During an interview on Tuesday with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Attorney General William Barr said that he had several qualms with regard to stay-at-home orders issued by state governors across the country, and suggested he may seek legal action against those he believed went beyond constitutional bounds.
Barr tried to explain to Hewitt how the Justice Department might go about compelling states to lessen or remove their orders, which were initially put in place to lessen the spread of COVID-19.
“If we think one goes too far, we initially try to jawbone the governors into rolling them back or adjusting them,” Barr said. “If they’re not and people bring lawsuits, we file statement of interest and side with the plaintiffs.”
“These are unprecedented burdens on civil liberties right now. You know, the idea that you have to stay in your house is disturbingly close to house arrest,” Barr explained, adding the caveat that in some places, stay-at-home orders “might still be justified.”
Barr’s comments, however, do not appear to match reality. House arrest is generally viewed as confinement in one’s home as an alternative to a prison sentence. There are strict guidelines on how one can behave, and limits on where a person can travel, if at all.
Conversely, while 90 percent of the population is currently under some form of a stay-at-home order, such decrees are not as hardline as most house arrest arrangements are. People are generally not limited by these orders from going outside or walking in parks, for example. Some activities are limited, but they are also, in many circumstances, not heavily enforced in a lot of areas.
Still, Barr seemed to tout the line pushed by President Donald Trump, that stay-at-home orders should begin to be lifted, in his view. “We are now seeing that these are bending the curve, and we have to come up with more targeted approaches,” he suggested.
Barr added that he thought Trump’s plan for “reopening” state economies across the U.S. was “superb and very commonsensical,” in spite of the fact that it lacks the means to amp up testing to measure success rates.
Health experts disagree, with many arguing that opening things up now would be a mistake and risks creating a “second wave” of COVID-19 infections.
If Barr does indeed intend to join in lawsuits against states from residents, he may be limited in doing so due to precedent set by the Supreme Court. In a decision about mandatory smallpox vaccinations made in the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Court held that, “in every well-ordered society … the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”
In other words, a person has certain rights, but where dangerous circumstances arise, those rights can be suspended in a just manner. Stay-at-home orders may fit those criteria.
Most across the country disagree with calls to end the stay-at-home orders. According to a recently published Reuters/Ipsos poll, 72 percent of Americans say stay-at-home orders should remain in place “until the doctors and public health officials say it is safe.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.