HARRISBURG, Pa. — Weeks after vacating PA Health Secretary Alison Beam's August mandate to wear masks in schools, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 58 page opinion, citing the reasons for the unanimous ruling.
The reason the mandate was not enforceable was because it did not have the backing of an emergency declaration, and so, it circumvented the law, the opinion reads.
"In sum, absent a gubernatorial disaster emergency declaration suspending the framework of laws governing agency rulemaking in Pennsylvania, the Department was obligated to follow the procedures set forth in the Regulatory Review Act, the Commonwealth Documents Law, and the Commonwealth Attorneys Act before promulgating a new disease control measure with the force of law.61 Because the Secretary circumvented that process, her Order was void ab initio."
Saying it was a matter of the law, the court was careful not to issue opinions on the efficacy of masks.
"More than a century has passed since mankind confronted a global pandemic on the scale of the one it faces today, which to date has claimed the lives of as many as 800,000 Americans. In that time, rapid advancements in medical science and clinical research have revolutionized our ability to test, trace, treat, and vaccinate against communicable diseases, with the ultimate goal of reducing human suffering.
But the more things change, the more they stay the same. In 1918, as now, well-intentioned disease mitigation efforts stimulated spirited public debate, in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation, about the wisdom of various approaches to disease control and the proper role of government in that process. This pandemic has affected every American—every human being—in some way. In that sense, at least, we are all united. And this Court is mindful that, for far too many, the pain and loss wrought by this dreadful virus is incalculable. We do not intend to diminish the weight of that anguish.
"Nor do we question the efficacy of masking as a means by which to curb the incidence and spread of aerosolized communicable diseases like COVID-19. But it is not our prerogative to substitute our views for those of the policy-making branches of our Commonwealth’s government, especially on an issue as fraught with uncertainty as how best to respond to an evolving public health emergency. We leave that solemn duty to the people’s elected representatives and their lawful designees. Our role in this case is limited to deciding whether it was within the Acting Secretary of Health’s authority under existing laws and regulations to issue a statewide school mask mandate. Respectfully, we conclude that it was not."
You can read the entire opinion here:
