CHICAGO — Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker fully embraced his role in guiding the state through the coronavirus pandemic when he launched his reelection campaign in July, just a month after he had lifted nearly all restrictions as the vaccination effort gained steam and the state had fully reopened.
Within weeks, though, he rolled out another mask mandate for schools as the state lost ground to the delta variant. Now, two adverse court opinions have stymied Pritzker’s efforts to continue masking requirements at schools and renewed questions over the governor’s legal authority amid pandemic weariness and parent rebellion that has droned on for months.
As a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of parents, Sangamon County Circuit Judge Raylene Grischow on Feb. 4 granted the request for a temporary restraining order on the governor’s executive orders on masking and quarantining for schools named in the court action, finding that the measures are beyond the governor’s authority and deprive students of due process. The Illinois attorney general’s office quickly filed an appeal.
Less than a week later, Pritzker laid out the state’s exit plan to lift the indoor mask mandate on Feb. 28, though he stipulated masks would still be required in schools until an unspecified date.
While the state awaited an appellate ruling on Grischow’s decision to grant the temporary restraining order, the Illinois Department of Public Health’s emergency rule that covered masking for schools expired Feb. 13.
In an effort to continue to enforce masking in school districts not named in the lawsuit, the public health department reissued its rule Monday with minor tweaks, deleting some references to “isolation” and “quarantine” that were central to Grischow’s ruling.
But when the rule came before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a bipartisan legislative oversight committee, three Democratic members joined their Republican counterparts to vote 9-0 to block the health department’s rule.
The Democrats explained their votes in large part by pointing to the appellate court ruling they anticipated in the coming days. Democratic state Rep. Mike Halpin of Rock Island said he voted to block the revised rule from taking effect because “we’re currently in a situation where the (temporary restraining order) says this rule is not enforceable.”
“It’s possible, if not probable, that this might change on appeal, but for now as we sit here, for that reason, I’ll vote” to block the rule, Halpin said.
Two other Democrats who voted with Republicans, Chicago Reps. Curtis Tarver and Frances Ann Hurley, gave the same reasoning. Democratic Sens. Bill Cunningham and Tony Muñoz, both of Chicago, voted “present.”
The anxiously awaited decision that came out of the 4th District Appellate Court in Springfield late Thursday, however, did not change course from Grischow’s ruling. Instead, the court dismissed Pritzker’s effort to keep statewide masking and other COVID-19 mitigation measures at schools in place.
The appellate court based its decision on the fact that the legislative committee had blocked IDPH’s attempt to renew the rules.
“None of the rules found by the (Sangamon County) circuit court to be null and void are currently in effect,” the ruling said. “Accordingly, for the following reasons, we dismiss defendant’s appeal because the expiration of the emergency rules renders this appeal moot.”
On Friday, after the appellate court ruling was announced, Halpin, who is running for a state Senate seat in the upcoming election, declined to comment on the decision. Hurley, who also voted with Republicans, could not be reached for comment.
Tarver said he hadn’t yet read the appellate court ruling in its entirety but voted to halt the IDPH rule because he felt it was only right to respect “coequal branches of government” and not let an agency enforce a rule that, at the time, was being decided on by the appellate court.
“I don’t vote with, I vote for, and I voted for what I thought was right,” Tarver said. “My vote had nothing to do with the arguments (from Republicans).”
Until now, Pritzker has seen his emergency orders throughout the pandemic upheld by the courts — and the appellate court’s action did not address the legality of the governor’s use of emergency powers.
But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from accusing Pritzker of seeking to usurp the rights of parents and local school boards.
Last week’s action isn’t the first time the administrative rules committee has pushed back on the governor’s plans.
In May 2020, when the initial surge of COVID-19 was subsiding in Illinois, Pritzker backed down from a proposal that could have led to businesses facing criminal misdemeanor charges for opening in violation of his stay-at-home order after some Democrats on the legislative panel joined Republicans in raising concerns.
Later that summer, Pritzker issued a rule that allowed businesses to be fined for violating mask requirements, which was allowed to go into effect.
Last fall, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules instructed the Illinois State Board of Education to draft rules detailing the sanctions schools could face for violating the mask mandate and other coronavirus protocols after the board began revoking the recognition status of private schools that didn’t comply.
The board of education returned the following month with guidelines stipulating the revocation process and how schools can appeal such changes, which went into effect without an objection from the committee.
Pritzker plans to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s decision. While Chicago Public Schools plans to continue enforcing its mask mandate, about 700 Illinois districts have pivoted to mask-optional policies.
———
