Several states now have had their extended Sam home orders challenged by lower courts, before they were advanced to their state supreme courts. What constitutes this? I would assume that during any kind of emergency, certain actions have to be taken, but maybe because there’s little find typic evidence, this is more of a political and legal gambling game that we are playing with the virus. I mean, yes, the stay at home order can’t go on forever, for a eventually has to be lifted at some point, but I think that the way it’s being addressed is based on politics, instead of science.

1 Answer 1


The law does not require any reference to science of any kind – that is a political choice. The law grant a certain authority to the governor, under certain circumstances, go give extraordinary orders at the governor's discretion. No actions are mandatory during an emergency. The laws may or may not require legislative approval for extending an order beyond a certain point, where the order is issue pursuant to declaring a state of emergency.

There are two main bases for appealing to the courts to enjoin against some aspect of an order: lack of initial authority (the statute does not actually grant that power), or, violation of fundamental constitutional rights. The latter is the predominant basis for appeal in the present instances.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .