Federal judge rules Pennsylvania's coronavirus orders are unconstitutional

[MarkD]

link-The Hill

A federal judge ruled on Monday that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) coronavirus orders, which shut down the state, closed businesses and limited gatherings, were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV, a Trump appointee, said in his opinion that COVID-19 orders from Wolf and Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Rachel Levine violated and continue to violate the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus “were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” Stickman wrote.

“But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered,” he added.

“There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort,” he wrote. “But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment  to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.”

Four Pennsylvania counties — Butler, Fayette, Greene and Washington — along with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), three state representatives, and seven businesses and their owners challenged the state government’s coronavirus orders. Their lawsuit was filed in May, when these counties were in the “red” phase that required residents to stay at home.

good news!

The orders violate ALL THREE clauses? The more is NOT the merrier!

I don't mind invoking the Free Assembly Clause, but I cringe at what the judge was thinking and saying as he invoked the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Those two clauses get abused far too much in Constitutional Law (see my essay here). When judges start invoking those clauses, it's almost always just because they don't like the law (or whatever governmental action is involved). And the fact that this judge is invoking those two clauses along with the Free Assembly Clause makes it seem like he's desperate to justify a ruling based on his own preferences rather than an objective interpretation of the Constitution.