Here & Now Senior Political Reporter Zac Schultz explains with the Supreme Court striking down the extension of the statewide "Safer at Home" order, the authority to implement new rules to combat the spread of COVID-19 rests with county public health officials. Some counties have already applied new rules or extended old rules. Any new statewide administrative rules will require bipartisanship.
Copy and Paste the Following Code to Embed this Video:
Supreme Court Ruling and Consequences Explained
Frederica Freyberg:
This week, a major shift in Wisconsin’s fight against the coronavirus as the extended “Safer at Home” order is ruled illegal. Republicans sued over whether Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm exceeded her authority and violated state law by ordering an emergency extension until May 26. For the second time in as many months, the conservative majority Wisconsin Supreme Court has dealt Governor Evers and Democrats a defeat. Businesses across the state are swinging open their doors, some without restrictions. “Here & Now” Senior Political Reporter Zac Schultz is here to explain the fallout of that decision. And, Zac, thanks very much for being here.
Zac Schultz:
My pleasure, Fred.
Frederica Freyberg:
So the immediate results of the Supreme Court’s ruling was that everything was allowed to reopen and all at once and right away. But while waiting for these new rules, it’s kind of every county for itself?
Zac Schultz:
That’s right. The DHS authority to extend the “Safer at Home” order is gone. The only portion of that order that survived the court’s ruling was her ability to shut down schools. That survived in a footnote. Otherwise everything else in that order is gone. Now it’s up to individual counties because county-level public health officials were not affected by this. They have a different part of the state statutes that affect their authority. We’ve already seen five or six counties extend some of those rules. Some more may do that on their own to some degree or to the same language.
Frederica Freyberg:
As to the new state administrative rules, it’s this process but it basically forces the Evers’ administration to work with the Republican legislative leaders. How, in your understanding, are those new rules expected to look?
Zac Schultz:
Well, they won’t look anything like the “Safer at Home” order that we were under. Republicans have made it very clear they’re happy to see those orders gone. A couple weeks ago, they were asking for a regional approach to reopening parts of the state that hadn’t seen it. Now they’re saying everything wide open is perfect. They expect businesses to abide by WEDC or CDC rules on how best to be safe and it’s up to individuals and businesses to do the best thing to keep themselves and their families safe. These new administrative rules — the governor issued a scope statement. It’s going to take at least ten days before we see the language on a rule. They’ll have time to negotiate it, but it will have to be very broad because it won’t, by definition, be nimble enough to actually handle a hot spot or a flare-up that may occur.
Frederica Freyberg:
Super quickly, what stood out for you about that Supreme Court ruling?
Zac Schultz:
The thing is it was a 4-3 decision. The court is 5-2 conservatives to liberals and it was conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn who dissented as well. Justice Daniel Kelly, who just lost an election, will be leaving the court in July. He was the deciding vote. The new justice coming in could side with the liberals. If there’s a flare-up over the winter, we could see DHS try to figure out where the boundaries were on the powers because the Supreme Court, by rule in their decision, said we don’t define the scope of her authority. We just say this goes too far. This may be coming back in some form or fashion under a new court this winter.
Frederica Freyberg:
Zac Schultz, thanks very much and thanks for covering it.
Passport
Follow Us