690.361(d) (Schools), 690.1380 (Physical Examination; Testing and Collection of Laboratory Specimens), and 690.1385 (Vaccinations, Medications, or Other Treatments) of Title 77 of the Illinois Administrative Code is deemed null and void;
2) ISBE Emergency Rule enacted on September 17, 2021, Part 6, Mandatory Vaccinations for School Personnel is deemed null and void;4
3) Defendants are temporarily restrained from:
a. Enforcement of EO18, EO24, EO25 as they pertain to the issue before the Court and the Emergency Rules issued by the IDPH and ISBE;
b. Ordering school districts require the use of masks for students and teachers who occupy their buildings, if they object, except during the terms of lawful order of quarantine issued from their respective health department, in accordance with the IDPH Act;
c. Ordering school districts to require persons who are both unvaccinated and work in Illinois schools to provide weekly negative results of an approved COVID-19 test or be vaccinated if they object in order to occupy the school building without first providing them due process of law; and
d. Ordering school districts to refuse admittance to their buildings for teachers and students for specified periods of time if the teacher or student is deemed a “close contact” of a confirmed probable COVID-19 case without providing due process to that individual if they object, unless the local health department has deemed the individual a close contact after following the procedures outlined in 20 ILCS 2305 and 77 Ill. Adm. Code 690.1330.
4) This temporary restraining order shall remain in full force and effect pending trial on the merits unless sooner modified or dissolved.
[Footnote] Although this Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for Class Certification in Case No: 2021 -CH-500002, this Court has declared IDPH’s Emergency Rules void. Any non-named Plaintiffs and School Districts throughout this State may govern themselves accordingly.
So, the judge believes that her TRO applies statewide?
*** UPDATE 1 *** Press release…
Governor Pritzker has asked the Illinois Attorney General’s office for an immediate appeal of Judge Grischow’s decision to restrain the State from enforcing the safety measures aimed at protecting teachers, school personnel, students and communities from COVID-19.
The Attorney General is seeking an expedited appeal from the Fourth District Illinois Appellate Court.
“The grave consequence of this misguided decision is that schools in these districts no longer have sufficient tools to keep students and staff safe while COVID-19 continues to threaten our communities – and this may force schools to go remote,” said Governor JB Pritzker. “This shows yet again that the mask mandate and school exclusion protocols are essential tools to keep schools open and everyone safe. As we have from the beginning of the pandemic, the administration will keep working to ensure every Illinoisan has the tools needed to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.”
“We remain committed to defending Gov. Pritzker’s actions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and will appeal this decision in the Illinois Appellate Court for the 4th District in Springfield,” said Attorney General Kwame Raoul. “This decision sends the message that all students do not have the same right to safely access schools and classrooms in Illinois, particularly if they have disabilities or other health concerns. The court’s misguided decision is wrong on the law, demonstrates a misunderstanding of Illinois emergency injunction proceedings and has no relation to the record that was before the court. It prioritizes a relatively small group of plaintiffs who refuse to follow widely-accepted science over the rights of other students, faculty and staff to enter schools without the fear of contracting a virus that has claimed the lives of more than 31,000 Illinois residents – or taking that virus home to their loved ones.”
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Pritzker administration has implemented mitigations and programming to protect the health and safety of students, teachers, and staff in schools. To facilitate safe in-person learning, the administration has provided schools across the state with 3.8 million masks for students, teachers, and staff as of January 12th. The State has completed over 2 million COVID-19 tests in schools through the SHIELD program and sent more than a million rapid tests into schools outside of the City of Chicago. Recently, the State provided 350,000 rapid tests to Chicago Public Schools to facilitate a return to in person learning.
To increase access to the lifesaving COVID-19 vaccination, the State has held 1,767 on-site vaccination clinics in schools and day camps with an additional 470 clinics already scheduled. Vaccinations, boosters, mask-wearing and testing are the key to keeping schools open and to maintaining safety standards for staff and students alike.
*** UPDATE 2 *** IEA…
The Illinois Education Association (IEA) President Kathi Griffin released the following statement after a ruling by Sangamon County Judge Raylene Grischow on the temporary restraining order (TRO) that would prohibit enforcement of face masks, vaccination, and Covid testing mandates.
“This decision has the potential to shut our schools down, effectively closing our school buildings and perhaps being potent enough to stop in person learning altogether. We’ve been able to have students in classrooms all over the state for this school year and last and that’s because public health safety measures have been taken that follow the advice of scientists and health care professionals. Without those safety measures in place, we risk forcing thousands of teachers, education employees and students to be out sick or forced into quarantine.
The teacher and education employee shortage is at a crisis level. Schools are shutting down because they do not have enough healthy employees to safely hold classes even though staff continue to give up their plan time and lunches to cover classes. The science is there: masking, along with vaccines, testing, social distancing and quarantining, are the best ways to protect against the virus. Removing any of these protections would be detrimental to our students and staff safety and will almost certainly force schools across the state to close because of a staffing shortage. Omicron is proof to us that though we may be done with the virus, the virus is not done with us.
Keeping students in the classroom is so important, but only if the environment is safe. The judge’s ruling today calls into question the safety of schools across the state and we will support all efforts to stop its immediate implementation while state and district defendants pursue an appeal. Keeping learning and working conditions safe inside schools is imperative to keep our communities safe and our school buildings open for in person learning. ”
* IFT…
Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) President Dan Montgomery issued this statement today following the ruling by Sangamon County Judge Raylene Grischow on the temporary restraining order (TRO) that would prohibit enforcement of face masks, vaccination, and Covid testing mandates.
“The Illinois Federation of Teachers is greatly distressed at the judge’s temporary restraining order (TRO) in this case. Hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, and staff across Illinois are doing their best to remain healthy and keep schools open. We believe what the judge ordered today is legally faulty and a threat to public health and, most importantly, a threat to keeping Illinois schools open for in-person learning. Our children and their families need certainty and some normalcy at school, not legal wrangling managed by a small minority of citizens.
“We urge the judge to stay her ruling and the state to appeal it as soon as possible. In the meantime, we will continue to advise our members on how to remain safe and healthy at work. We insist that school districts statewide abide by existing agreements on health and safety. In fact, the safety mitigations encompassed by the State’s guidance, as well as vaccinations for children and adults, are the best ways to keep schools open and everyone healthy. And we will stand with our local unions to protect our members and the students they serve.”
* CTU…
This ruling also states that collectively bargained agreements are still enforceable. Our January 2022 agreement with Chicago Public Schools, which guarantees masking, will keep schools open and safe.
CTU members made real sacrifices in January to bargain for an enforceable safety agreement with Mayor Lightfoot’s CPS team, and today that agreement guarantees masking and other critical protections that will allow us to protect our school communities.
While responsible school districts and community groups prepare to challenge this decision on appeal, we expect the mayor and CPS to act responsibly and uphold our agreement to require masks — providing KN95 masks for every adult and child in our schools. This is what the overwhelming majority of Chicago parents and families support.
We should not have to fight every inch for basic protection, but such are the times in which we live, where the few can trump the safety of the many. So we will continue to fight for the right to recovery for all of our students and school communities.
*** UPDATE 3 *** Let’s look at some coverage. Tribune…
The judge’s ruling means that any school district that attempts to enforce the mask requirement against any student whose parents joined the lawsuit would be held in contempt of court, according to DeVore, who said parents who want the ruling to apply to their children can join the lawsuit.
DeVore, an outspoken critic of Pritzker’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, has long argued that the school mask mandate and other mitigation strategies the governor has declared by executive order could not be enforced unless they were formally approved by the General Assembly.
“I don’t pretend to understand the political complexities at Chicago Public Schools, but I do know the law can’t be disregarded, and you’ve got a judge who upheld the law as it’s written,” DeVore said shortly after Judge Grischow issued the ruling.
CPS officials were not immediately available for comment Friday.
But in a recent parent message, CPS CEO Pedro Martinez said if the temporary restraining order was granted, it “would require that CPS stop the enforcement of certain current health and safety protocols, including the wearing of masks.”
* WICS…
DeVore had this to say on Grischow’s ruling:
“The Plaintiffs have due process rights under the law which provide them a meaningful opportunity to object to any such mitigations being levied against them, and it is these due process rights which are being continually violated.”
“The Governor, IDPH, and ISBE all attempted to remove the judiciary from oversight in matters related to all forms of “quarantine” through the issuance of the Executive Orders and Emergency Rules in question, which fail to maintain the separate branches of government clearly intended by the Legislature in the implementation of the IDPH Act!” […]
Jacksonville School District #117 Superintendent Steve Ptacek alerted families to the ruling via social media Friday night. Jacksonville is one of the districts named in the lawsuit. […]
“I just received notification that the defendants have filed a “Stay” of the TRO and this will be heard over the weekend. Therefore, we have no clue what the legal ruling will be before Monday morning. It is going to be a long, interesting weekend,” Ptacek wrote.
