Legal ramifications of waiving covid restrictions for Floyd protests

[Bricker]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s not about others breaking the law but about government policy towards others who break the law.

It’s as if the government explicitly decided to stop enforcing speeding laws in certain politically-connected parts of the state while continuing to enforce them vigorously in parts dominated by the political opposition. Absent a racial angle, does the selectiveness of the enforcement policy have no legal import?

It’s an uphill climb – you’d need to be able to show that there were no other factors in play. For example, arrests and prosecutions both before and after the protests for other gatherings of similar size and danger might be useful, but the government can certainly claim that we arrested these five people because they were the only ones there and didn’t try to arrest protesters because there were 5,000 there and we feared bloodshed.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bricker

It’s an uphill climb – you’d need to be able to show that there were no other factors in play. For example, arrests and prosecutions both before and after the protests for other gatherings of similar size and danger might be useful, but the government can certainly claim that we arrested these five people because they were the only ones there and didn’t try to arrest protesters because there were 5,000 there and we feared bloodshed.

Conversely, such claims by the government might be an uphill climb if their leaders (e.g. Governor Murphy and Mayor De Blasio) have publically stated that the reason for the differing standards is that in their opinion the Floyd protest issues were more important than social distancing requirements.

Which brings back to the question in the OP. Suppose the government says in court what they’ve said at press conferences (or are possibly estopped from saying otherwise) and their legal position is effectively “from a technical legal standpoint all these gatherings are in violation of the orders, but we decided to enforce it in some cases because we judged them less important than the health risk, but decided not to enforce them in the case of the Floyd protests because we judged these protests to be more important than the health risks”, is that legally sound, or are they on shaky ground?

FWIW, there has been a lawsuit filed over these issues, but I have no idea of whether the legal arguments are valid.

[RitterSport]

@Urbanredneck

As long as the protests support democrats and the liberal agenda, they should waive any restrictions.

I mean, isnt that what they have been saying when they encourage people to protest Trump and any conservatives?

WTactualF? Do you not recall the marches on the various state houses? Do you remember the picture of the unmasked guy yelling directly into the face of the police officer keeping the protesters from going further into the statehouse?

Please provide a cite that those protests supported Democrats and the liberal agenda. Thanks!

[iamthewalrus_3]

There were actual protests by (generally) conservative people against the shutdown orders. Were any of those people arrested? I remember people on this forum arguing that they should be, but I don’t believe any were.

It’s by far the closest example but on the other side of the political spectrum. Opening your place of business or organizing an event in your backyard is very different.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Court decision: N.Y. Officials’ Endorsement of Anti-Racism Protests Leads to Successful Religious Freedom Challenge to Gathering Ban