A. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge ruled On Monday, several sanctions imposed by the government’s Tom Wolf to fight the epidemic were unconstitutional. The decision includes house-to-house orders and the closure of “non-life-dependent” businesses, which were issued in March and have since been suspended.
The judge also declared that the current order limiting the size of the assembly – more than 25 people inside and 250 out of the house – violated the “right of assembly in the First Amendment”.
A spokesman for Wolf, a Democrat, said the administration was seeking an injunction against the decision. President Trump nominated William Shaw Stickman IV, the judge who ruled in the case, for the 2019 bench.
Mr. Trump celebrated the decision at a ceremony in Arizona, calling it a “great ruler.”
As in other states, many Republican politicians in Pennsylvania have been vehemently opposed to their state’s epidemic prevention policy, with some Governor’s appeal for maintenance. In July, the state Supreme Court A lawsuit was dismissed Filed by Republican legislators demanding the removal of Mr. Wolff’s Emergency Authority.
Some of the governor’s top opponents, including Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican with a district in western Pennsylvania, were among the plaintiffs who were arraigned Monday.
Judge Stickman wrote: “The court believes that the defense did its best to protect the people of Pennsylvania from the virus. “However, good intentions towards a commendable end are not enough to sustain government action against a constitutional challenge. In fact, the greatest threat to our system of constitutional freedom can be eliminated when it is over. Are Commendable, and intent Is Good – especially in times of emergency. “
A spokesman for the governor said in a statement that “the actions taken by the administration were exemplified by the governors across the country and continued to save lives in the absence of federal action.”