*** UPDATE 4 *** The state filed an emergency motion to stay the TRO last night…
First, the Court should stay its TRO because the anticipated duration of the stay pending appeal is short, and will not prejudice any party. Under Ill. S. Ct. R. 307, briefing an appeal of a temporary restraining order must be completed within four business days of the issuance of the order being appealed, and the Appellate Court will rule on that appeal within five business days thereafter. Accordingly, any appeal will be resolved within two weeks. A stay for such a short period will not prejudice Plaintiffs. Indeed, given that Plaintiffs waited months after filing this case to pursue a TRO, they can hardly claim that a two week stay will cause them undue prejudice or harm.
Second, the Court should stay its TRO because the record in the form of declarations of public health experts, Dr. Susan Bleasdale and Dr. Allison Arwady, unrebutted by any evidence presented by Plaintiffs, is that the Court’s TRO is likely to (a) disrupt the ability of schools to continue in-person instruction, and (b) cause an increase in sickness, and possibly death. … Conversely, Plaintiffs face the minimal inconvenience associated with wearing a mask, or the possibility of a brief exclusion from school premises during the pendency of an appeal.
Third, the State Parties incorporate by reference their arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions for emergency relief. From those submissions, and from the record in its entirety, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a right in need of protection, a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, and that the balance of harms favors the issuance of an injunction to a degree sufficient to suggest that a stay pending appeal would be inappropriate.
*** UPDATE 5 *** CPS…
Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has made the health, safety, and well being of our students and staff a top priority since the onset of the pandemic. The court’s current ruling does not prohibit CPS from exercising its authority to continue its COVID-19 mitigation policies and procedures, including universal masking by students and staff and vaccination and testing requirements for staff members. We are confident that masking and vaccination have been key parts of keeping the virus transmission low in our classrooms this school year and successfully allowed our faculty and students to safely teach and learn in person. Our caseload is declining and the number of vaccinated students and staff continues to increase. We will stay the course.
Background
Nearly 53 percent of CPS students across the District ages 12 and up are now fully vaccinated.
Almost 1 in 3 students, ages 5 - 11, have received at least one vaccine dose.
More than 91 percent of CPS staff members are fully vaccinated.
* IPHA…
The following statement is attributable to Tom Hughes, Executive Director of the Illinois Public Health Association (IPHA), in response to the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court ruling regarding COVID-19 vaccination and masking expectations in Illinois schools:
“Everyone is vulnerable to the damaging effects of COVID-19 and every bit of protection helps. While people are growing weary of the pandemic, the threat remains real for communities across Illinois who are still facing substantial transmission, causing far-reaching challenges to our most vital health resources.
Vaccination and well-fitting masks are proven and critical tools to reduce the spread of COVID-19. With these essential public health practices in place, we are helping protect the most vulnerable around us, while allowing our schools to operate safely.
As coordinators of the Pandemic Health Navigator Program, IPHA continues to partner with community leaders to promote health and safety measures, such as mask wearing, quarantining, and vaccination. We will also continue educating residents so they can make informed decisions about vaccination.”
*** UPDATE 6 *** SJ-R…
The attorney at the center of the school mask mandate case in which a 7th Judicial Circuit Court judge Friday granted a temporary restraining order against Gov. JB Pritzker’s executive order said school districts like Springfield’s are “on notice” about enforcing such policies.
“To the extent that the Springfield school district wants to continue forcing these mask and vaccination policies, they’re doing it at their own peril because the judge has said it’s illegal,” said attorney Thomas DeVore of Greenville, who represented the plaintiffs in several cases against the state. “If they wanted to continue in their illegal behavior, even if there’s no injunction stopping them, they’re exposing themselves to significant financial liability.” […]
Absent any further legal rulings over the weekend, DeVore said if a student showed up to school in Springfield without a mask on, “that school district has a decision to make. Are we going to continue to enforce this and say put your mask on knowing that the judge says they don’t have the authority to do so?
“That’s the spot these school districts are at. I think children and parents are well within their rights to say it doesn’t matter that this case doesn’t directly involve me. The judge says as a whole, none of you have this authority. So my kid’s walking in, and if you’re going to try to force him to wear a mask merely because they’re not on this case, I’m letting you know right now I’m going to sue you. They could.”
*** UPDATE 7 *** Edwardsville superintendent…
Dear District #7 staff,
On Friday, January 4, 2022, Judge Grischow issued a ruling which granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the litigation in which Edwardsville was a defendant. An appeal related to this case has already been filed, and future decisions will likely have an impact on the District #7 community.
As a result, District #7 will be taking the following steps beginning on Monday, February 7:
The individuals named as plaintiffs in the litigation will be able to attend school unmasked and will not be excluded as close contacts.
Each of the individuals/families will receive correspondence from their building principal prior to the start of school on Monday.
· Masks will continue to be required for all students and staff unless an individual has been impacted by court ruling or has an approved medical exemption for masking;
· Beginning immediately, we have secured KN95 masks for any staff member who wishes to have one. If you would like to have a KN95 mask, you may pick one up from the school office.
· Masking will continue to be required during Kid Zone (not for named plaintiffs), for athletic events (not for named plaintiffs), andon buses. The federal law still requires masks on buses. The court decision does not change this, and students who ride buses will still be required to wear masks.
· We will continue to implement other mitigating strategies in all our schools, including opportunities for vaccinations, social distancing to the greatest extent possible, district-wide testing, incorporating fresh air into the school environment, and cleaning and sanitizing on a regular basis.
I know many of you may have questions which specifically relate to your situation, your classroom, or other areas within District #7.
* Meanwhile, from the BND…
Highland, Waterloo and Red Bud students will not be required to wear masks when they return to classes on Monday. School leaders say they are following a temporary restraining order issued by a judge on Friday regarding mask and vaccine mandates.
Highland School District 5 Superintendent Mike Sutton said in a statement on Saturday that legal advice indicates that District 5 is “clearly instructed” to not enforce Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s executive orders requiring masks, quarantines when individuals do not have symptoms, and vaccine and testing mandates for employees.
“I am confident in saying that the district will not be enforcing the mask requirement and identifying close contacts for purposes of quarantine starting Monday morning per the judge’s ruling,” Sutton said in the statement posted on the district’s website.
* Carterville schools…
Dear Students and Parents,
Due to a written ruling from Judge Raylene Grischow of Sangamon County, Illinois on Friday, February 4th, Governor Pritzker’s executive orders and IDPH/ISBE requirements regarding masking, testing, and tracing are “null and void.” Masks are no longer required in our schools; however, masks are still recommended to be worn inside the schools as well as the continuance of all other layered mitigations in accordance with our Return to Learning Plan. Federal Transportation guidelines still require masks to be worn while on school transportation.
Students who test positive for COVID-19 will still have to isolate and we still want anyone that is sick to stay home. Close contacts of students and staff will not need to continue to quarantine unless directed by the local health department.
Keep in mind, this entire change of status is the result of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and has already been appealed by the Governor’s Office to the Fourth Appellate Court of Illinois for a decision. We will keep you apprised as the fluid situation continues to evolve.
Free testing and masks will still be available for those that are interested.
Respectfully,
Keith Liddell
Superintendent
*** UPDATE 8 *** The state has filed a notice of appeal…
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Jay Robert Pritzker, Illinois State Board of Education, Dr. Carmen I. Ayaka, Illinois Department of Public Health, and Dr. Ngozi Ezike, by their attorney, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, hereby appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth Judicial District, based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(d), from the interlocutory order entered by the Honorable Judge Raylene Grishow of the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, on February 4, 2022, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. […]
By this appeal, Defendants Jay Robert Pritzker, Illinois State Board of Education, Dr. Carmen I. Ayaka, Illinois Department of Public Health, and Dr. Ngozi Ezike respectfully request that the appellate court reverse and vacate the circuit court’s order, dissolve the temporary restraining order, and grant any other appropriate relief.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
In reality, only the parents who could afford to be part of the lawsuit , have the Masks are optional policy. That is totally WRONG.
Comment by Susan Smith Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 2:58 am
Surprised by the number of schools not in that 145 school lawsuit who voted yesterday to make mask optional today. Seems very likely we will see a stop order by the end of the week on this and is only going to make a more difficult situation telling these kids they need to remask up after 1-3 days going without.
Comment by Seats Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 5:56 am
Make mask a dress code
Comment by Rabid Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 6:04 am
This is so frustrating. I wonder if this would change if doctors and nurses demanded to be allowed to do surgeries without having to be in “a form of quarantine” first?
How are things being done in the courts these days? Are they also demanding the lawyers and observers be “in quarantine?”
