A judge in Oregon ruled that the governor’s stay-at-home orders were “null and void” because she failed to get the state legislature’s approval to extend them.
Ten churches filed a lawsuit earlier this month, claiming Democratic Gov. Kate Brown’s coronavirus restrictions were unconstitutional. Baker County Circuit Judge Matthew Shirtcliff issued his opinion on the case Monday, arguing that the damage from the measures was greater than the virus itself.
“The governor’s orders are not required for public safety when plaintiffs can continue to utilize social distancing and safety protocols at larger gatherings involving spiritual worship,” he wrote.
Brown had extended the orders another 60 days until July 6. Oregon Republican Party Chairman Bill Currier welcomed the news her extension won’t stand, saying it “serves as a powerful reminder that Governor Brown, whatever her intentions, is not a ruler who can ignore Oregon’s Constitution and laws.”
“Today, in a case heard before Baker County Circuit Court, Judge Matthew B. Shirtcliff declared all executive orders that Oregon Governor Kate Brown has issued related to the coronavirus pandemic as ‘null and void’ for having exceeded the 28 days limit on her executive authority permitted under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 433.441 related to public health emergencies,” he said.
“The law requires the Governor to convene the legislature within 30 days to obtain an extension of this authority beyond the statutory limit,” he added. “Lawyers representing the Governor failed to receive a requested stay of the Judge’s order and have said they will seek an immediate review of the decision by the Oregon Supreme Court.”
Within hours, Brown filed paperwork requesting a hold on the ruling until the state Supreme Court can review the matter.
“The science behind these executive orders hasn’t changed one bit. Ongoing physical distancing, staying home as much as possible, and wearing face coverings will save lives across Oregon,” Brown said.
Shirtcliff declined to stay his ruling until the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
