An effort by a group of lawmakers, ministers and private citizens to challenge Governor Greg Abbott's ability to make executive orders during the pandemic has been halted in its tracks after The Supreme Court of Texas rejected the case.
In denying a writ of mandamus, the court said it lacked jurisdiction because the petition bypassed the traditional legal process and was filed directly to the Supreme Court.
The group had challenged the Governor's right to issue executive orders. "Governor Abbott's numerous executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic violate the separation of powers doctrine, and numerous provisions in the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights" their petition claimed.
The group includes Rep. William Zedler (R-Arlington) Rep. Kyle Biedermann (R-Fredericksburg) and various professionals.
While the petition was denied, it's clear some justices are uneasy about the challenges to the Texas State Constitution.
"While we entrust our health and safety to politically accountable officials, we must not do so at the expense of basic constitutional architecture. We should not, as we've recently said "abandon the Constitution at the moment we need it most." wrote Justice John Devine in a concurring opinion. "The challenged orders in this case, which temporarily suspend the right of nonessential business owners to make a living, were issued by the Governor under Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code. Relators here challenge these orders on multiple grounds. They do so through an original mandamus petition, naming the Governor as the real party in interest. I doubt, however, that this is the proper vehicle to make such a challenge."
"You are going to have to challenge Governor Abbott's orders through the normal procedures afforded by the courts where you're going to have to file a lawsuit against Governor Abbott then bring it through the normal appellate process." said attorney Ed Klein, a legal analyst for KRLD.
The suit does not affect other lawsuits brought by various bar owners who claim the Governor's orders have singled them out unfairly. And in the concurring opinion, Justice Devine hinted there may be further need to clarify the powers of the Governor.
"According to the State, we need not bother with this case because the challenged orders will expire before we are able to opine on their legality. This argument, however, overlooks the reality that Texans potentially face a second wave of coronavirus cases. And with a second wave of coronavirus cases comes a second wave of executive orders—the latter of which will be made under a still-existing state of disaster proclaimed under a still-existing (constitutionally questionable) statute." he wrote.
