PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has dissolved a preliminary injunction to prevent a mask mandate from being rescinded in the Perkiomen Valley School District without prejudice, in light of updated guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and decreased levels of COVID-19 infection.
The suit at hand was predicated on whether stopping a mask mandate would likely violate the rights of ill or immunocompromised children who may face grave health risks or stop attending school entirely without such a mandate.
In the wake of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision to invalidate the statewide school mask mandate in December, the issue has been a flashpoint and lightning rod for division in both school districts and courts across the state.
Within five days in January, a pair of federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania handed down contrasting rulings on the issue of mask mandates.
Judge Marilyn J. Horan issued a ruling on Jan. 17 in a case involving North Allegheny School District that a temporary restraining order would interrupt the District’s optional mask-wearing policy, finding that affected students would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury” otherwise.
Meanwhile, on Jan. 22, Judge William Stickman IV chose not to grant such a temporary restraining order versus the Upper Saint Clair School District, concluding that the plaintiffs weren’t able to demonstrate true injury and that the order sought by the plaintiffs was unreasonable.
Stickman’s ruling is already on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Wendy Beetlestone had issued a 60-page ruling on Feb. 7, finding favor with eight anonymous plaintiffs, five parents and three children, who sued the Perkiomen Valley School District to prevent its authorities from rescinding its mask mandate, and replacing it with a mask-optional policy.
Included part and parcel with Beetlestone’s decision at that time was an indefinite preliminary injunction, compelling the District to continue its mask mandate.
Beetlestone honed in on the subject of whether the child-plaintiffs in question would face “disparate impact” without a mask mandate in place. All three children are asthmatic, with one suffering from damaged vocal cords and another from chronic bronchitis and pneumonia.
“Of course, all children face certain risks pertaining to transmissible diseases when they go to school, from the common cold to the chicken pox. The question is whether the child-plaintiffs face such a heightened risk, due to the impact of the optional masking policy and of their disabilities, that they can no longer be considered to have ‘meaningful access’ to the benefits of their education,” Beetlestone said.
Beetlestone disregarded the focus of Perkiomen Valley School District, which argued that medical science hasn’t answered the question of why certain people are more at risk for serious illness from COVID-19, spanning from the original strain to the current Omicron variant. Finding the plaintiffs demonstrated a need for a temporary restraining order in this matter, Beetlestone granted it.
UPDATE
On March 14, Beetlestone dissolved the preliminary injunction without prejudice and outlined her rationale for doing so.
“Whereas on Feb. 25, 2022, the CDC updated its mask guidance to recommend universal masking only in areas with ‘high’ COVID-19 community levels, a new CDC metric based not on transmission and test positivity rates but on the hospital beds used, hospital admissions, and the total of new COVID-19 cases in a given area; Whereas immediately after the update to the CDC’s mask guidance, Montgomery County became categorized as ‘medium’ COVID-19 community level, such that universal masking was no longer CDC-recommended,” Beetlestone said.
“Whereas COVID-19 community levels in Montgomery County are now categorized by the CDC as ‘low’; Whereas on Feb. 26, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction or in the alternative stay implementation of the preliminary injunction, based on the CDC’s updated mask guidance and a decrease in reported COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in Montgomery County; Whereas on March 8, 2022, the Third Circuit ordered a limited remand for the adjudication of the defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.”
Beetlestone explained that the CDC no longer recommends universal masking in Montgomery County because COVID-19 community levels in the county are not “high” and “the CDC’s updated mask guidance and the change in Montgomery County’s COVID-19 community levels together constitute a change of circumstances that justifies the dissolution of the preliminary injunction.”
“At this time, given the new CDC guidance and Montgomery County’s COVID-19 community levels, plaintiffs no longer face a substantial risk of serious illness and/or death should they attend school in-person under an optional policy, nor is there a reasonable probability that plaintiffs would be denied meaningful access to the benefits of their education without injunctive relief,” Beetlestone said.
“Plaintiffs can no longer show a likelihood of success on the merits of their disparate impact claims under the ADA and Section 504 or that they will likely suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Therefore, the continuance of the injunction would be inequitable.”
Beetlestone ordered that the prior Feb. 7, 2022 preliminary injunction is dissolved without prejudice, so as not to impair the plaintiffs’ ability to file a renewed motion for injunctive relief should circumstances change, such that the Perkiomen Valley School District’s masking policies are no longer consistent with CDC guidance and Montgomery County COVID-19 community levels.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00287
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com