Comment by Narc Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 6:09 am
In districts near me one emergency closing, 2 keeping masking requirement and 1 masks recommended but optional. Add to that the press from last week that JB said he hopes to quickly drop the statewide indoor mask mandate. Went to two High school basketball games one in Byron, one elgin on Saturday this was the topic du jour.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 6:43 am
“The levee broke” in NW parts of downstate. Many, many districts announce optional/recommended stance and ours announced it alongside a strict mask bullying policy for all parties.
The teacher and student in this household are anxiously looking forward to the day at school. My recommendation was to take advantage of what may just be a single day of smile freedom or they may regret it when things go back to the previous stance.
Def. gonna be an interesting day.
Comment by Ogle-Lee Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:11 am
In one sense, the judge asserts the Legislature intended masks to represent a form of quarantine, along with any attempt to reduce the spread of infections. In this context, the Governor is violating the will of the legislature, which refused to change the law to match the Governor’s temporary order.
Clearly to me, this argument ignores the concept of Emergency Orders, suggesting legislatures must respond to execute orders that impose any restrictions upon the people, lest Executive Orders have no teeth.
In another sense, “masks as quarantine” is bureaucracy run amok.
Finally, the judge ignores the concept of “due process” except to say it must exist. Isn’t testing an appropriate form of due process?
Comment by H-W Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:35 am
What is the realistic timetable for this TRO bring overturn? And is it a given that it will be overturned?
Ironic that the four day work stoppage by CTU resulted in a collective bargaining agreement that allows CPS to continue their Covid mitigation strategies.
Comment by Common Sense Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:36 am
Why would a Judge put a “ruling” in a footnote and not in the body of the ruling itself? I’d be willing to bet that footnote was trending on Twitter over the weekend.
Comment by Club J Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:58 am
Be wary, be wary
of the 7th of February
Comment by CentralILCentrist Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:01 am
If the legislature would have acted and required masks in school as a LAW, than we wouldn’t even be in this situation.
Comment by Swimdad13 Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:01 am
===If the legislature===
Neither side wanted that in the GA.
Governors own until the legislature would act.
Politics in health and safety is a losing cause, now for teachers and students.
It’s good some districts (at least one I can recall quickly) is going remote today. We’ll see if any appeal is expedited
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:07 am
=Governors own until the legislature would act.=
The exact problem. Legislature had two years to act and didn’t, effectively showing their intent by not ratifying the Governor’s executive orders into law.
Comment by Swimdad13 Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:16 am
According to the NYT, New Jersey’s Governor, a Democrat, is expected to end mask mandates in schools for students and teachers, in a “huge step toward normalcy.” The NYT adds that “the move signals a deliberate shift toward treating the coronavirus as part of daily life.”
Comment by phocion Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:16 am
=== we wouldn’t even be in this situation. ===
Unfortunately, I think we would be.
The judges decision seems like it was
threaded(poorly) to provide for a specifically determined outcome, instead of the process determining the outcome.
Reading the 28 pages of the decision, it’s not even internally consistent with itself. The IDPH can’t both not consult at all with the governor and ISBE, and at the same time consult with the governor and ISBE to avoid judicial review.
I don’t see how this decision stands longer than a week. Especially when it finally becomes clear all the other aspects of law this decision will impact.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:16 am
Both Naperville school districts are taking the position that only the students that were party to the lawsuit are affected. It’s status quo for everyone else. I believe Elgin 46 is taking the same position.
Comment by QE203 Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:18 am
Swimdad13,
If the GA gets involved to impose a mask mandate, then the GA has to get involved to END a mask mandate.
No one wants that.
That’s basically why you have the system in place that we have/had.
Comment by Leigh John-Ella Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:18 am
=== effectively showing their intent by not ratifying the Governor’s executive orders into law.===
No.
Their intent was not to be saddled with any decision. The unintended consequences is a judge using “evil” as a virtue signaling way to deliver a ruling.
Never mistake the political avoidance of blame as an intended legal thought of the legislature
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:19 am
“Both Naperville school districts are taking the position that only the students that were party to the lawsuit are affected.”
Isn’t that akin to saying, only John Scopes was given freedom to teach evolution from the decision of TN vs. Scopes?
just saying.
Comment by Downstate Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:27 am
===Isn’t that akin to saying===
Can you get and spread a deadly virus by learning evolution?
That’d be a new one.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:28 am
My daughter reported it’s 60/40 at school today, way more kids with masks on in Chatham. Just 1 teacher without.
Comment by BTO2 Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:29 am
Downstate, you play the hand you’re dealt.
Comment by QE203 Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:31 am
Just understand that one week without masks will expose 90 percent of the staff and students to the virus. It reminds me of when we were children and mothers would take you to a friend’s house that had measles or chickenpox to expose you and get it over with. It worked because I have a scar or two to prove it..
Comment by Nieva Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:32 am
Some schools in this area, even though not part of the lawsuit sent out a letter to go mask optional. We have so many at-risk students and at-risk guardians and educators. This “ruling” ignores the rights of the people trying to remain safe and could easily lead to more illness and death. I am home today waiting for an appeal decision, or I may have to quit education. A $40,000 salary is not worth your or loved one’s life.
Comment by Educator down Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:45 am
Devore won one. Just one. This is Illinois. I wouldn’t bet Devore is going to win the next round or if there is a round after that. Illinois might be the last place in America to get rid of masks . The voters here are risk averse compared to other places.
Comment by Steve Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:47 am
I spent most of the weekend dealing with this issue. Here are some of the deets.
-I sat in on multiple webinars that featured 3-5 attorneys from prominent school law firms.
-Of those firms only Hodges Loizzi (HLERK) advised to maintain the status quo if you were not named in the suit. And advised may be a little strong.
-Most of the lawyers road the fence to ne degree or another.
-Most agreed the ruling only applied to the named defendants but the nullification of the governor’s executive orders removed the underlying mandate and we could be at risk if we enforced any of the mandates. They advised that we work with our school boards and consider local conditions/politics as well.
That is why so many are going mask optional, and the named parties are not wrong in limiting the ruling to the named defendants.
The devore acolytes were in hyperdrive all weekend and making a lot of demands and threatening more legal action and more. I am sure that cowed some districts.
In the end we are mask optional because that was the advice of our legal counsel. I disagree with it, but I am not a lawyer.
I think there will be some reversal if not total by the appellate court. This judge does not seem to understand due process from a school law perspective and she definitely does not have the authority to apply her decisions statewide but the appellate court does. The way Grischow wrote her decision has caused mass confusion for everyone but the anti-maskers who think this is a final decision and are celebrating like it is the end of WW2. I think that will come back and bite them.
I am not a lawyer, but lately I have been playing one.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:48 am
“Isn’t that akin to saying, only John Scopes was given freedom to teach evolution from the decision of TN vs. Scopes?”
Uh… Scopes was found guilty…. Just sayin’….
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:49 am
To borrow one of Rich’s gems, if I may: our sorry state.
Comment by SWSider Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:51 am
=== who pumped all of this fear into you?===
‘Bout 900,000 deaths, ridiculous folks refusing to be vaccinated…
I know, these “freedom and ‘merica” are just people of the land, the common clay of the Illinois. You know … .”
What child wants to go to school to give their teacher a deadly virus so their parents can own the libs?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:52 am
Our district informed us masks were still required, the next district over is voting on it tonight with a very aggressively worded anti-mask proposal, the district on the other side of us has a massive protest planned for today and it sounds like they’re busing in out of town right-wingers. The online chatter in that district has been ugly, threatening, and violent, and I know some parents who are keeping their kids home today. I also saw several people get banned from local parents groups, and some get banned completely from Facebook, for advocating violence against people wanting their children to wear masks. It’s been nuts.
I’m really frustrated this judge issued her ruling at 10:00 on a Friday night, which gave anti-maskers a whole weekend to organize protests, and meant that the judiciary wouldn’t respond before school opened Monday. Maybe I’m wrong and 10:00 p.m. on Friday is a totally normal time to issue wildly contentious legal decisions that will throw the state schools into chaos, but that seems like a frankly political decision, and one opposed to good order.
Comment by Suburban Mom Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:52 am
Snowman - I have an aunt and a cousin who both “survived” covid. They both spent 10 days in the hospital and have thousands in bills.
Comment by Grimlock Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:54 am
- Downstate - Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:27 am:
Isn’t that akin to saying, only John Scopes was given freedom to teach evolution from the decision of TN vs. Scopes?
Uh, Scopes lost that trial.
Comment by Cycling Bureaucrat Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:56 am
@Educator down - How are your rights being ignored? You can still wear a mask. All this does is clarify that your rights aren’t more important than those of other folks.
Comment by On My Own Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:57 am
“Uh, Scopes lost that trial.”
