Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
The governor of Alabama and the state’s health officer face a lawsuit over pandemic restrictions and mask mandates.
The legal action is the latest legal filing stemming from the coronavirus outbreak.
The plaintiffs in the case, represented by former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, claim the pandemic restrictions, specifically mask mandates, violate their First and Fifth Amendment protections and are arbitrarily applied.
The lawsuit frames the pandemic restrictions ordered by Alabama’s governor as a “tyrannical abuse of power,” according to AL.com.
“If the government can force its citizens to wear a mask, then there is no reason to believe it could not also require them to wear gloves, biohazard suits, or an inflatable bubble,” according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs argue Gov. Kay Ivey has “unlawfully restricted rights of worship, assembly, travel and other personal freedoms” since declaring a state of emergency over the coronavirus outbreak on March 13.
Following the emergency declaration, a state-wide mask wearing order was issued July 15, according to the lawsuit; a citable offense is punishable with a $500 fine or jail time, the plaintiffs added.
Since the emergency declaration, Alabamans have dealt with “arbitrary” pandemic restrictions, according to the lawsuit. On March 27, Gov. Ivey ordered the closure of “non-essential” business and prohibited gatherings of 10 or more when social distancing isn’t possible.
Gov. Ivey’s order at this point also banned gatherings for worship services unless the gathering was under 10 people or it was held in a “drive-in” style, the plaintiffs said.
Two pastors, Mark Liddle and Jim Nelson, are represented in this lawsuit against Alabama’s pandemic restrictions. They claim Gov. Ivey’s coronavirus outbreak orders further violate their right to assemble and their religious liberty protections.
These orders “have unlawfully and in direct contradiction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment … prohibited worship services by restricting such services to fewer than 10 people and the people maintain a consistent six foot distance from one another,” the lawsuit argues.
Nelson and Liddle say they’ve “been grievously injured by the actions of the Defendants and feel strongly that if there is a risk to the health and welfare of church attendees, it is for the church, not the state, to determine that issue.”
“The Plaintiff pastors would certainly consider the salvation of their parishioners’ souls just as ‘essential’,” attorneys said in the lawsuit.
Also at issue here, according to the plaintiffs, is how “essential” businesses are defined during the coronavirus outbreak.
Several plaintiffs operate businesses hit by Alabama’s pandemic restrictions. Plaintiffs Scott Farr and Bruce Ervin own a barbershop in Shelby County. They were cited in April for violating Gov. Ivery’s order, AL.com reports.
Farr said he’s defying the rules to help his staff and keep his business afloat. He told WVTM in May that his shop only had 30 days of operating capital left.
The plaintiffs point to Alabama’s pandemic restrictions allowing big box stores to sell items deemed “non essential” as an example of the alleged arbitrariness.
The group of plaintiffs in the pandemic restrictions lawsuit claim Alabama’s mask mandates and coronavirus outbreak closures not only hurt their businesses, but their health.
One of those plaintiffs, Jennifer Case, says she doesn’t wear a mask because it causes “her difficulty in breathing” and gives her “headaches” and a “sore throat.”
Case believes the mask mandate and Gov. Ivey’s pandemic restrictions in general are “a deprivation of her personal freedom to define and decide her own personal appearance in accord with her belief in God.”
Because of this, Case “has been denied admission to various stores, shops, and restaurants because of her failure to wear a mask and has suffered embarrassment, rejection, and ill will due to her failure to wear a facial covering.”
Other plaintiffs claim the process to get an exemption on wearing masks violates privacy laws. Plaintiff Rebecca Callahan, a school bus driver, believes obtaining this exception would require her agreeing to the “release of personal and confidential information.”
Callahan believes “wearing of a facial covering while in transport of small children is a danger to them and to her personally.”
The lawsuit further alleges Gov. Ivey and Alabama’s health department are usurping the legislature with pandemic restrictions that last longer than 30 days.
Plaintiffs claim Alabama’s state constitution provides for emergency declarations by the governor, but require legislative approval after that time has expired.
What do you think of the pandemic restrictions in your state? Let us know in the comments below.
