Illinois (ECWd) –
Judge Grischow granted a Temporary Restraining Order against Governor Pritzker, Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Department of Public Health, and approximately 146 school districts.
There are too many priceless quotes from the judge in the 29-page ruling so we will highlight a few here but encourage everyone to read the entire document to grasp the magnitude of this ruling.
- “This type of evil is exactly what the law was intended to constrain.”
- “All IDPH did was take away individual due process rights and pass the responsibilities of health care issues to another administrative agency.”
- “Since 2014 and prior to the recent 2021 Emergency Rules, tests and vaccines were also considered a form of “modified quarantine” because they were a procedures “intended to limit disease transmission.” Under the IDPH Act, individuals had the right to object to these procedures. If they objected, they were afforded due process of law. Likewise, “exclusion from school” was also a form of “modified quarantine” because it was considered a partial limitation on freedom of movement for those who may have been exposed to a contagious disease. At no time did the 2014 emergency amendments take away a person’s due process rights.”
- “Thus, absent a properly filed emergency rule from IDPH, the Governor’s mandate is meaningless and ISBE’s Emergency Rule exceeded its authority.”
- “How is this a threat to public safety? It is not, it is a threat to a unilateral unchecked exercise of authority by the Executive Branch. Stated differently, IDPH’ s delegation of its authority was an end-run whereby IDPH passed the buck to schools so as not to trigger the due process protections under the IDPH Act. Courts should not be fooled or misled by this egregious conduct.”
The judge addressed some great questions as well.
- How did removing the words “Isolation, Modified” and “Quarantine Modified” and editing the definition of “Quarantine” assist in responding to a threatening situation?
- How did adding a section delegating the duties of the IDPH and local health departments to schools assist in responding to a threatening situation?
- What was the need to have this done on an emergency basis without input from the Legislative Branch?
“Based on the record before this Court, it is hard to see how the implementation of these Emergency Rules was necessary to counter the threat of the public interest safety or welfare.”
“No regulation was suspended because the reason for implementing the Emergency Rules was for administrative convenience and an attempt to circumvent the courts’ involvement, not because of any stated emergent public threat.”
We are pleased to see the very point we made on March 15, 2020, in this article on due process is echoed by the judge?
“The Legislature, in the implementation of the IDPH Act, specifically contemplated that people may object to quarantine and laid out procedural methods in which to address those objections. There is no question as to the promulgated statutory rights set forth in the IDPH Act that are due to citizens in matters of quarantine and isolation. Through the issuance of the above-noted Court rulings, these statutory rights have attempted to be bypassed through the issuance of Executive Orders and Emergency Rules.”
We also urge everyone to read the articles linked below that laid out what the law was on these issues in early 2020. Seeing how the courts are not ruling on matters it is clear everything we said in early 2020 was 100% accurate.
A copy of the TRO can be downloaded at this link or viewed below.TRO Order 2-4-2022