WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a request to issue a temporary restraining order sought by people challenging Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s stay-at-home order in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake issued the order in response to a lawsuit filed by a group that included Del. Dan Cox, a Frederick Republican.

The plaintiffs were identified in court documents as individuals threatened with arrest if they violated the executive orders or who objected to having to comply; businesses deemed non-essential; and religious leaders whose ability to hold religious services has been affected by the orders, which they called unlawful.

Also, the plaintiffs argued that Hogan violated a portion of the Maryland Declaration of Rights by “silencing a legislator who wished to speak about an issue and by refusing to exempt legislators from the prohibitions in his executive orders.”

Court documents indicated Cox said he was threatened with criminal prosecution if he attended a ReOpen Maryland rally on May 2 which was held in protest to Hogan’s executive order. At issue was the prohibition on large gatherings.

“I think everybody has a right to protest and express their feelings,” Hogan said on CNN on May 3. “A couple of dozen people did so yesterday. And they have every right to do that. We — sadly, we had far more people die yesterday in Maryland than we had protesters.”

Nine ministers and a deacon were also plaintiffs in the case, arguing that they didn’t have the resources or equipment to broadcast their worship services online or to hold parking lot or drive-in services. They said even if they could, their members didn’t necessarily have the resources to watch online.

Two military veterans also voiced objections to Hogan’s executive orders because they said having to wear a mask to cover their faces when entering a business reminded them of the battlefield in Iraq, according to the document.

“Public officials cannot responsibly exercise their broad authority to protect the health of the entire community without considering the data, the science, and the advice of experienced public health professionals,” Blake wrote. She said the governor “has made reasonable choices informed, if not dictated by, such data, science and advice.”

Blake said the plaintiffs’ opposition to Hogan’s order “minimize the risks of this pandemic but cite no contrary scientific authority.”

(© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (4)
  1. Earl S Oxley says:

    Corrupt FBI, no wonder corrupt Judges

    1. Frank says:

      yeah its sad. We see our rhino governor throwing our bill of rights out the window. And the rhino judges have his back. This state is run by morons, and the sad part is this state will elect a governor who will raise taxes and take more of our rights away. Dear democrats….. please move to California.

  2. CHW says:

    They should have cited constitutional case law and dicta (maybe they did??) in that some of the rules or laws Hogan enacted were not narrowly tailored to achieve the goal without undue infringement or burdens on constitutional rights. The Federal Constitution, and thus, pretty sure the State Constitution, harbors no exceptions for pandemics. Further, with respect to the judges comments, perhaps their authority is too broad. Nice that Hogan accepts that people have the “right to protest and express their feelings…”, its just that he doesn’t care.

  3. jabusse says:

    Gay judge appointed by Clinton. Has the ability to find law where none exists.

Leave a Reply