Governor Moot: Appeal Denied
An appellate court rejects Pritzker's appeal on mask mandate in what should be final blow to the governor's oppressive reign over state schools
In one three-word sentence, one thumpy adjective, an appellate court affirmed the whole charade.
“Dismissed as moot.”
Late Thursday night, into the wee hours Friday, a 4th District Appellate Court announced an affirmation to a Feb. 4 Temporary Restraining Order that granted relief from forced masking and quarantines to students and school staff across the state.
According to the appellate ruling, the instigating party of the original legal action, J.B. Pritzker, has a new designation: Governor Moot.
Nine times in the six-page section of the order, three appellate judges used the word “moot” to describe Pritzker’s legal arguments in attempting to govern over schools using executive order.
As expected, Pritzker fired back Friday.
He said he would ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review the case in hopes of reversing the appellate court decision.
A legal source told The Kerr Report that Pritzker will have to apply for a “PLA” or “Petition for Leave to Appeal.” There is no guarantee the Supreme Court would hear the appeal, according to the source.
Pritzker would likely argue that “the public interest” in the case and it’s “immediate impact” is reason for a hastened review by the court.
If case is heard by the Illinois Supreme Court, a victory could put into question the legitimacy of all other lower court rulings.
“That would be the law of land, the highest court decision,” the source said.
Back to the appellate ruling.
Let’s not overlook the court’s use of the “mootness doctrine” when justifying their ruling.
According to a Cornell Law School study:
the Supreme Court says [a] case that becomes moot at any point during the proceedings is no longer a Case or Controversy.
If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a 'personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit[]' at any point during litigation…the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.
In this case, the events this week in Springfield eliminated, in the court’s eyes, a “case” or “controversy.”
On Feb. 15, a bipartisan panel of Illinois legislators, or JCAR, rejected an attempt by the Illinois Department of Public Health to renew Covid-related public health mitigations. One of those mitigations is forced masking of students in schools, a salient symbol of the tyrannical policies imposed by Pritzker and his hand-picked public health footmen.
In the six-page ruling, 4th District Appellate Court Justice Turner, who authored the order, shot down Pritzker’s desperate plea to hold onto power:
In response to this court’s inquiry on how JCAR’s February 15, 2022, suspension of the rules affect this appeal, the State defendants in essence argue the now expired emergency rule changes were not and are not necessary to effectuate EO-24’s new definition of modified quarantine. We disagree.
‘We disagree.’
That’s an appellate judge basically saying, “nice try. We know what you are up to, bro. And it ain’t legal.”
Attorney Tom DeVore, the lead attorney on the legal action that led to the Feb. 4 Temporary Restraining Order granted by Judge Grischow, said how that statement within the ruling speaks volumes as to how the court view’s Pritzker’s cagey actions.
“His executive orders are just fear-mongering. They are hollow polices. And without any lawful rule, a lawful rule, or mechanism, you can’t do anything with them. That’s what the appellate court said,” DeVore said.
More excerpts from the appellate court ruling that ties the decision to Feb. 15:
On February 14, 2022, IDPH renewed the aforementioned September 17, 2021, emergency rules. However, on February 15, 2022, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) objected to and suspended IDPH’s renewal. Thus, none of the rules found by the circuit court to be null and void are currently in effect. Accordingly, for the following reasons, we dismiss defendant’s appeal because the expiration of the emergency rules renders this appeal moot.
Later in the document:
The existence of an actual controversy is a prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction, and a reviewing court will generally not decide matters that are abstract, hypothetical, or moot.
An issue is moot where an actual controversy no longer exists between the parties or where events have occurred that make it impossible for the court to grant effective relief.
When considering the issue of mootness, the court may take judicial notice of events and - 2 - materials that do not appear in the record to determine whether an actual controversy exists or whether the matter is moot
We’ll never know how the appellate court would have ruled if the events of Feb. 15 had not occurred.
But they did. And according to the courts, Pritzker’s tight grip on schools – masking without a quarantine order, testing of unvaccinated persons without due process and exclusion of students or teachers for close contact, also without due process - has no legal merit. It’s over.
Many school districts who remained stubborn about forced masking while awaiting the appellate court ruling, are now evolving their position.
District 128 in Vernon Hills/Libertyville:
Following Thursday’s proceedings, the Appellate Court dismissed the case as moot, and therefore there is no mask mandate in Illinois schools.
As a result of that ruling and the local metrics, District 128 is moving to “mask recommended” today, Friday, February 18.
District 125 in Lincolnshire (Stevenson High School):
we will be temporarily suspending the enforcement of the mask mandate on campus beginning Feb. 22.
Overnight, it took a court ruling for the virus to become less of a health hazard.
How can anyone now honestly believe the enforcement of mitigations were about “health and safety?”
It’s not a coincidence how these districts (and others in Chicagoland over the past few days and weeks) set seemingly random dates to flip to “mask recommended” based not on “metrics,” but legal jockeying.
They assessed the risk of sticking with mitigations and determined it was no longer worth the risk. Public pressure, unfavorable court rulings and the data (yes, the data is a factor but nearly not as much as the other two) left them backed into a corner.
Left with no choice, they decided it’s “choice” for all.
For school officials still holding out (and there are some in Chicagoland as well as Chicago Public Schools), remaining beholden to a shadowy mandate determined to be unlawful by a judge and upheld by an appellate court, I’d advise to read the appellate ruling.
Your emperor has no clothes.
Governor Moot is null and void.
For story ideas, article comments/feedback, media inquiries and more, drop note to jon@jonjkerr.com, or @jonjkerr on Twitter.
The Judge has ordered CPS & Libertyville so far to appear in court in person on Jan 25th in Springfield on charges of contempt, Which can lead to jail time by any that disobey the order, If the CPS only sends legal council the CPS persons can have a warrant for arrest if they do not appear in person. Like any other failure to appear, Time to force the CPS that you have to obey the law, We downstate are tired of the CPS-CTU think they are above the law, As I live about 45 min from Springfield. I can bet that Court room will be filled, The CPS & CTU need to serve a little time in a downstate Jail. I am sure we will be happy to get a bed for them & cold breakfast.