School districts win case in Arlington Cnty vs. Gov. EO re: mask mandates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

Northam’s EO predated SB1303 and was implemented under a public health emergency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

She didn’t punt to anyone. This hearing was about the motions for temporary injunction filed by both sides. As the name would suggest, it is a temporary measure put into place while the parties fully litigate the issue. The ruling is based in part of a finding that the school systems are likely to prevail in the end, but less as he’s open the possibility that once the parties have had a chance to fully brief the issues, the ultimate outcome could be different.

The judge did exactly what she was supposed to do. You just don’t understand the legal process.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

It appears a temporary injunction order is all that was sought by the school boards. Because SB 1303, cited by the school boards as their authority for mask mandates, expires in August 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

She didn’t punt to anyone. This hearing was about the motions for temporary injunction filed by both sides. As the name would suggest, it is a temporary measure put into place while the parties fully litigate the issue. The ruling is based in part of a finding that the school systems are likely to prevail in the end, but less as he’s open the possibility that once the parties have had a chance to fully brief the issues, the ultimate outcome could be different.

The judge did exactly what she was supposed to do. You just don’t understand the legal process.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

thanks!
The Arlington Court needs to act fast though, they cant keep the temp injuction for months as the GOV will want it moved to the next higher court for an appeal -correct?

I haven’t looked at the pleadings and r the order. But I am guess the Commonwealth could file an interlocutory appeal although they would need to show this decision met the criteria for such an appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

Northam’s EO predated SB1303 and was implemented under a public health emergency.

No it didn’t. It was in august and cited sb 1303 as the justification, but why if sb 1303 directs COVID mitigation measures to the school board? Little kids seeing faces is a public emergency as compared to a mild virus for which there is a vaccine and highly effective masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

WAAAH WAAAHHH! Don’t forget your toddler foot stomp for extra emphasis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Because voting for a R representative will change masking at your kid's school.

IRRATIONAL.

NP. No. But voting out the current school board will help. This is one of many reasons.

The current school board MUST GO! Everyone agrees on that.

Oh, sweetie, step out of your little echo chamber every once in a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

Northam’s EO predated SB1303 and was implemented under a public health emergency.

No it didn’t. It was in august and cited sb 1303 as the justification, but why if sb 1303 directs COVID mitigation measures to the school board? Little kids seeing faces is a public emergency as compared to a mild virus for which there is a vaccine and highly effective masks.

God, you drama queens would be hilarious if you weren’t so pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

Northam’s EO predated SB1303 and was implemented under a public health emergency.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Because they want to define when the masks come on or come off. It's not the governor's decision.

Last PP is right. The judge said that when the legislature gives discretionary authority to the school districts, the gov can't just step in and decide for the school districts. SB1303 gave the school districts the discretionary authority to figure out which mitigation measures were practical. That authority is theirs to decide as they see fit. Where authority is given to the schools, it is NOT given to the gov.

Butt out, Youngkin!

Cant SB 1303 rescinded by the VA senate? Peterson already said he would vote with the Rs on that.

Be careful what you wish for, SB 1303 is the only thing preventing schools from going fully virtual if we have another spike.

SB739, currently before the senate, is a permanent replacement for SB1303 without excuses of any sort for remote other than the 10 snow days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

Yes. As at least 100 people on here explained. And as he should have known when he issued it. It isn’t even a closed call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

She didn’t punt to anyone. This hearing was about the motions for temporary injunction filed by both sides. As the name would suggest, it is a temporary measure put into place while the parties fully litigate the issue. The ruling is based in part of a finding that the school systems are likely to prevail in the end, but less as he’s open the possibility that once the parties have had a chance to fully brief the issues, the ultimate outcome could be different.

The judge did exactly what she was supposed to do. You just don’t understand the legal process.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

thanks!
The Arlington Court needs to act fast though, they cant keep the temp injuction for months as the GOV will want it moved to the next higher court for an appeal -correct?

Nope. It will take as long as it takes. And the TRO will remain in place while it does. It’s why we have TROs. Because sometimes it takes a year or two to get through discovery and to a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

She didn’t punt to anyone. This hearing was about the motions for temporary injunction filed by both sides. As the name would suggest, it is a temporary measure put into place while the parties fully litigate the issue. The ruling is based in part of a finding that the school systems are likely to prevail in the end, but less as he’s open the possibility that once the parties have had a chance to fully brief the issues, the ultimate outcome could be different.

The judge did exactly what she was supposed to do. You just don’t understand the legal process.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

thanks!
The Arlington Court needs to act fast though, they cant keep the temp injuction for months as the GOV will want it moved to the next higher court for an appeal -correct?

Nope. It will take as long as it takes. And the TRO will remain in place while it does. It’s why we have TROs. Because sometimes it takes a year or two to get through discovery and to a decision.

In federal courts, TROs are not typically appealable, but PIs are. This is a TRO in state court. Does anyone know whether this is immediately appealable? There aren’t really any factual disputes, so I would imagine an appeal would provide for the most expeditious resolution one way or another, but I don’t know the state court procedure here. Can any Virginia procedural folks chime in?