The Illinois 4th District Court of Appeals has upheld the temporary restraining order on masks and vaccine mandates handed down by Sangamon County Judge Raylene Grischow.
The court called the appeal request “moot” after a JCAR, a 12-member committee divided evenly between the House and Senate, and between Democrats and Republicans, suspended the requirement’s renewal earlier this week. The executive order officially expired on Sunday, Feb. 13, because emergency rules cannot stay in place for more than 150 days.
“While the public is rightfully interested in the propriety of the circuit court’s determination that the emergency rules are ‘null and void,’ such circumstances do not automatically make the issue one of a public nature as defined by the public-interest exception,” the ruling says. “Further, given the changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic—which affects the State defendants’ response to the pandemic—and JCAR’s decision on February 15, 2022, it is not clear these same rules would likely be reinstated. As a result, we do not find the public-interest exception applies in this case.”
After many schools moved to mask-optional policies after the Sangamon County Court TRO, this ruling means school districts throughout the state no longer must require students and staff to mask up, but the ruling does states that the TRO “in no way restrains school districts from acting independently from the executive orders or the IDPH in creating provisions addressing COVID-19.”
Justice Holder White wrote in dissent, “I agree with the majority’s conclusion that because JCAR declined to extend the emergency rules at issue in this appeal, that issue is moot. I also agree that the public interest exception does not apply. As to whether the circuit court properly enjoined enforcement of the Governor’s executive orders, I find that issue is not moot where defendants asserted the Governor implemented masking, exclusion, and testing through the executive orders pursuant to his authority under the Illinois Emergency Management Act (20 ILCS 3305/7 (West 2020)), and plaintiffs challenge that authority. Thus, I would find this issue is not moot. As it stands, the majority’s decision leaves open the question of whether the circuit court properly enjoined the enforcement of the executive orders.”
