Update: 5:52 p.m.
Since the majority opinion did not fully include a stay, the order is in effect immediately.
Lawyers for both the Evers administration and the GOP-led legislature are apparently meeting to discuss their next steps – steps that are apparently unclear at the moment.
With the 4-3 ruling by the WI Supreme Court this afternoon, all attention shifts to the Republican legislators in Madison. No stay means they will set the rules for COVID-19 response going forward. We’ll find out fairly soon what’s in their plan.
— Stephen Scaffidi (@WTMJSteve) May 13, 2020
The Tavern League of Wisconsin has told its members that it can open immediately. Some bars are planning on opening tonight, according to Molly Beck of the Journal Sentinel.
Original story: 5:09 p.m.
Numerous reports say the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin has agreed with the Republican-led legislature that the Department of Health Services’ “Safer at Home” orders to protect against coronavirus are “invalid,” and have struck the order down.
Click here to read the court’s opinion.
Chief Justice Patience Roggensack said she is putting a stay on action to enforce their decision on May 20, so that the legislature and Governor Tony Evers can work together to create a new directive.
A 4-3 majority sided with the GOP-led legislative lawsuit. Justice Brian Hagedorn, known as a conservative, sided with the dissenting opinion.
“This case is about the assertion of power by one unelected official, Andrea Palm, and her order to all people within Wisconsin to remain in their homes, not to travel and to close all businesses that she declares are not ‘essential’ in Emergency Order 28. Palm says that failure to obey Order 28 subjects the transgressor to imprisonment for 30 days, a $250 fine or both. This case is not about Governor Tony Evers’ Emergency Order or the powers of the Governor,” said Chief Justice Roggensack in her majority opinion.
“We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court…and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature.”
As for the stay, she is asking for that to give the state time to come up with a replacement plan.
“Although our declaration of rights is effective immediately, I would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20, 2020. However, I trust that the parties will place the interests of the people of Wisconsin first and work together in good faith to quickly establish a rule that best addresses COVID-19 and its devastating effects on Wisconsin,” she writes.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley says that Chief Justice Roggensack’s majority opinion does not grant a stay, but she independently is offering the stay which legislative officials asked for.
“The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roggensack, does not grant a stay. Thus, the declaration of rights takes immediate effect, leaving no time for a transitional safety net that a stay could provide,” wrote Justice Bradley.
Check back for details on this breaking story as they come in to us.
Original story
Watch the Supreme Court proceedings below:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The future of Wisconsin’s “safer at home” order that sets to run until May 26 is at stake in a case brought by Republican lawmakers being heard by the conservative-controlled state Supreme Court.
The case being argued Tuesday seeks to block the stay-at-home order issued last month by Evers’ health department secretary as a way to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
The order closing most nonessential businesses was issued under powers of the state health secretary to deal with outbreaks of communicable diseases.
Republicans argued that Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm exceeded her authority with the order.