Court Rules Arizona Mask Mandate Ban Illegal, Could Affect Other States' Bans.

Arizona, Texas and Florida have all passed aggressive anti-mask, anti-vax and anti-Covid mitigation laws. The problem is they ignore public health warnings and often were inserted into unrelated budget bills in violation of state constitutions. 

A growing number of lawsuits in these states will now seek to undo those bans, many of which were designed for public relations impact rather than good governance. JL

Nicole Lafond reports in Talking Points Memo:

The state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the method through which bans on mask mandates and other coronavirus-related mitigation measures were passed in the state was illegal. Arizona’s defense of the anti-COVID mitigation laws was similar to claims other states (like Florida and Texas) have offered as well. The trouble with this logic is clear —that health decisions should be a personal choice. (But) many of the school districts that imposed mask requirements at the start of the fall school year have done so to slow the spread of the virus in communities with high infection rates.

In a blow to Arizona’s Gov. Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the method through which bans on mask mandates and other coronavirus-related mitigation measures were passed in the state was illegal.

The ruling means, at least for now, that bans meant to keep municipalities and Arizona school districts from enacting universal masking requirements are on hold. The ruling also could invalidate other state laws that were mashed into the budget bills, like ones that passed to ban certain types of COVID-19 mitigation measures, limit the Democratic secretary of state’s authorities and put roadblocks in place to keep Critical Race Theory out of public schools, according to local NBC affiliate News 12.

The state Supreme Court’s ruling essentially focuses on the ways in which these various state rules were passed into law. The court sided with a lower court that also invalidated these laws back in September. Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Brutinel argued in an opinion that it was illegal for the Republican-controlled state legislature to stuff mask mandate bans and other laws into various state budget bills, arguing that that tactic violates the Arizona Constitution’s “single-subject rule” for state bills, the local NBC news outlet reported.

The stickiness of this ruling is apparently still unknown. The Supreme Court asked both Arizona’s lawyers and the plaintiffs in the case, a group of education advocates, to recommend how the court should structure its decision. Attorneys in Brnovich’s office asked the court to let the state bans, and the budget bills they were passed in, stay in place. Plaintiff attorneys argued all the budget bills that these provisions were shoved into should be scrapped.

Ducey is one of many Republican governors who has threatened funding cuts against school districts that have gone ahead with universal masking mandates in defiance of state orders against them. Republican Govs. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas have taken approaches similar to Ducey. Arizona’s defense of the anti-COVID mitigation laws was similar to claims other states have offered as well — that health decisions should be a personal choice.

“We are extremely disappointed in the ruling. … We respect the role of the judiciary, but the court should give the same respect to the separate authority of the Legislature,” Ducey spokesman C.J. Karamargin told Channel 12. “We believe every Arizonan should have the ability to make their own health decisions with the guidance of their doctor, not because of some government mandate.”

The trouble with this logic is clear — many of the school districts that imposed mask requirements at the start of the fall school year have done so to slow the spread of the virus in communities with high infection rates. The logic is even hypocritical when looked at through the lens of red state Republican’s traditional adherence to small government, conservative values, passing sweeping statewide bans instead of allowing individual communities to make public health decisions for their own constituents.