Wisconsin, Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court discussed on The Mark Belling Show


Not Divided Wisconsin Supreme Court by vote. Afford three today struck down the order. Issued by the Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm the Disney of governor. Tony Uber's that has restricted all sorts of activity in business and commerce and people's individual activities in Wisconsin through may twenty six. I've had an opportunity to very quickly read through the entire order. There are a number of concurring opinions and descends on the first question. How did the vote break down? It broke down conservative. Liberal lines with one of the Conservatives will think over to join the Liberals descended big as I said. The vote was four to three justice. Brian Hagedorn who was elected last year joined the to Liberal. Justices Rebecca Brat Rebecca Dalit and an walls Bradley in dissenting from the opinion of the five conservatives on the State Supreme Court Haggard on has been so far at his brief term the wobbly est of those and the likeliest not to stick with the other conservative colleagues so the vote was for three. Many people have wondered why the Supreme Court was taking as long as it was well all of these opinions. I log the concurring. Opinions are long that essentially and each of the justices. I think why did away with their legal reasonings on this also. Clearly there was disagreement in the court on this given the fact that it ended up being a four three ruling and not five to as many had expected the four justices that are voting to strike down. The law are the Chief Justice Pat Rogan sack. Rebecca Bradley Remember. There are two Bradley's Rebecca Bradley who refers to herself as Rebecca Grasso Bradley. She is the conservative of the two Bradley's and walls Bradley's the liberal so again voting to strike down the Order Chief Justice Pat Ryan Zach Justice Rebecca Bradley Justice Annette Siegler and justice. Daniel Kelly now. Kelly ran for reelection to the corded April and loss but his term continues until August. And he's still on the court in the interim suffice to say that if this had all happened in a few months this order would have been upheld because Kelly would not have been on the court so for people who have not understood the impact of Supreme Court rulings and the importance of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. This rule late here is one that would not have occurred the way that it did in a few months and voting to descend voting against the ruling. As I said we're Hagedorn who has been described as a conservative but in this case joined the other two liberals on the court. Rebecca Dalit and Ann Walsh Bradley. One of the things that I have been speculating. Odd was whether or not the court would address the original Tony. Iverson's order or simply the order from Andrea Palm and the are focused here on the only order that remains relevant. Which is Andrea Palm? Because Iverson's is emergency authority as governor has expired? The Department of Health Services Secretary by law has emergency authority that goes on forever but that authority is not without limit and the State Supreme Court. In the primary opinion. That was authored. By justice. Chief Justice ragging sack said that palm exceeded her legal authority at in particular given the fact that her order included criminal penalties all of those criminal sanctions that are included in. The order are struck down because they were all issued without beyond the authority. Rather of Secretary Powell. Now I'm going to quote from the ruling and then I'm going to discuss this issue of. Where are we in the State of Wisconsin? And I think you're going to see a flurry of reactions including a number of local orders being issued in the short term. I want to quote the final few paragraphs though from the order which was in by other the other justices as well again it was a four three ruling striking down the Tony Iverson Andhra palm ordering. You'll hear the name palm throughout this. She's again the cabinet member who issued the rule and under statute. She has the authority to issue emergency roles pertaining to health. This is from the Supreme Court order. We do not define the precise scope of Department of Health Services. Authority under Wisconsin Statutes. We cannot expansively read. Statutes with imprecise terminology that purport to delegate lawmaking youth authority to an administrative agency the legislature appropriately sites the statutory the statutory explicit authority requirement and has provided plausible reading of the text. We have declared rights under the law. Where Ian we have concluded that Emergency Order? Twenty eight is invalid and therefore unenforceable. That's the key language. The court is determining that the order is invalid and because it's invalid cannot be and forced on the ruling continues although a very unusual request on April twenty and I twenty twenty the legislature this court to issue a temporary injunction of emergency order twenty eight but then requested a stay of that injunction for at least six days we perceive. This request is being grounded in a concern for an order. Orderly transition from order twenty-eight offer rule however more than two weeks have passed since we began our consideration of this case therefore we trust that the legislature in palm of place. The interest of the people of Wisconsin. I and have been working together in good faith to establish a lawful that addresses covid nineteen. It's devastating effects on Wisconsin people businesses and other institutions. Need to know how to proceed. And what is expected of them? Therefore we place the responsibility for this future lawmaking with the legislature in dhs where it belongs conclusion. We conclude that Emergency Order Twenty eight. That's Sandra Palms. Order is a rural under the controlling precedent court and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the legislature. Emergency Order Twenty eight. As a general order of general application within the meaning of his constant statutes which define rule. Accordingly the rulemaking procedure Wisconsin statutes were required to be followed during the promulgation of ordered twenty eight because they were not eve. Urgency Order Twenty. Eight is enforceable. Furthermore Wisconsin Statutes require that emergency order. Twenty eight be promulgated using the procedures established by the legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow because palm did not follow the law in creating order. Twenty eight days can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wisconsin Statutes must be followed because they safeguard all people. We further conclude the palms order. Confining all people to their homes forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded this exceeded the statutory authority of Wisconsin Statute to fifty two upon which palm claims to rely by the court palms emergency order. Twenty eight is declared unlawful invalid and unenforceable. So that's the majority opinion of Wisconsin Supreme Court. The law is in fact unlawful. It is invalid at it cannot be enforced. Doubt they referenced in here the Legislature had requested if you strike down this law that you allow it to remain in effect strike down this order. You allow to remain in effect for six days. The Supreme Court declined to do that and the Supreme Court in its opinion said and they may have tipped off what the reason was for the delay. In issuing their ruling we trust that the governor and legislature have been working together and talking in anticipation if our ruling so that'd be ready to issue a new rule once we strike this one dowd. We'll see if that's been. The case. Will the administration work with the legislature to try to issue something that can pass legislative approval. Say Tomorrow will say but as the moment there is no rule. I.

Coming up next