National Roundup

Illinois
State high court consolidates lawsuits on Pritzker orders
CHICAGO (AP) — The Illinois Supreme Court declined to take on a downstate legal battle over Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s coronavirus-related orders on Tuesday, moving the case to Sangamon County and consolidating it with a similar challenge.

The decision comes as the first-term Democrat was expected in a Clay County courtroom this week after a judge rule d Pritzker exceeded his authority in issuing orders aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

Pritzker’s orders have faced several legal challenges, which courts have mostly upheld. But in Clay County, Republican Rep. Darren Bailey of Xenia sued over the restrictions, claiming Pritzker exceeded his authority under state statutes. Judge Michael McHaney ruled in his favor last month.

Pritzker had dismissed the ruling as “ridiculous,” noting others in his favor.

However, Bailey’s attorney Tom DeVore accused Pritzker of breaching the ruling. Haney set a Friday hearing for Pritzker to explain.

On Monday, the Illinois attorney general’s office requested the state Supreme Court intervene on both the hearing and “the underlying legal question raised by the case.”

“From the outset, the circuit court has departed from ordinary procedures and shown an open hostility to the governor, his emergency actions, and the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic itself,” the motion said.

On Tuesday, the court issued a stay, pausing the Clay County proceedings, including Friday’s hearing. Later in the day it denied the request to take up the case. In the Sangamon County lawsuit, also filed by DeVore, business owners challenged an extension of a stay-at-home order.

“There is no legal basis for the governor to be held in contempt for his efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Annie Thompson, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office. “We are pleased the Supreme Court granted our request to stay that issue so that it does not continue to serve as an unnecessary distraction from the important matter at hand.”

Also Tuesday, a state panel approved Pritzker’s emergency rules allowing public health officials to issue fines to businesses that don’t comply with a statewide mask mandate.

Oregon
U.S. judge: Cities cannot fine people for living outside
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon city has joined Boise, Idaho, in eliciting a precedent-setting court ruling that could change how cities nationwide cite and fine people living outside.

A U.S. judge decided last month that Grants Pass, Oregon, violated its homeless residents’ Eighth Amendment rights by excluding them from parks without due process and citing them for sleeping outside, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.

The ruling builds on the landmark 2018 Martin v. City of Boise case that said cities cannot make it illegal for people to sleep or rest outside without providing sufficient indoor alternatives.

Grants Pass City Attorney Mark Bartholomew said the city plans to appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year refused to hear the Martin case, forcing cities to rethink how their policies and law enforcement officials handle growing populations of people without housing.

In Grants Pass, people have been complaining for years to the Oregon Law Center office that their ability to rest was made impossible by local ordinances.

Debra Blake was one of them. She lost her job and then her housing about 10 years ago and lives in Grants Pass. On Sept. 11, 2019, Blake was lying in her sleeping bag in a park when she was cited for illegal camping and prohibited conduct. The same day she was cited for criminal trespass on city property.

The fines with those tickets totaled $885 and she was also excluded from the parks. The city has said Blake owes $5,000 in stacked up fines and fees.

She is one of several people who joined the case, many with similar debts.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke wrote in his July 22 ruling, “Let us not forget that homeless individuals are citizens just as much as those fortunate enough to have a secure living space,” he said.

Many cities and counties were thrown by the Boise case, which has been widely interpreted as saying that it is unconstitutional to arrest people for what are called “sit-lie laws” -- resting and sleeping in public -- if the jurisdiction does not provide adequate shelter or affordable housing.

The Boise case was based in part on the Eighth Amendment -- that arresting homeless people for simply being homeless is cruel and unusual punishment.

Clarke went further in the Grants Pass case, saying the city’s policies amount to excessive fines for doing something that all humans must do -- sleeping, staying dry, staying warm, sitting down -- only applied to a small group of humans.

“Those activities are just unavoidable and tied up in the status of being unhoused,” said Ed Johson, head of the Oregon Law Center.

Johnson said the decision still leaves room for cities and counties to regulate how and where people camp.

“I hope what cities take from it they have a wide range of tools at their disposal, but the tools are not punishing people in their community who have no choice but to be living outside,” Johnson said.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty joined the Oregon Law Center in taking Grants Pass to court. Tristia Bauman, senior attorney, said she hopes the Boise and Grants Pass cases push cities to rethink how they invest in dealing with homelessness now that criminal and civil punishments can be unconstitutional, if broadly applied.

Minnesota
Fire department trainer alleges interference by officials
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A former St. Paul fire district chief has filed a federal lawsuit alleging the fire department’s leaders interfered with the training of recruits and that created risks for the public and fellow firefighters.

Jovan Palmieri was the training chief before he left the fire department last year. His lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Monday says he spent more than three years trying to remedy the training problems and was retaliated against.

Palmieri “opposed and reported what he reasonably believed to be violations of national and state firefighter training standards,” the lawsuit said.

Palmieri said he observed Fire Chief Butch Inks and Assistant Chief Mike Gaede “engage in multiple incidents of interference and obstruction in the proper and safe training” of recruits, the St Paul Pioneer Press reported.

Inks said in a statement that “as a 26-year veteran of the St. Paul Fire Department, the safety of our firefighters and all those we serve has always been my top priority.”

Palmieri alleges Inks intervened on behalf of recruits who weren’t meeting the required training standards, and they graduated over the objections of Palmieri and training staff.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $75,000.