Oops. My bad. Should have gone with Brown v. Board of Education.
The Court’s decision didn’t mean that only the one school district was impacted by the decision.
Comment by Downstate Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:59 am
===Brown v. Board of Education.===
“Separate but equal”…
Is a virus deciding who gets infected, or worse by… race?
I’d go to bed, start your day over, maybe.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:01 am
===most of the folks===
Not all. Not. All.
Your child, k? Your child. A teacher should not have to guess and hope they aren’t hospitalized or worse because some foolish family is all about being anti-vaxxers.
Your thought that “people die” is exactly why having public health is a necessity as folks so selfish to others would infect as many folks as they can… for freedom?
The mere fact you hold life so frivolous.., whew.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:05 am
Common Sense above has enlightenment:
“Ironic that the four day work stoppage by CTU resulted in a collective bargaining agreement that allows CPS to continue their Covid mitigation strategies.”
Teachers Unions can Unite,Stand Tough & Control
Will they ?
Comment by Red Ketcher Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:06 am
Downstate - Brown v. Board of Education was a decision by the United States Supreme Court. This was a ruling by a circuit court level judge from Sangamon County. Bit of a difference as far as jurisdiction.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:08 am
===All this does is clarify that your rights aren’t more important than those of other folks.===
Actually, it clarifies that you, Tom DeVore, and the judge think that your rights are in fact more important than the rights of disabled children, whose rights you think don’t matter.
Nobody is hurting you by making you are a mask. But you are absolutely hurting disabled children by refusing to wear one, and you are forcibly excluding them from school. They have a legal right to be there, and you’ve decided your feelings about masks are more important than their legal right to an education.
Why do you think the rights of disabled children aren’t important? Why do you think they don’t have a right to go to school? Why do you think your child matters more than a disabled child? Is it because they’re disabled, so their life isn’t valuable? Because that’s what you’re making it sound like.
Comment by Suburban Mom Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:08 am
I’m still trying to figure out how a mask equals a quarantine. That throws common sense out the window.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:10 am
I feel sympathetic to the Judges due process argument, and I doubt the efficacy of masks with the Omicron variant. Even so, using the word “evil” in a court ruling to describing the actions of concerned people doing their best to address an unprecedented global pandemic is a horrible unprofessional act that deserves greater scrutiny. it’s almost as if the judge relishes creating division and political discord
Comment by Merica Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:11 am
== how many of them would have passed ==
For a good (rough) rule of thumb,the phrase you will be looking for is “excess mortality”, or “excess deaths”. To arrive at this number, historic trends for deaths in a given weekly / monthly / yearly cycle are looked at, and compared.
There are several similar sources, but for the US, year 2020, it was around 413k higher than similar, age-weighted averages from the years 2017-2019.
Comment by IL Teacher Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:11 am
=My question is of those 900,000 who have died since this started, how many of them would have passed away by now if Covid never happened?=
Isn’t the better question how many of these lives could have been saved? Curious that as you cite age and co-morbidities you neglect to mention that 98% of those that died were unvaccinated.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:14 am
==No way to answer that question, but I’d love to know the answer.==
There is a way to answer that question.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Look at the chart mid-way down the page.
For your statement to be true, the weekly death rate would need to drop below the average expected # of deaths for a sustained period of time. That hasn’t happened.
Comment by Stig Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:15 am
My unit district sent out an email last night explaining that because we were not part of this lawsuit all masking, vaccination and testing mandates will still remain in place.
I feel the higher court will intervene and dismiss the TRO. The mask and testing mandates are not evil, nor should these mandates be equated to quarantines.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:18 am
-Nobody is hurting you by making you are a mask-
There are autistic children that don’t do well with a mask. There’s also those who wear eyeglasses which fog up and are inconvenienced by masks.
Comment by Steve Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:19 am
People with more legal knowledge that me:
What is the reason the judge denied class certification, but then added the footnote about the executive order being null and void?
If she wanted the ruling applied to everyone, why not certify the class?
I am seriously confused?
Comment by Transplant Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:24 am
@Suburban Mom - Who said I think my rights are more important and that disabled children don’t have a right to go to school? Don’t put words in my mouth or make assumptions. You shouldn’t be afraid of COVID when the real peril is falling off
your moral high horse. Why should my asthmatic child be forced to wear a mask all day to the detriment of his health so that your child is safer?
Comment by On My Own Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:25 am
Downstate, you are telling me you know nothing about our judicial system. This is not even an intermediate appellate court decision, and according to settled law it has no binding effect, even on other judges in Sangamon County.
And Suburban Mom, you are 100% right. This decision was designed and timed to cause maximum chaos. It should have been automatically stayed for a week by the judge, to allow for an orderly appeals process. That it was not reveals the judge’s lack of regard for school districts and parents through the state.
Comment by Not a Superstar Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:25 am
“eyeglasses which fog up”
Not an issue when one is on a ventilator.
Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:25 am
I think many people misunderstand what a TRO is. It does not decide the merits of the case. It just freezes things until the merits can be addressed more fully. This court appears to contemplate having a trial at some point: “This temporary restraining order shall remain in full force and effect pending trial on the merits unless sooner modified or dissolved.” That is abnormal. A TRO is supposed to be in effect for a very shgrt time — until the court can decide whether a preliminary injunction should issue — not for months or years.
If the judge is convinced as a matter of law that masking/testing is illegal, she should have issued a final order which can be appealed. I’m not sure what a trial here would involve, as they are meant for disputed issues of fact and the issues here appear to be legal in nature such as the State’s authority to take these steps. Does the judge envision deciding factual issues such as whether masking is effective? There doesn’t seem to be a legitimate factual issue about that. Finally, a TRO is supposed to preserve the status quo. This ruling upsets the status quo. The whole thing is odd.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:28 am
@on my own
My asthmatic self and my asthmatic child both wear a mask without issue because asthma is a complicating factor for COVID. Seems like you’d want to do everything you could to prevent a pretty dangerous viral infection that can trigger asthma attacks?
Comment by brugroffil Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:28 am
You stated:
==Who said I think my rights are more important and that disabled children don’t have a right to go to school?==
And then you said:
== so that your child is safer?==
I think you just answered your own question. You may not think you said it but your words say otherwise.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:30 am
My child IS autistic, and let me tell you that he was way more inconvenienced by 18 months of not being able to go to in-person school and receive his legally mandated educational support then he is by wearing a mask. Moreover, if typically-developing children who can wear a mask without a problem, would wear masks, then autistic children who can’t could avoid them. But that hinges on requiring children to wear masks, unless they have a clear medical or developmental reason not to.
Special education students in this state have been the victims of a right wing culture war for the past two years, because the pro-life party gives exactly zero craps about what happens to children like mine, until they become a convenient political stalking horse. So don’t tell me for one second that anti-maskers care what happens to special ed students. They have proved over and over again throughout the past two years that they do not. Pretending at this very late date that you care AT ALL what happens to autistic children, and that any of your opposition to masks has anything to do with autistic children is cynical, lying BS. Members of the autism community are absolutely clear on where you stand, and it is not with us. You have victimized us and our children repeatedly over the past two years. It is flatly offensive to sit here and watch you claim that you care about autistic children’s difficulties with masks. It’s BS, you know it’s BS, we know it’s BS, and you deprived my child of 18 months of education. Apparently you now want to deprive him of more, by removing mask mandates from schools.
But please, tell me again how much you care about autistic children. (For bonus points, you can do it while zeroing out the state autism budget on World Autism Day. Don’t think I forgotten that.)
Comment by Suburban Mom Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:31 am
Snowman - Those of us who have lost multiple immediate family members to this virus are where the fear is coming from. People who were not sick or dying are now dead. Just say you want to live in Gattica and move on.
Comment by Dankakee Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:32 am
@Big Dipper
I agree. If the judge were to rule the EO null and void, the TRO should maintain the status quo. The state should have immediately filed a motion to dissolve especially given the fact that TROs can be denied in the public interest (meaning slowing the spread of a deadly disease). The judge is abusing the system.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:33 am
@ Demoralized =I’m still trying to figure out how a mask equals a quarantine.=
It doesn’t, at least, not in the context of parsimony. Quarantine means denial of social interaction. Masks do not have that effect. Nor does social distancing.
I am also struggling with the idea that “due process.” at least to this judge, seems to imply a hearing before a judge. If that is the case, then anytime anyone disagrees with a school policy, they would be entitled to a court ruling. Thankfully, that is not the case. Due process in the schools means a decision by the principal, and a decision by the school board. And school policies are not subject to constant appeal by every individual student. Precedence should govern (e.g., demonstrable medical condition that prevents masking, followed by special accommodation for the individual).
