I've uploaded the plaintiff's reply memorandum in the case seeking to overturn Gov. Hogan's executive order. The memo is short on law and long on untethered philosophic rambling. slnews.us/pbgl051520b
The memo is also dishonest. By way of example, it claims that the Sixth Circuit in a recent case, Roberts v. Neace, issued an "injunction preventing the Governors under [sic] the Sixth Circuit from declaring or preventing in-person religious gatherings as unlawful."
First, that case only dealt with a challenge to an action by the governor of Kentucky, not all of the governors "under [sic] the Sixth Circuit."
Second, the order did not prevent the governor from "declaring or preventing in-person religious gatherings as unlawful." Rather, it enjoined the governor "from enforcing orders prohibiting in-person services at the Maryville Baptist Church if the Church, its ministers, and its
congregants adhere to the public health requirements mandated for 'life-sustaining' entities." In other words, it applied only to one church and, more importantly, services had to comply with limitations applicable to other activities.
Thus, Kentucky "remains free to enforce its orders against all who refuse to comply with social-distancing and other generally applicable public health imperatives." The plaintiffs in Maryland, of course, seek to overturn all "generally applicable public health imperatives."
I've uploaded the Roberts opinion here: slnews.us/pbgl051520c
