NY Supreme Court rules state's quarantine and isolation orders unconstitutional

"Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty," Justice Ploetz wrote, "far more egregious than other health safety measures, such as requiring mask-wearing."

Jarryd Jaeger Vancouver, BC

In February, New York Democratic governor Kathy Hochul enacted a new order that would allow health officials to enforce isolation and quarantine wherever they deemed it necessary.

On Friday, a New York Supreme Court judge struck down the rule after finding it to be in violation of state law.

Rule 2.13 of the law, titled "Isolation and Quarantine Procedures," reads as follows:

"Whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly contagious communicable disease, the State Commissioner of Health may issue and/or may direct the local health authority to issue isolation and/or quarantine orders, consistent with due process of law, to all such persons as the State Commissioner of Health shall determine appropriate."

The rule also gave health authorities the ability to "monitor" people to "ensure compliance with the order and determine whether such person requires a higher level of medical care."

Following the passage of the rule, state Sen. George Borrello, two Republican state Assembly members, and NYS United filed a lawsuit against Gov. Hochul as well as state health commissioner Mary Bassett, the state Health Department, and the state Public Health and Health Planning Council. They argued that the rule lacked due process, and gave authorities too much discretion when deciding who should be placed in quarantine.

According to The Observer, Section 2120 of the state Public Health Law requires that an "independent magistrate" set the terms of detention.

In his ruling, NY Supreme Court Justice Ronald Ploetz argued similarly.

"The efficacy of isolating or quarantining infected individuals has been known to mankind since Biblical times, and probably before," he wrote in his decision. "Respondents offered no scientific data or expert testimony why Rule 2.13 was a necessary response to combat Covid-19, but instead contend only that it would provide a quick and nimble approach to combatting the pandemic."

"Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty," he continued, "far more egregious than other health safety measures, such as requiring mask-wearing at certain venues. Involuntary quarantine may have far-reaching consequences such as loss of income (or employment) and isolation from family."

In New York, the Supreme Court is in the bottom tier of the judicial system, with the Court of Appeals taking the spot as the "highest court in the land."


Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
© 2024 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy | Do Not Sell My Personal Information