Wisconsin Supreme Court Restricts Local Health Officers' Power to Close Schools, Upholds Religious Free Exercise Rights

Wisconsin Supreme Court Restricts Local Health Officers' Power to Close Schools, Upholds Religious Free Exercise Rights

Introduction

In the landmark case of Sara Lindsey James, Petitioner, v. Janel Heinrich, Public Health Officer of Madison and Dane County, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed significant issues surrounding the authority of local health officers during public health emergencies and the protection of religious freedoms in educational settings. The case consolidated three petitions challenging Emergency Order #9 issued by Janel Heinrich, which mandated the closure of all public and private schools in Dane County for in-person instruction in grades 3-12, amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The petitioners, including parents and religious schools, argued that the order exceeded statutory authority under Wisconsin Statutes § 252.03 and violated fundamental constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and parental rights in directing their children's education. The respondent, Janel Heinrich, contended that the order was within her statutory powers and constitutional under the precedent set by JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS.

Summary of the Judgment

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, unanimously held that local health officers do not possess the statutory authority under Wis.Stat. § 252.03 to close schools. Furthermore, the court found that the emergency order violated the petitioners' fundamental rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. As a result, the portions of the order restricting or prohibiting in-person instruction were declared unlawful and vacated.

The court emphasized that the Wisconsin Constitution provides broader protections for religious freedoms than the federal Constitution and that state constitutional provisions take precedence over federal ones in this context. The ruling effectively limits the scope of local health officers' powers during public health crises and reinforces the protection of religious educational practices.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment prominently references several key precedents:

  • JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905): A U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld state authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. Heinrich cited this case to defend the emergency order.
  • Wisconsin Legislature v. Palm (2020): A previous case where the court invalidated parts of executive orders related to public health, emphasizing statutory adherence.
  • Coulee Catholic School v. LIRC (2009): Interpreted Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, highlighting its broad protection of religious freedoms.
  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020): Discussed judicial responsibilities in upholding constitutional provisions.

The court relied on these precedents to delineate the boundaries of statutory authority and the supremacy of state constitutional protections over federal interpretations like those in Jacobson.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning unfolded in two main areas: statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis.

Statutory Interpretation

The court meticulously examined Wis.Stat. § 252.03, concluding that it does not expressly grant local health officers the authority to close schools. Employing the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which implies that the expression of one thing excludes others not mentioned, the court determined that the absence of specific language regarding school closures indicates that such powers were not intended to be within the purview of local health officers.

Additionally, the court compared § 252.03 with § 252.02, noting that while the latter explicitly authorizes the Department of Health Services (DHS) to close schools, the former does not. This in pari materia analysis reinforced the interpretation that local health officers lacked statutory authority to issue school closure orders independently.

Constitutional Analysis

While Heinrich argued that JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS justified the order, the court held that state constitutional provisions take precedence over federal interpretations. Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution offers broader protections for the free exercise of religion than the First Amendment does. Applying strict scrutiny, the court found that the order unduly burdened the petitioners' sincerely held religious beliefs without meeting the necessity and minimal intrusion required for such a compelling state interest.

The court also addressed the principle of constitutional avoidance, acknowledging that while it generally avoids constitutional questions when possible, the significant infringement on constitutional rights warranted a direct ruling.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for public health governance and religious freedoms in Wisconsin:

  • Limitations on Local Health Officers: Local health officers are now restricted from unilaterally closing schools, ensuring that such significant decisions require explicit statutory authorization.
  • Protection of Religious Education: Religious schools and parents have stronger legal grounds to oppose government mandates that infringe upon religious educational practices.
  • State Constitutional Supremacy: Reinforces the precedence of state constitutional provisions over federal interpretations, particularly in areas providing broader individual protections.
  • Guidance for Future Public Health Orders: Public health orders must be carefully tailored to remain within statutory authority and avoid infringing on constitutionally protected rights.

Future cases involving public health measures will likely reference this decision to balance governmental authority with individual and religious rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Doctrine of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

This legal doctrine means that the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others not mentioned. In this case, because Wis.Stat. § 252.03 did not explicitly grant local health officers the authority to close schools, it was interpreted that they do not possess this power.

