The main legal issue standing in the way of the current wave of mask mandates is preemption. Governors in some states are blocking local governments from adopting mandates.
In TX, after multiple requests from mayors, etc. wishing to impose mask mandates, Gov. Abbott has said local governments can impose mandates that target businesses, not individuals. The business can be fined for not requiring employees/customers to mask: thehill.com/homenews/state…
In Florida, Gov. DeSantis says he won't impose a statewide mandate, but he doesn't appear to be blocking local mandates and several local govts in FL are now mandating masks.
The FL local govt mask mandates apply to individuals directly. But in many cases, enforcement mechanisms aren't specified and businesses are urged to play a role in ensuring patrons wear masks. E..g, Orange County, FL's order from yesterday: orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/Libr…
2 days ago in AZ, Gov. Ducey specified that local governments may adopt mask mandates, w/ "education first" enforcement by police and/or administrative agencies (e.g., health department inspectors). The AZ order is at the top of the list here: azgovernor.gov/executive-orde…
Another big legal issue for mask mandates is which part of government can issue the order. E.g., 2 days ago, Montgomery, AL's city council held a vote that rejected a mandate. The mayor then issued an executive order instead. wsfa.com/2020/06/17/mon…
Executive orders by mayors/county executives/etc. are more vulnerable to legal challenge than ordinances passed by the legislative branch of the city government (e.g., city/town council).
These issues are more fraught now because mask mandates are now extending into states where there's strong political opposition (at least at the state level), so more disputes over which level and branch of government is holding the reins.
Keep in mind that mask mandates of varying types were adopted by many state and local governments back in the spring. This is a kind of "second wave" of mandates in response to rising hospitalizations.
For governors taking a hard line against pausing "reopening" or re-tightening restrictions, giving local govts permission to adopt mask mandates is a way to be seen as "taking action" w/ minimal harm to businesses. They've very successfully moved the goalposts on covid response.
Not all governors are responding to the pressure, though. Some are still holding firm in blocking local governments from adopting covid response measures. E.g., Nebraska Gov. Ricketts says he'll withhold federal relief $ from counties that mandate masks. omaha.com/news/state_and…
And in Oregon, the political dynamic is reserved. Gov. Brown is requiring masks in some counties as part of an agreement to proceed with lifting other state-imposed restrictions on businesses that vary from county to county. wweek.com/news/2020/06/1…
In Georgia, it appears ATL Mayor Bottoms is still barred by Gov. Kemp from adopting a mask order Though Kemp did at least clarify that wearing covid masks wasn't *prohibited* under an old state law prohibiting concealing one's identity in public buildings. wgxa.tv/news/local/gov…
I can't find any indication Mayor Bottoms has raised the mask issue since early May, though. fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-m…
It's been widely reported that CA Gov. Newsom issued an "order" requiring face masks statewide. But unlike his executive orders & state public health orders re: SAH & business restrictions, the June 18 mask order is styled as "public health guidance"
Here's the state public health department "Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings" issued yesterday. It does say "People in California *must* wear face coverings" cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/D…
For comparison, here's the state public health officer's March 19 stay at home order implementing Newsom's executive order issued the same day: cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/D…
Unlike CA's stay at home order (and the subsequent orders modifying it, the June 18 "order" doesn't cite authorizing statutes, etc.
If it's styled as guidance, why is LA Times reporting that "Under state law, residents who violate the new requirement could be charged w/ a misdemeanor and potentially face a financial penalty, according to a representative for the Newsom administration"?
latimes.com/california/sto…
latimes.com/california/sto…
My best guess is that the "guidance" that people "must" wear masks is theoretically enforceable by police through disorderly conduct or some other general misdemeanor. Anyone know CA criminal law well enough to help?
In any case, like a lot of the restrictions on personal movement, it isn't really feasible or advisable to carry out an enforcement crackdown. Telling people it's "required" (even though it's styled as guidance, not an order) is a way to get the point across, I guess.
