On Dec. 10, 2021, in Corman v. Beam, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that the mandatory mask order issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Health was void ab initio, meaning it was unenforceable from the moment it was issued in August 2021. In so holding, the court determined that the department did not have the legal authority to mandate masking in public schools.
The Court specifically noted that “it is not our prerogative to substitute our views for those of the policy-making branches of our Commonwealth’s government….” In other words, the Court made it perfectly clear that absent a valid and enforceable emergency order (which is not present here), only the General Assembly, or an executive branch agency acting with clear authority, can issue and enforce a mandatory masking law.
A school district is a municipal government entity. It is not a legislative body or an executive branch agency. In the hierarchy of governmental bodies, school districts are at the bottom. That means that a school district may only exercise the legal authority expressly granted to it by the General Assembly, in this case, pursuant to the Public School Code of 1949. Unless a school district can clearly and unambiguously identify the source of its legal authority it may not act. If a school district attempts to act without legal authority, residents have no obligation to follow any such unlawful policies.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Corman, I asked the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District board to publicly disclose and explain the source of its purported legal authority to continue to enforce its masking policy. The district has not responded. The only reasonable inference one can draw from the district’s silence on this matter is that it concedes that it does not have the legal authority to do what it is doing. What is most egregious is that our elected school board members know they do not have the legal authority to enforce the policy, but they are doing it anyway.
On Monday, Feb. 14, parents from across the district publicly shared deeply personal accounts of the damage the district’s policies are causing their children. These parents reported severe cases of anxiety, depression, and learning difficulties. Several parents reported that their children have been bullied by students, staff, and even school administrators for “failure to properly mask.” One parent reported that she had to seek emergency medical attention for her young daughter due to a debilitating panic attack following a coughing fit. Her daughter was terrified because she was told in school that she is “at risk” because she only wears one mask.
Another parent explained that her child has developed a facial tic caused by prolonged masking. These reports of intentional abuse of children by school officials would shock the conscience of any just and humane society.
Nevertheless, the school board defiantly continues to enforce its unlawful masking policy. In essence, even though they lack the actual legal authority to do so, the members of the school board have determined that their personal views on masks carry more weight than the rule of law. They have decided, without any legal authority, that continuing to force children to mask against the will of their parents is appropriate, even if doing so means that some of those children will suffer from life-altering psychological and physical trauma.
In a Republic, the rule of law either means everything or it means nothing. When government actors willfully violate the law, our entire system of government is at risk. If elected officials are permitted to determine for themselves whether to follow or ignore the law, we can no longer trust the government. This is not a partisan political issue. This issue represents a fundamental question concerning the limits of government, in which we all have a vested interest.
The school board’s unlawful actions set an incredibly dangerous precedent. If the district honestly believes it has the legal authority to compel masking (even without parental consent), then it has a duty to unambiguously cite the source of its purported authority. The fact that it cannot or will not do so tells us everything we need to know.
By failing to clearly explain the source of its authority the district and every elected school board member have declared themselves to be above the law. At some point, citizens in this community must consider the implications of tolerating intentionally unlawful behavior by our elected officials.
Chad Williams
Birmingham Township
(26 votes, average: 4.58 out of 5)
Loading...
Comments