HARRISBURG – Prior to an upcoming hearing regarding a preliminary injunction requested by four Pennsylvania citizens suing a trio of top state officials over the state’s “unconstitutional” mask mandate, the parties are grappling over whether plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm.
Chad Parker, Rebecca Kenwick-Parker, Mark Redman and Donna Redman first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 3 versus Governor Tom Wolf, Attorney General Josh Shapiro and Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine, all of Harrisburg.
“Pursuant to the mask mandate, individuals are required to wear a face mask when outdoors and unable to consistently maintain a distance of six feet from individuals who are not members of the same household and when in any indoor location where members of the public are generally permitted,” the suit stated.
“However, the propaganda message from defendants Wolf and Levine is that masks are required anytime an individual leaves the home. Defendant Wolf creates conflict between citizens when he publicly states that people are required to wear masks every time they leave home, but then purposely excludes the ‘unless six feet apart’ component of the mask mandate.”
However, the suit added that for many citizens, including the plaintiffs, a face mask is “a symbol of oppression and an attempt by the government to control the citizenry.”
“For many, including plaintiffs, forcing them to wear a face mask is forcing them to convey a message with which they disagree. Wearing a mask conveys the message that the wearer has surrendered his or her freedom to the government, particularly in light of the facts of this current declared pandemic,” the suit said.
“During this current political climate, a mask has become a symbol of government oppression. Because a mask has become a political symbol during this current and highly-politicized pandemic, the wearing of a mask is a form of symbolic speech. Consequently, via the mask mandate, defendants are compelling plaintiffs to engage in a form of expression and to convey a message with which they disagree.”
The suit further accused Wolf of acting like a monarch over the lives of Pennsylvanians.
“Defendant Wolf has assumed the power to lord over the lives of Pennsylvanians like a king, mandating restrictions that deprive citizens, including plaintiffs, of their fundamental liberties. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ratified this ‘monarchial innovation.’ The citizens of Pennsylvania have no recourse but to seek relief from this tyranny through the United States Constitution and this Court, the guardian of the freedoms guaranteed by that historically important document,” according to the suit.
Despite a large quantity of evidence supporting the use of face masks as a preventative measure during the pandemic, the lawsuit argued that masks can have detrimental effects to the wearer, such as cognitive and dermatological issues.
“We do not live in a ‘nanny state.’ It should be up to each individual to decide whether he or she should wear a mask based on his or her own personal situation and concerns. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from such government interference with a private citizen’s personal life,” the suit said.
Since the pandemic began, Pennsylvania has reported 147,316 cases of COVID-19, with the virus causing well nearly 8,000 deaths statewide.
At the beginning of the month, Wolf renewed Pennsylvania’s COVID-19 disaster emergency declaration, which has been in effect since March. The extension runs for an additional 90 days, should emergency action continue to be necessary.
UPDATE
The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on Oct. 6, claiming they suffer “irreparable harm” while the policies complained of continue to be enforced, and requested an injunction to prevent such enforcement.
“Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the contact tracing program and mask mandate are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm absent the requested injunction. The balance of equities favors granting the injunction. And it is in the public interest to grant the requested relief,” counsel for the plaintiffs said.
A hearing on the injunction is scheduled for Nov. 24 and a status report outlining the positions of the parties was filed on Nov. 10.
“Defendants ask this Court to ignore its own rules and allow them to present evidence by way of the testimony of Sarah Boateng, Executive Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Plaintiffs have no idea what specific evidence she seeks to present during this hearing,” the plaintiffs’ counsel stated.
“And defendants apparently did not believe that they needed this testimony to refute any of the facts to oppose plaintiffs’ motion when they filed their opposition. The Court should not permit this violation of its Local Rules.”
Meanwhile, counsel for the state officials contended Boateng’s testimony is necessary.
“Defendants plan to present testimony from Sarah Boateng, Executive Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Ms. Boateng will offer testimony about the mitigation efforts taken by the Pennsylvania Department of Health to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and why they are necessary. Moreover, defendants must be provided an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiffs’ witnesses,” per attorneys for the defense.
For counts of the right of association under the 1st and 14th Amendments, due process under the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the 14th Amendment, the guarantee clause under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the right to privacy/due process under the 14th Amendment, unlawful search and seizure under the 4th Amendment and freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants violated plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights as set forth in this complaint; an injunction to enjoin defendants’ enforcement of the challenged restrictions as set forth in this complaint; to award plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expense, and the granting of such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by Andrea L. Shaw of the Law Offices of Andrew H. Shaw in Carlisle, plus Robert J. Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, in Ann Arbor, Mich.
The defendants are represented by Karen Mascio Romano, Keli M. Neary and Nicole J. Boland of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-01601
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com