Lawsuit Challenging Hawaii Lockdown
Attorneys Marc Victor and Jody Broaddus explain on "Hawaii Together" why the "Pennsylvania ruling" could be the much-needed hole in the dike
From Grassroot Institute, September 17, 2020
Opponents of Hawaii's economic and social lockdowns were greeted with good news on Monday, namely that the lockdown restrictions imposed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), including a ban on large gatherings and the closure of "non-life sustaining businesses," are unconstitutional.
Honolulu attorney Marc Victor, whose firm Attorneys For Freedom is pursuing a similar case in Hawaii, said on Keli'i Akina's "Hawaii Together" program that the Pennsylvania ruling affirmed the idea that, "Emergencies do not suspend constitutional rights."
"That's been really the feeling across the country, at least in my opinion, by a lot of people wearing black robes," said Victor. "It's been, 'Look, there's an emergency. All these great protections and things that we have in our Constitution that the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution put out there, that stuff doesn't matter anymore because we're in an emergency." I think that this judge in Pennsylvania basically gave a little bit of lip service to that saying, 'Look, at the beginning …" and I feel the same."
"Now, here we are in September," he continued. "We've got a lot more information about what's happened with … this virus and how many people get ill and who's really vulnerable and who's not. Things have to change. We cannot get lulled in to this endless idea that governors can just continually keep issuing and reissuing these proclamations that fly in the face of everything about American jurisprudence. …
"I really cheer on, and I am really happy to read, the decision from Pennsylvania. I'm sure it's going to be appealed. I hope the judges on the Court of Appeals feel the same way."
Akina asked attorney Jody Broaddus, also with Attorneys For Freedom, if the new ruling offered any hope to "Hawaii businesses that have been shuttered by the emergency orders."
Absolutely, she said. "I think the judge in the Pennsylvania case did an excellent job of presenting the constitutional issues, not just saying there's an emergency and you can turn a blind eye. With the businesses, people have a right to earn a [living], and the court was cognizant of that. Another thing that the court did is … a good job of opening up that you can't just say people can do certain things but not certain things when it's the same issue. For example, you can't tell people not to go to the grocery store, but … let them go to church. The exposure is still the same."
Different Lawsuit: COVID: Court Upholds Ige Emergency Order Authority Beyond 60 Days