Comment by H-W Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:33 am
“It’s not that I don’t care about others, it’s that I don’t care about others and don’t want to be called on it”
It’s this thinking that is the phony that allows those to have this feeling they can spout anti-vaccine or anti-mask positions, but want no real responsibility to the actual spread of the virus.
That “Blazing Saddles” quote, personified
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:34 am
=There’s also those who wear eyeglasses which fog up and are inconvenienced by masks.=
I did not realize inconvenience = a violation of one’s rights. I also wear eyeglasses and am inconvenienced by masks. What if I were inconvenienced by the requirement of wearing shoes to school, would that also apply?
Comment by Skutt Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:35 am
===Governor, a Democrat===
Good thing we are politicizing all this, that helps, I mean the virus asks all the time before infecting, “how do you vote”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:35 am
@Demoralized - How so? I asked why her child was more important than mine.
Comment by On My Own Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:37 am
We won the mask court case not it’s time to get rid of those darn books that these teachers who believe in science are teaching in class.
Comment by Tomorrow is yesterday Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:38 am
Steve- mask exemptions are already a thing. Don’t know how it across all of Illinois but in CPS they are easy to get and used by thousands of parents for children with Autism, respiratory issues, etc.
Comment by Common Sense Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:39 am
==I asked why her child was more important than mine.==
By stating your child should be able to do whatever they want you are implying that your child is more important than others. The point of a mask is to protect others. By stating you don’t want your kid to wear a mask you are stating that you don’t care if others are protected. That’s my problem with you anti-mask people. You don’t care about other people.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:41 am
The dude who spends all of his time on capfax insulting others cares about people, who knew?
Comment by Red pilled again Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:45 am
The court also appears to be confused regarding basic due process principles, at some points talking about procedural due process (notice and a hearing) and at other points talking about substantive due process (things the government cannot do no matter how much procedural due process is afforded). If the masking/testing requirements truly violated substantive due process (hint - they don’t), there would be no need to talk about procedural due process.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:46 am
=Why should my asthmatic child be forced to wear a mask all day to the detriment of his health so that your child is safer?=
Because the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology has stated that there is no evidence that wearing a mask can worsen your asthma. And in fact people who have respiratory conditions such as asthma are considered higher risk of developing a severe Covid illness.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:46 am
What are the steps that a family with a vulnerable child can take? Can they immediately move to the Illinois online charter school in the middle of the term? Can they get homebound teaching? What are the steps needed to be taken right now by families for whom this virus is an existential threat?
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:47 am
The General Assembly should pass a law of this is so important to them.
Comment by Just a Bill Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:47 am
= Isn’t that akin to saying, only John Scopes was given freedom to teach evolution from the decision of TN vs. Scopes? =
1. That was a criminal case.
2. Scopes was convicted.
3. On appeal, the statute was held constitutional. His conviction was reversed only because the judge, rather than the jury, set the amount of the fine.
Comment by JoanP Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:47 am
==The General Assembly should pass a law of this is so important to them.==
I’m not sure how passing a law mandating masks fixes this if the argument is that due process rights are being violated. Devore would be right back in court arguing the people’s Constitutional rights are being violated.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:50 am
@Demoralized - I never stated that. Go back & read what I wrote. Those words were put in my mouth by Suburban Mom & you because neither of you liked my comment that “your rights are not more important than mine.”
Comment by On My Own Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:52 am
==Go back & read what I wrote.==
I did. You said it. Own it. We are now in state of chaos when it comes to whether and how schools remain open because people like you decided to throw a temper tantrum about having to wear a mask.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:55 am
“I’m not sure how passing a law mandating masks fixes this”
Because the Court gives great deference to laws passed by legislatures and signed by the Governor.
Consent of the governed and all that.
Comment by Donie Elgin Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:55 am
I have long questioned the wisdom of having elected judges and seeing a Judge first appointed by a Republican in 2018 invent a ruling such as this one re-enforces that questioning.
The very notion that this one individual would be motivated by her desire to stop “evil” that she would reinterpret the term quarantine — a term that has been around since the medieval era for a concept that has existed for at least 1300 years to mean “wearing a mask” is blatantly absurd. This ruling and the basis for this ruling should disqualify Judge Grischow from continuing to serve on the bench. It is clear that she is incapable of interpreting law when she deems wearing a face mask mandate, a testing mandate, or a vaccine mandate to be the equivalent of a quarantine. A term that literally is derived from a term meaning 40 days, referring to 40 days of isolation.
This is the kind of behavior that should have consequences for how poorly decided the decision is. She was not hired to be a creative writer and to invent a basis under the law for implementing her personal moral condemnations of what is evil. She is not paid by the public to serve as a religious figure that doles out judgements based off of her specific and poorly founded superstitions. With this ruling on the TRO she has demonstrated that she is either unwilling or incapable of performing her duties as a judge and there should be consequences for that action beyond simply having a higher court evaluate her work.
Of course, having this judge serve as an elected judge for Sangamon County does indicate that Sangamon County is keeping up with it’s roots of hatred and bigotry and has more in common with Donald Trump than Abe Lincoln.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:56 am
=Those words were put in my mouth by Suburban Mom & you because neither of you liked my comment that “your rights are not more important than mine.”=
You have a right to smoke, you don’t have a right to do so in a public place where others would be exposed. You seem to be suggesting that the right to spread disease is more important than the right to be free of disease. I guess you never heard the story of Typhoid Mary.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:58 am
On My Own seems to be emphasizing Ego Freedom - the libertarian notion that I have not obligations toward the needs or interests of others.
Demoralized is emphasizing Conditional Freedom - the idea that at the social level, all freedoms are conditioned upon the needs of the community.
One is a form of narcissism. The other is a moral philosophy.
Comment by H-W Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 9:58 am
As I’ve repeatedly learned in this forum, either you whole-heartedly support indefinitely all public health measures implemented in the name of COVID-19 with no discussion of downsides, or you are selfish and want people to die. Not sure why we can’t all just agree on that truth and move on.
Comment by GoBullzzz Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:04 am
No, H.W., I don’t have to wear a mask because some guy has an autoimmune disease. You got your vaccine, right? It’s time to stop molding society around the fears of the weakest and most paranoid. What you have is the un-libertarian notion to mask students indefinitely even though COVID poses almost no risk to them.
Comment by Correcting Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:04 am
===fears of the weakest and most paranoid===
Agreed. And the organized anti-vaxxers are at the top of that list.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:06 am
===Not sure why we can’t all just agree===
Aren’t you the same commenter that wanted all kids to be at school, no matter if they are vaccinated or not?
That would be an interesting fact as you ask your ask.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:09 am
@Demoralized - You can’t read. I own my words, not yours. The only reason there is chaos around the schools is because people like yourself can’t come to terms with the fact that you can’t control other people. Feel free to throw more insults…I’m done.
Comment by On My Own Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:10 am
==an’t come to terms with the fact that you can’t control other people==
And people like you are selfish and have absolutely no concern for others and don’t understand the nature of pandemics apparently. It’s just pathetic.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:11 am
==I have not obligations toward the needs or interests of others.==
Indeed, they’re entitled to everything and responsible for nothing. It’s hard to think of a worse combination.
Comment by Stig Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:13 am
Hmm.
The thing about masks is that they protect wearers most effectively when everyone wears them. That’s why they belong to the arsenal of public (emphasis) health measures. One wears a mask as an individual, but the protective garnered is collective.
Frequent testing identifies those who are asymptomatic but contagious, allowing them to quarantine (in the true sense) for the required no. of days and avoid spreading the virus to others.
The omicron virus is far more contagious than delta, and has a shorter incubation period, both of which characteristics make mask-wearing more, not less, recommended.
What say our anti-mask, anti-vax, anti-testing friends about immuno-compromised children, or about children with auto-immune diseases? Are they not worthy of collective protection? Or is the idea that they be forced into quarantine through no fault of their own?
I’m confused.
Comment by dbk Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:14 am
=What you have is the un-libertarian notion to mask students indefinitely even though COVID poses almost no risk to them.=
Unless they have an underlying health condition, happen to be a teacher, administrator, or staff or expose people outside of the classroom. But hey, they were going to die of something anyway. Right?
Kids do just fine with wearing masks. It’s adults that can’t seem to cope.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:18 am
New Jersey today announced the end of mask mandates in school. Connecticut is ending theirs at the end of this week and New York at the end of next week. What’s the point of Pritzker going to battle on this one at this time? He is going to end up on the wrong side of this especially with how quickly cases and hospitalizations keep falling.
Comment by 1st Ward Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:22 am
===What’s the point of Pritzker going to battle on this===
Because the ruling is about way more than masks. It’s also about vaccinations and testing for those who don’t want to be vaxed.
Try to keep up.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:23 am
Can anyone point me to the original lawsuit? Are the individuals that brought forth this lawsuit named any place?
