ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.
Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".
Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the
"Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.
However the government could argue that:
A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).
B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.
This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.
It is also a violation of the interstate commerce clause since so many goods come from other states.
If the defence is that it is an unforeseen pandemic, pandemics have occurred before so that is no defense.
Actually, the federal government could use the interstate commerce clause to simply close down travel between states, if it so chose. The federal government has the authority to control nearly any/all aspects of interstate commerce. Including the simple transit of people.
It's within each state where it gets hazier, as it would depend on each state's constitution and laws. AFAIK there is no constitutionally-protected right to freedom of movement.
If you have case law you can cite that says otherwise, I would very much like to see it. Sincerely.
There's also this (CR summarizes a bit better than I could have, hence I didn't attempt to as it would've ended up about 3x as long and 1/2 as useful):
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
In emergencies, police power (that's a technical legal term) can override constitutional provisions, allowing emergency action. Thus, cities can level buildings during a major fire without first going through condemnations proceedings, etc. In the case of this pandemic, the courts are going to be inclined to support broad application of the police power.