Strict Scrutiny

A rigorous standard of judicial review that requires the law or government action to serve a compelling state interest and to be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court applied this to assess whether the school closure order unjustifiably infringed on religious freedoms.

Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine

A principle advising courts to resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds if possible, thereby avoiding unnecessary constitutional rulings. However, in situations where constitutional rights are significantly impacted, as in this case, the court may proceed to address constitutional issues directly.

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Sara Lindsey James v. Janel Heinrich marks a pivotal moment in delineating the boundaries of public health authority and safeguarding religious freedoms within educational institutions. By reaffirming that local health officers lack explicit statutory power to close schools and emphasizing the paramount importance of state constitutional protections for religious exercise, the court has set a clear precedent. This ruling not only curtails potential overreach by public health officials but also fortifies the rights of religious communities to maintain in-person religious education, even amidst health crises. As Wisconsin navigates ongoing and future public health challenges, this decision will serve as a critical reference point in balancing governmental responses with the preservation of fundamental individual and religious rights.

Disclaimer: This commentary is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified attorney.

Case Details

Year: 2021
Court: STATE OF WISCONSIN IN SUPREME COURT

Judge(s)

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.

Attorney(S)

For the petitioners, there was an opening brief filed by Richard M. Esenberg, Anthony LoCoco, Lucas T. Vebber, Luke N. Berg, Elisabeth Sobic and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Milwaukee; with whom on the brief was Misha Tseytlin, Kevin M. LeRoy, Troutman Pepper, and Hamilton Sanders LLP, Chicago, Illinois; with whom on the brief was Andrew M. Bath and Thomas More Society, Chicago, Illinois; with whom on the brief was Erick Kaardal and Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; with whom on the brief was Joseph W. Voiland and Veterans Liberty Law, Cedarburg; with whom on the brief was Brent Eisberner and Levine Eisberner LLC, Madison; with whom on the brief was Bernardo Cueto, Onalaska. There was an oral argument by Richard M. Esenberg, Misha Tseytlin, and Joseph W. Voiland. For the respondent, there was a brief filed by Remzy D. Bitar, Sadie R. Zurfluh, and Municipal and Litigation Group¸ Waukesha. There was an oral argument by Remzy D. Bitar. For the petitioners Wisconsin Council of Religious and Independent Schools, et al., there was a reply brief filed by Richard M. Esenberg, Anthony LoCoco, Luke N. Berg, Elisabeth Sobic, and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Milwaukee. For the petitioners St. Ambrose Academy, Inc. et al., there was a reply brief filed by Misha Tseytlin, Kevin M. LeRoy, and Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Chicago, Illinois; with whom on the brief was Andrew M. Bath and Thomas More Society, Chicago, Illinois; with whom on the brief was Erick Kaardal and Mohrman, Kaaradal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Attorney General Josh Kaul by Colin A. Hector, assistant attorney general, and Colin T. Roth, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Institute for Justice by Lee U. McGrath, Minneapolis, Minnesota; with whom on the brief was Milad Emam, Arlington, Virginia. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Freedom from Religion Foundation by Brendan Johnson, Patrick C. Elliott, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Madison. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Carolyn Stanford Taylor and Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction by Heather Curnutt, Madison. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of City of Milwaukee by Tearman Spencer, city attorney, and Gregory P. Kruse, city attorney. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Madison Metropolitan School District and Monona Grove School District by Sheila M. Sullivan, Melita M. Mullen, and Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C., Madison. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Madison Teachers Inc., Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, Wisconsin Education Association Council, Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, Racine Educators United, Kenosha Education Association, and Green Bay Education Association by Diane M. Welsh, Aaron G. Dumas, and Pines Bach LLP, Madison. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Governor Tony Evers and Secretary-Designee of Department of Health Services Andrea Palm by Sopen B. Shah and Perkins Coie LLP, Madison. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice by Barry J. Blonien, Tanner Jean-Louis, and Boardman & Clark LLP, Madison. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Liberty Justice Center, Alaska Policy Forum, Pelican Institute For Public Policy, Roughrider Policy Center, Nevada Policy Research Institute, and Rio Grande Foundation by Daniel R. Suhr, Reilly Stephens, and Liberty Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of League of Wisconsin Municipalities by Claire Silverman and Maria Davis, Madison.

Comments