Comment by trebleclef Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:25 am
True in Feb 2022 as it was in March 1775.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Comment by JadedRabbit Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:32 am
The local reaction is interesting. Some schools are still requiring masks and some aren’t.
In the schools that aren’t, the parents are posting what they are hearing from their kids - that most kids are *still* voluntarily wearing a mask.
A few of the parents groups are now *angry* other kids are still wearing masks, and they(correctly) think this is making their kid appear to be anti-social by not doing so.
These people will never be happy. Anger is their personality through and through.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:34 am
===or give me death.===
The oblivious irony to your ask is deliciously sad to what you think you are trying to sad.
Pathetic, given Washington himself required vaccines in his army.
Also…
=== can’t come to terms with the fact that you can’t control other people.===
“It’s my right to spread a global pandemic, that’s why we fought for our freedom”
The constitution kinda says you’re wrong… “promote the general welfare”… you’d think trying to stop a global pandemic with masks and vaccinations would be that… but… ‘Merica?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:41 am
My wife teaches in a larger NW Suburban School District. Her district went mask optional and she is worried for her first and second graders health, first and foremost. Liberty should always be preserved, but it needs to be balanced with public health and the greater goods. Judge Raylene Grishow really did not consider any balance between those needs, and because of that, and her approach on limiting gubernatorial authority in my view, this ruling needs to be stayed and reversed. Should the mask order stay in place forever? No. But this is chaos.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:43 am
For those commentators above who wonder why a mask mandate qualifies as a “quarantine”, Judge Grischow points out that current law defines it as such.
My read of this TRO, is that the Illinois legislature basically abdicated it’s responsibility to act over the past two years. If they would have bothered to update public health laws, and extend the timeframe a Governor can declare emergencies, all these mitigations would be supported by Illinois law.
Judge Grischow basically just points out that many of the actions of the Governor, IDPH and the schools run counter to Illinois law. At its most basic, she notes that the State has to follow the law, and it could have changed the law at any time to allow these mitigations. Instead, the politicians just sat on their hands, never missing a paycheck.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:49 am
The judge’s ruling was far better than some of the other downstate rulings for DeVore. I still suspect the appellate court vacates the TRO at the end of this week. But after reading the ruling, it may a tighter rope to walk than I had thought to get to that outcome.
Comment by Original Anon Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:53 am
=Aren’t you the same commenter that wanted all kids to be at school, no matter if they are vaccinated or not?=
Against COVID-19 specifically, until they become part of the standard CDC recommended schedule after the entire typical process is completed, yes. Is that controversial or disqualifying to you? Because that’s currently the situation in almost all school districts in the world.
Comment by GoBullzzz Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:58 am
So either you wear masks & employ mitigations to curb the spread of disease, or schools close and go remote because there are too many ill teachers and students to keep them open. What about this is so difficult to grasp for the people screaming their heads off about wearing masks and also keeping kids in the classroom? You can’t have no mitigations and no consequences.
Comment by LakeCo Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:02 am
===and extend the timeframe a Governor can declare emergencies===
That has nothing to do with this.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:05 am
It appears a local group of parents was thinking of burning masks in the parking lot before the SB meeting before it got moved to virtual.
Now they want to go protest in front of the superintendent’s house.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:10 am
===Against COVID-19 specifically, until they become part of the standard CDC recommended schedule after the entire typical process is completed, yes.===
Do you want me to bring up your comment in full, or are you going to pretend this is what you said
You choose.
Your point was you didn’t care… you wanted the unvaccinated attending school no matter… you stated it clearly.
It’s utterly phony, and you tried that too “can’t we agree” as you try to co-op things to give your silly some heft.
If you want to co-op this TRO, well, that’s “fine and all” but your real intentions of the past make that disingenuous… at best.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:11 am
Rich, I think the quote below is the most consequential portion of the Order. And it very much speaks to the Legislature completely failing to give the Governor the tools he could have used to make these broad mitigations. I also somewhat fault the Governor, because he didn’t appear to ever bother to ask for expanded powers to take all these mitigations. From my perspective, these chuckleheads could have turned around a legislative package of expanded Covid powers at any time over the past 700 days. They had the votes.
Judge Grischow:
“If the Legislature intended for the Governor’s powers to be endless, it simply could have deleted all those other paragraphs and said ‘during emergencies declared by the Governor, the Governor is authorized to do whatever is felt necessary without any restrictions.’ But, the Legislature never intended for that type of unfettered power, and therefore, the State’s interpretation is unfounded.”
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:14 am
“Try to keep up.”
What a gracious host we have.
Comment by Hamlet on the Potomac Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:15 am
===What a gracious host we have.===
You can use your “Freedom and ‘Merica” and not comment…
Amirite?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:17 am
Honest Question, is there anything to be learned from the number of new cases reported in the next couple of weeks with regard to the mask optional vs masked schools? I would think that those numbers would tell us what effect the masks and quarantines have.
Comment by MHoncho Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:17 am
===What a gracious host we have===
I refuse to be gracious to ingrates.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:19 am
The General Assembly can remedy this at any time by enacting legislation authorizing the Governor, IDPH, and/or ISBE. Maybe they should do that.
Comment by Original Anon Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:20 am
Apparently one of the middle-schools here has responded to the ‘I have due process rights’ response about masks (kids were told by their parents to refuse to wear a mask and demand their due process rights) by having them write a paper on due process whilst sitting in in-school suspension.
Not 100% sure if this is accurate, but seems to be.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:21 am
=== Judge Grischow points out that current law defines it as such. ===
Not from my reading of the order. Show me the definition of quarantine in the ILCS. I can’t find it. The definition she cites comes from previous rules filed by IDPH. If you want to argue that IDPH exceeded it’s authority under the law, then I would argue that defining “modified quarantine” is not allowed per any defining wording in the law. The rules now in effect eliminated the “modified” language.
Judge Grischow gives lip service to the public health calamity that we’re facing, but then runs to a ludicrous position that masks are somehow a quarantine measure requiring due process.
People are dying judge. Over 900,000 people so far. Where was there due process.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:25 am
I’m glad JS Mill posted this but the anti-maskers who think this is a final decision and are celebrating like it is the end of WW2. I think that will come back and bite them. I read many of their posts between Twitter and Facebook over the weekend and listened in on a Facebook live last night. These folks are over the top anti-maskers. They were setting up booths close to schools with Attorney letters to give parents who wanted to unmask their children. Them along with DeVore proclaimed this to be over and any school districts that went back to masking would face even worse consequences. DeVore went as far as saying the Governor no longer has any authority on this issue so if this is overturned the legislature better step up.
Bold words for a now self proclaimed Grifter. His new #gifterwins
Comment by Club J Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:28 am
===True in Feb 2022 as it was in March 1775.
Give me liberty or give me death. ===
This quote is attributed to a guy that enslaved more than 60 people at the time of his death and kept his wife locked in the basement. Given that people who get excited about that quote are usually also hypocrites I typically find the quotation appropriate.
Especially when it’s being evoked over a school policy of wearing masks during a deadly pandemic. That seems about as ridiculous as someone who has enslaved dozens of people demanding death before accepting the condition he has forced upon others with no meaningful effort to stop it.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:31 am
ILAG can’t even get Dr. Carmen AYALA’s name right in their notice of appeal. Christ almighty.
Comment by Jacobite Succession Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:36 am
Kent, that was prefaced with this gross hyperbole by the judge: The State Defendants also argue that the Governor has unlimited authority to do whatever is necessary
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:36 am
The Catholic school system is taking a wise approach. In addition to the comments from the Arch, here’s part of a statement from my diocese:
“… Catholic dioceses in Illinois were not parties to the lawsuit , and thus, the Sangamon County Circuit Court has no jurisdiction over Catholic schools….At this time, there are no changes in the COVID -19 mitigations in our schools, including mask guidelines. Rather than making a knee-jerk response, we will be taking a thoughtful approach to easing the mitigation measures in place in our schools.”
At the rate cases are declining, this nuanced approach makes sense. Although some doctors are making cases against school masking, I haven’t seen the AAP or other relevant medical organizations reverse their pro-mask stances. Until then, the unwillingness to stay the course is simply depressing.
Comment by DirtLawyer Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:40 am
==And it very much speaks to the Legislature completely failing to give the Governor the tools he could have used to make these broad mitigations.==
The General Assembly believed he already had the tools. They’ve said as much by failing to pass any additional laws.
I do not understand how some judges seem to just shrug their shoulders at the fact that we are facing a pandemic and make ludicrous rulings such as this one. They completely separate themselves from the reality of the situation. The judge has essentially said that the Governor of the State of Illinois has no power to respond to a pandemic when it comes to schools. That’s asinine.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:41 am
@ Correcting
Q.E.D. Ego Freedom v. Conditional Freedom
Comment by H-W Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:01 pm
Norseman- Illinois Administrative Rules are law, just as statutes and case law are. They have differing weights, but are still binding.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:02 pm
=What a gracious host we have.=
Snowflake.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:22 pm
Does anyone really believe that if the General Assembly had explicitly ratified this that there would not be lawsuits regardless?
