On Monday, a federal judge smacked Pennsylvania governor on his imposition of lockdowns, saying it has a good cause, but the government authority should not unfetter even in times of emergency.
In a historic ruling, a judge appointed by President Trump sided with the plaintiff’s reproach of Democrat officials in a blue state who have guided their authority under a national health issue using emergency powers.
US District Judge William S. Stickman IV ruled against the defendants’ Secretary of Health Rachel Levine and Gov. Tom Wolf, who has expressed his disappointment over the result.
Widespread lockdowns severely damaged the cash flow of businesses that some even had to close permanently. Dreams and lives were crushed when the pandemic hit, which has since become the rhetoric excuse of the Democrats to lord over their states.
Judge Stickman IV ruled that the non-life sustaining closures of business and restrictions, whether indoor or outdoor gatherings mandated by the defendants, Gov. Tom Wolf, and Health Secretary Rachel Levine are unconstitutional.
This becomes a precedent and a clear message to Cuomo, Whitmer, Murphy, Pritzker, and several other authoritarians who took advantage of the pandemic.
Gov. Wolf’s administration said that they would appeal the ruling.
In a Pittsburgh Post Gazette’s report, Attorney Tom King, one of the attorneys on the case, said that the state was in the “red” phase when the lawsuit was filed, stating that the business restrictions and limits on gathering were unconstitutional.
The district judge wrote that the Constitution cannot accept the “new normal” concept and that the liberties protected by the Constitution are unwavering. He added that the country will still face national crises, but the solution can never surpass freedom as the main foundation of the American experiment.
Judge Stickman IV ruled that the outdoor gathering limits violated the First Amendment’s right of assembly, the stay indoors and business closures components violated the 14th Amendment, and the parts of business closures violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.
The ruling gained the nod of President Trump, who retweeted a post on the case.
Although the ruling only sought declarations that the restrictions were wrong, the benchmarked result could be seen as an opening for business owners to file their own lawsuits for monetary damages. The ruling has also been outlined for the business owners who would want to fully reopen.
Pennsylvania indeed made a triumphant stand against the Democrats who have overreached their authority. A historical and bold move worth the fight.