Counsel representing the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are Roy S. Moore of the Foundation for Moral Law and Melissa Issak of Isaak Law.
The Pandemic Restrictions Lawsuit is Case, et al. v. Ivey, et al. Case No. 5:20-cv-01426-LCB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Alabama.
Coronavirus Lawsuits & Legal Issues
Since the COVID pandemic shut down the country, Top Class Actions has been keeping you up to date on the latest Coronavirus lawsuits and legal issues.
Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:
SafeHands Alcohol-Free Hand Sanitizer Can’t Kill 99.9% of Germs, REI Class Action Says
Compensation Fund Will Cover COVID-19 Deaths of Those with 9/11 Illnesses
Questions and Answers About COVID-19 Disability Insurance
Worship Service COVID-19 Restrictions Challenged By D.C. Church
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
6 thoughts onPandemic Restrictions In Alabama Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Claims
Add me
I feel for y’all. And I feel for MOI. I’m wit’cha. How do I/we, the owners, THE GROWNUP BIG BOYS, get things in order again? Precedents are sort of absent now while new ones grow wildly and cut people’s legs off, while ordering them to walk/run. I need precedent here lest I head to other worlds than the stupid ones to languish forevermore. Does any like to languish? I know none.
Add me
Add me to
These restrictions to movement and beyond has affected every American. The ramifications stemming from this virus will be felt by future generations and the fabric of our country has now received a irreversible facelift which I assume everyone can agree.
It is beyond comprehension that a blanket immunity is being sought and the depth this immunity will dive. If this country is to continue to be a nation of laws and held by our constitution then access to our judicatory must stop being cutoff recklessly.
It is becoming ever more clear that the states are disregarding it’s own state rights and more often than ever imagined. It is called partnership which is wonderful in its accepted definition as should be practiced in general but over the course of a generation this practice are instead surrendering these rights with haste. This trend should be at the top of discussions in general. Each Governor has used their power endlessly and differently depending on their own personalities along with beliefs. The Governor in each state alone is a fascinating study to be prodded for years to come but where did this confidence to break with their colleagues and state constitution initially come from as so convincing that each elected official ran with it in their own unique way even continuing the overreach today?
The mask debacle should be nonpartisan in blanket fear for all of us. It also will be exciting to watch our court system work it’s magic and all those who play within this circuit. That is if blanket immunity doesn’t void future caselaw that will only be detrimental to this country indefinitely. This pilot of using personal business to enforce policy in this fashion is far from normal as some will argue. A medical device doesn’t compare to a pair of shoes. When OSHA is suspended from enforcement or even acknowledgment of current regulations it proved the regulations or even the entire agency should be eliminated or at the very least need past citations reviewed because it simply even more logically can’t be both ways concerning the mask. How about the science which is endless concerning this silly innocent mask regardless of opinion this on its own merit is a awesome debate. Who is the winner in real-time now though the CDC, FDA or the endless list of others that somehow affect our lives by the second and depending on the current storyline. It is exhausting to watch so many intelligent souls completely discredit themselves which will be remembered overshadowing any actual accomplishment over the “mask”. The proper mask or should I say respirator could be lifesaving but atmosphere in which any of these devices are worn define differently for each individual wearing them. Why wasn’t it beneficial to educate using the correct information and supply the correct devices on a national scale? In regards to “only the mask” how can this not be remembered in history as a missed opportunity to rebuild public trust which would have been built upon productively not counterproductively as it is on a massive scale now. I suppose the backup of plan of using fear, tight purse strings and ultimately forced medical experiment as medical procedures on demand will be considered a highlight when looked back upon in history rather than a tarnish? Nothing stemming from this virus is shielded from debate and critique on a global scale nor should it be. I personally feel the wasted opportunity of truly building public perception of lifesaving vaccines, future pharmaceutical biometric ingredients sought, new tools that will be used to protect each individual but most of all Americans should have been taught the new face of war in a factual, stern, visual, in-depth, respectfully and engaged platform.
Well put, and with spirit. It is simply that we grownups must seize control from the criminals again. Criminals work night and day, and so must the good guys.