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:23 pm
=Failure to act does not constitute agreement.=
Your analysis is inconsistent with the expressed thought of the house speaker and senate president.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:24 pm
==not ratifying the Governors Executive Orders==
The General Assembly doesn’t have to “ratify” an Executive Order.
==they have shown they do not agree with them==
What planet do you live on?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:25 pm
===It has a 99.8% survival rate===
Assuming all 330M people in the country caught COVID, sure 900K deaths is about 99.7% survival. Since you are cool with nearly 1M of your fellow Americans dying, I have to ask: what is the acceptable threshold for survival in your mind? If survival dropped below 99% or 95% or 90%, is that the point you would care? Because 3.3M, 16.5M, or 33M are all too high for me. Then again, 900K is too high for me.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:32 pm
==Kids do just fine with wearing masks. It’s adults that can’t seem to cope.==
We have a second grader and a kindergartner, and a couple weeks ago, we asked them: Do any of the kids in your classes have trouble wearing their masks? Out of 40ish kids, there was one. You will be shocked to discover this child’s mom is deep into the “Unmask Our Children” hole on Facebook. Also her husband is the PTA president, so that’s going great.
The number of Americans who refuse to consider for a moment that this pandemic is not just about them is depressing.
Comment by Roadrager Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:32 pm
=== Failure to act does not constitute agreement.===
I wonder when the light bulbs will finally start go off for people who are trying so hard to forcibly try to make sense of the judges attempted reasoning.
I look forward to you applying the same logic you are applying here, elsewhere in the future.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:33 pm
===after 2 years by the legislature not ratifying the Governors Executive Orders, they have shown they do not agree with them===
So all of Trump’s Executive Orders were ratified by Congress? That’s not how any of this works. At all. Go watch School House Rocks again.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:35 pm
=== Illinois Administrative Rules are law ===
Yes, it’s called administrative law. Such law is derived from the enabling authority granted by statutory law.
The administrative law now in effect doesn’t include “modified quarantine.” Her order appears to argue that the current administrative law violated the statutory law. This is where she anchors her decision. However, the statute doesn’t define quarantine. She goes back to the old administrative law definition that is no longer in effect. Does that make sense to you.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:37 pm
Any idea when the court might rule on the request for the stay?
My oldest daughter is a senior with multiple health issues. Her district went mask optional today. She could not go to school as there was not a plan in place to keep her safe. Almost no kids showed up in masks. I have already asked for a 504 meeting for a reasonable accommodation, but hoping that the mask mandate is reinstated quickly.
Comment by Amber Waves of Grain Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:38 pm
The covid numbers were coming down. This ruling will change all that. It’s a hard sell to say that everyone has to wear a mask indoors -except in school buildings. So people will protest the mask mandate for everywhere else. It’s not as if we had 100% compliance anyway. So people will stop wearing masks, stop social distancing and we will be right back where we were a month ago. I’ve heard about too many deaths attributed to covid already in 2022.
Comment by thoughts matter Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:41 pm
- GoBullzzz -
You are wholly disingenuous.
===What I “want” is the majority of children to be able to attend in-person public school no matter what their parents decide about a COVID vaccine.===
Please don’t bring disingenuous arguments you made and then try to rewrite what you wrote to seem smart to a strategy of your want. You’ll be called on it.
You want kids, no matter the vaccination status in school.
That’s your want.
Now with the mask mandate situation, you want that pushed, but in a thoughtful way, but in your want.
It’s dangerous, given you have no worry about infection or others.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:43 pm
==He does not have the power to legislate.==
I think you need some schooling because you clearly do not understand the concept of an Executive Order.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:50 pm
Put a name to your comment.
===The legislature had ample opportunity to weigh in on this subject and failed to act in support. Clearly the Governors actions therefore constitute…===
They constitute noting of the sort.
The legislature’s intent was not to be saddled with any decision. The unintended consequences is a judge using “evil” as a virtue signaling way to deliver a ruling, and putting a burden on the legislature that they chose not to do, or felt it was unnecessary.
Unintended consequences lead to court interpretations and rulings… at times… like here.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 12:51 pm
Pick a name. Last time I’ll respond.
===So legislate by executive order in other words===
No.
The order deals with process to the agency.
The passive way the legislature has gone makes anything after that, good, bad, agreement, or dissent, all unintended consequences to the legislature, not legislating.
If you’d like to discuss further, pick a name.
Otherwise, be well, I’m out.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 1:00 pm
Do I think kids should wear masks in school? Absolutely. Do I think people should get vaccinated? Absolutely. Is the judges decision the correct one? Absolutely. Our form of government requires the legislature to legislate, the executive branch to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch to interpret the laws. Even if Governor Pritzker is correct, he can’t sit on a throne like a king and dictate to all the citizens of the state of Illinois. The Legislature with a veto proof majority, could easily pass legislation requiring kids in schools to wear masks. The governor could sign said legislation, and then it would be up to the courts to interpret this law once people filed suit to turn it over. You can’t do things with our form of government just because you think it’s the right thing to do. There’s a process and it needs to be followed even in difficult times.
Comment by Really Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 1:09 pm
I’m going to be the contrarian here.
The judge’s ruling is based on State law. You can disagree with her interpretation of things, or say she is reaching, but she didn’t just throw this out there to see if it sticks. She is right that the Legislature could have addressed this issue proactively and clarified it instead of their passive action of deferral to the Governor’s actions.
What I find interesting is the majority of the arguments against the judge’s TRO are about the effects / results, which moves into the realm of facts that can and should be determined at the alluded to forthcoming trial. I do wonder if some of the medical conclusions on masks, quarantines, etc in Israel and other countries will be brought up at any fact finding trial. Anyway, enough speculation on any possible trial.
None of the public statements, etc, that I have read so far cite specific statute where the judge is wrong. Until they start citing chapter and verse, I have to assume the judge might be on more solid ground than a lot of people believe. It will be up to a higher court to decide if this judge is right or wrong on the law.
As to the local effects, District 186 did communicate to the parents last night, acknowledging the ruling, but suggesting mask usage continue.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 1:12 pm
Why doesn’t the GA just pass some legislation asap?
Comment by Original Anon Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 1:24 pm
===Even if Governor Pritzker is correct, he can’t sit on a throne like a king and dictate to all the citizens of the state of Illinois. The Legislature with a veto proof majority, could easily pass legislation requiring kids in schools to wear masks. The governor could sign said legislation, and then it would be up to the courts to interpret this law once people filed suit to turn it over.===
If Pritzker is correct, the rest if what you wrote is moot and the opinion and ruling *could* be overturned on appeal. I dunno if that will play that way.
The legislature’s choice, that’s not ANY governor ruling like a king, that a child-like manner to look at process here, and blindly thinking all is done in a regal manner.
Process within agency guidelines, like them or not, isn’t a royal decree, otherwise DeVore woulda been winning case far before this.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 1:24 pm
Candy Dogood
You don’t have to be a party to a case to make a judicial misconduct complaint in Illinois. If more people filed complaints maybe biased judges would more likely recuse themselves when asked rather than issuing clearly partisan decisions at odd hours on Friday evenings.
Comment by Jason Bourne Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 1:33 pm
All of the above goes to prove humans have the tendency to argue themselves to death.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 2:33 pm
Norseman- Yes it’s administrative law. In Illinois, it can only be created when statutory authority is given to the agency. In this case, the Illinois Public Health statute provides that every form of quarantine has to either be consented to by the individual school kids and teachers, or have the opportunity to be heard before a court. That’s the due process our State statutes provide us.
The Department of Public Health further subdivided the definition of quarantine back in 2014, to include masks, vaccines, testing, etc. (quarantine, modified), or being placed in medical isolation (quarantine, isolated). Those Administrative law provisions were created by the Department of Public Health, subject to a legally required public comment period, and then subject to the JCAR rule making process. That essentially gives the Legislature veto power on state administrative rules they disagree with.
But in 2021, the Governor didn’t work with the Legislature to amend the statute granting due process rights to ANY quarantine. He didn’t take the time to have the Department of Public Health amend its administrative rules, changing or removing those subcategories of quarantine.
He just unilaterally declared another “Emergency” and tried to bootstrap removing the quarantine provisions from both the existing Administrative Code AND the state statute. He’s just using his personal decree to change the effect of state rules and state statutes. He can’t do that. He CAN add consistent additional rules subject to the Emergency Rule provisions. But it takes actual administrative rule making to change the Administrative Code, and it takes legislation to change statutes.
