A member of our libertarian community, Greg Michael, and his colleagues
challenged the Constitutionality of several of the shelter-in-place
orders on the following grounds:
(I) the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment;
(II) the Establishment Clause of the First;
(III) the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment;
(IV) the Freedom of Assembly Clause of the First Amendment;
(V) the Vagueness Doctrine enshrined by Due Process of Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment;
(VI) substantive rights protected by Due Process of Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment;
(VII) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(VIII) California Constitution Article 1, Section 1’s right to
liberty;
(IX) California Constitution Article 1, Section 2’s right to free
speech;
(X) California Constitution Article 1, Section 3’s right to assemble
freely;
(XI) California Constitution Article 1, Section 4’s right free
exercise and enjoyment of religion.
I think the main point of the complaint is that the Government cannot
rank (in-car) protests and (drive-up) religious services as less
important than pizza delivery and marijuana dispensaries.
They worded it a lot better. The complaint and the ruling are attached.
Unfortunately, the judged decided that, unlike Uber Eats, the Enshrined
Rights are dispensable when the Governor declares an emergency.
They just submitted some kind of emergency motion to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Feel free to spread the word!
I'm sure Greg would be happy to answer any questions! His personal email
address is greg.michael02@gmail.com.
Life & Liberty,
Jeff
031132862191.pdf (433 KB)
031132941730.pdf (93.7 KB)