BREAKING – Atty General Barr has just finished putting together orders to compel all 50 state governors to open for business and “end illegal martial law” stay at home directives by MAY 1.
Mnuchin said failure will have repercussions of losing Federal Funds.
BREAKING – Atty General Barr has just finished putting together orders to compel all 50 state governors to open for business & “end illegal martial law” stay at home directives by MAY 1. Mnuchin said failure will have repercussions of losing Federal Funds.
— Frank Sowa (@FrankSowa1) April 26, 2020
Barr prefaced this five days ago:
Barr Threatens Legal Action Against Governors Over Lockdowns
The Justice Department will consider taking legal action against governors who continue to impose stringent rules for dealing with the coronavirus that infringe on constitutional rights even after the crisis subsides in their states, Attorney General William Barr said.
William Barr discusses the Illegal Actions of States Governors and lawsuits against them. Also WHO Liability
AG Barr on Coronavirus Restrictions, China, Durham Investigation, and More
Attorney General Bill Barr caused something of a stir yesterday by quipping that some of the state shelter-in-place restrictions to stem the coronavirus epidemic have been akin to “house arrest.” In essence, though, he was simply conveying the same civil-rights theory that we tracked here less than a week ago, when the Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit brought by Christians whose Mississippi town was capriciously denying them the right to communal worship.
As the Civil Rights Division’s submission to the Mississippi federal court framed the matter: “There is no pandemic exception . . . to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards.”
This is exactly the line the AG took in Tuesday’s wide-ranging interview by Hugh Hewitt. Government restrictions on liberty, whether federal, state, or municipal, are only justifiable when there is a compelling public interest; and even then, they must be narrowly tailored: the least restrictive means of burdening our fundamental rights. There is no doubt that the state’s interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease is compelling; but shelter-in-place regulations can be too draconian if the state can sensibly pursue its legitimate public-safety objectives through less burdensome measures — social distancing practices, wearing protective gear, encouraging hygiene, etc.