Many of these mitigations can be forced on Illinoisans, the Democrats have more than enough votes. But the Governor short circuited the process. He could have, with just a little extra effort, changed the laws and rules on these issues any time in the past two years.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 3:21 pm
===Many of these mitigations can be forced on Illinoisans, the Democrats have more than enough votes. But the Governor short circuited the process. He could have, with just a little extra effort, changed the laws and rules on these issues any time in the past two years.===
Was there 60/30 or 71/36 that the governor stifled in the legislative process that I missed?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 3:23 pm
==He’s just using his personal decree to change the effect of state rules and state statutes. He can’t do that==
The Governor was utilizing the IEMA Act and under that Act he can do those things.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 3:35 pm
Eldest son just returned from school. He said everyone was masked, except for one adult.
“with just a little extra effort”
Is that like the little bit of effort needed to produce, say, tax returns or not to practice law while your license was suspended?
Comment by SSHS Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 3:55 pm
=What I find interesting is the majority of the arguments against the judge’s TRO are about the effects / results,=
Many have missed my point and that is that she looked to due process incorrectly. School law allows for a procedural due process that is used to exclude students from school everyday. That has been upheld by the USSC countless times. Our procedural due process does not require a court order. Never has. once an exclusion occurs, a parent can ultimately challenge it in court.
When the exec order moved to exclusion, it should have eliminated the need for a court order since schools do not require a court order to exclude a student.
The procedural due process used by schools is still rooted n the 5th and 14th amendment, but it happens within the school system.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 3:57 pm
Demoralized- Is there anything the Governor can’t do, in your opinion?
The IEMA doesn’t supersede the Department of Public Health Act. And it is the IDPH Act that grants the power to quarantine…and the right of citizens to due process if they refuse to consent to that quarantine.
It amazes me that just 18 months after the Left screamed bloody murder over hypothetical potential tyranny by the sitting United States President, you think a state Governor has completely unchecked power. In your view, on his whim, he can make you wear medical equipment, inject pharmaceuticals, submit to tests, isolate at home, be interred in camps, wear a credential showing your status, present identification papers and limit your travel. This particular case isn’t even about whether he can require those restrictions to your freedom. He can. This is only about whether you even have a venue to challenge those actions. And you say Illinoisans don’t.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 3:57 pm
“What a gracious host we have.”
Wipe your weeping eyes.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:00 pm
=== He just unilaterally declared another “Emergency” ===
Almost 35,000 Illinoisans are dead from this disease and 3 million became ill. If this isn’t an emergency, what in the never regions is an emergency. The GOP seem to lack clarity or compassion over that fact.
=== tried to bootstrap removing the quarantine provisions from both the existing Administrative Code AND the state statute. ===
Kent you keep playing loose with the terms to defend an egregious ruling by a GOP judge. There is no definition of quarantine in the state statute and thus IDPH didn’t remove anything from the “state statute” as you and she assert. IDPH’s emergency rule responded to the latest data on public health measures to prevent community spread of a deadly disease. Your judge ignored that data.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:07 pm
===it is the IDPH Act that grants the power to quarantine===
Exactly. And as I’ve been saying for well over a year, it is a giant freaking stretch to say vaccines/testing/masking is a form of quarantine. Is sending kids home for not wearing pants a quarantine, too? Totally ridiculous.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:12 pm
==he can make you wear medical equipment==
It’s a mask for crying out loud. It’s not “medical equipment.”
==inject pharmaceuticals==
All kinds of vaccines are mandatory. Why is the COVID vaccine all of a sudden a bridge too far for some of you?
==be interred in camps==
That ignorant comment doesn’t even rate a response. I thought by your commentary you were smarter than that. Apparently I was wrong.
==Is there anything the Governor can’t do, in your opinion?==
He hasn’t done anything so far in response to the pandemic that I don’t think he shouldn’t have a right to do.
I have zero respect for you and your ilk
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:18 pm
==on his whim==
And, by the way, this stuff isn’t being done for giggles. In case you weren’t aware there was a pandemic going on. Some of you Act like our elected leaders are getting their jollies doing some of this stuff. It’s just more asinine nonsense.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:22 pm
Norseman- By sidestepping the IDPH Act provision of due process, the Governor removed a statutory right. He can do that, but only by working with the Legislature. The Governor can’t use an Emergency Rule to supersede the Administrative Code and state statute. Especially when the Governor’s office has had years to act on this “emergency” with legislation and/or rule making.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:30 pm
And the next Covid spike begins..February 13th or so.. hope all those parents are happy then..
Comment by out in the sticks Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:31 pm
A big issue I have with the “due process” thing is that the judge doesn’t make clear at all what that could potentially be. And whether that “due process” would apply to reasons for medical exclusion that existed for years before covid. I can’t send my kid to school with a known case of smallpox. And yes, that’s perfectly reasonable.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:35 pm
==the IDPH Act provision of due process==
Which says what specifically?
Comment by The Velvet Frog Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:39 pm
Rich- I’m not saying I know what actions should be considered a partial “quarantine”. The doctors and scientists at the Department of Public Health made that determination years ago, and it was affirmed by the Legislature. Whether we like it or not, that ship has sailed. And if the reasoning was based on any mitigations restricting someone’s liberty, that ship is legally over the horizon.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:40 pm
==the judge doesn’t make clear at all what that could potentially be==
I’m pretty sure that Devore would view that “due process” as requiring a kid by kid hearing for each one who had a parent oppose the mask mandate. When you think about that you can truly see how crazy the ruling is.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:40 pm
==I’m pretty sure that Devore would view that “due process” as requiring a kid by kid hearing . . . ==
Isn’t it amazing how DeVore’s “solutions” always seem to involve giving him more money.
Comment by Transplant Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:43 pm
==The doctors and scientists at the Department of Public Health==
Those same doctors and scientists have determined we need the mitigations that we have now.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:43 pm
That’s what I figured. And why stop there, why not require a hearing every time a sick kid is asked to stay home?
Also in the case of quarantine, would that “due process” have to happen before a kid could be kept home? Or could it be worked out while the kid is at home?
Comment by The Velvet Frog Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 4:44 pm
Norseman- I’m not sure who all my “ilk” are, but I’m multi vaxxed, tested, hand sanitized, wear masks in close quarters, and so does my family. But that doesn’t preclude me from expecting our Governor to follow the law, or work with the Legislature to amend it.
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 5:02 pm
Maybe the “ilk” who talk about internment camps. What is that even talking about anyway?
Comment by The Velvet Frog Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 5:08 pm
- Kent Gray -
Was there 60/30 or 71/36 that the governor stifled in the legislative process that I missed?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 5:13 pm
==And the next Covid spike begins..February 13th or so.. hope all those parents are happy then..==
And if it doesn’t? Will that change your mind at all? You surely are aware there are literally millions of kids going to school without masks and without problems?
Comment by gxceb0t Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 5:59 pm
At my high school, the day started about 90/10 kids wearing masks and ended around 60/40. There was a lot of social pressure from anti-maskers to get the masked kids to unmask.
Our principal said masks were voluntary for staff but asked to please mask. About 10-20% of teachers were unmasked. The vast majority of support staff were unmasked.
My co-worker’s elementary school daughter was harassed by an anti-mask group of protesters who yelled at the kids to unmask.
Our excellent social worker just quit today.
A very good day for guys like Rabine.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 6:08 pm
Anti-mask protestors just stormed the Park Ridge-Niles 64 school board meeting.
Comment by Suburban Mom Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:32 pm
==You surely are aware there are literally millions of kids going to school without masks and without problems?==
I’m aware that some schools have had problems (closures and outbreaks). Our schools haven’t so far this year. Time will tell what happens, it could go either way.
If things get worse, will that change your mind at all?
Comment by The Velvet Frog Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:40 pm
gxceb0t
Those millions of children are also attending schools in states that consistently have higher transmission and death rates.
Comment by Jason Bourne Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 7:44 pm
Why are my comments not posting?
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 8:02 pm
Velvet Frog- Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Illinois had its fair share of Tuberculosis camps and sanitariums that we utilized in past epidemics. It is definitely an often used method of quarantine under Illinois law.
https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en-US/noartistknown/illinois-tuberculosis-camp-patients-outside-a-tent-at-a-tuberculosis-camp-in-illinois-early-20th/nomedium/asset/3386244
Comment by Kent Gray Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 10:56 pm
== Why doesn’t the GA just pass some legislation asap? ==
Presumably for the same reason they haven’t acted during the past 2 years … they are politicians and a lot of them don’t want to be on record on this topic.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:15 pm
Kent, you just jumped the shark. You need to sit down and have an educational chat with Gail O’Neill on the latest quarantine policies and stop embarrassing yourself.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 7, 22 @ 11:25 pm