Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards and Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry have engaged in a war of words in recent weeks, with each presenting opposing views on the legalities of coronavirus measures.
Letters from both statewide elected leaders seemed to end the bipartisan cooperation on Louisiana’s virus response that occurred in March. The debate was touched off on July 11 when Edwards announced a new order mandating face coverings at all commercial establishments and public places, crowd size limits of no more than 50 people and the closure of bars.
Landry then issued a legal opinion on the emergency measure that concluded the three provisions are not enforceable and unconstitutional, since they seem to violate due-process and separation-of-powers provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
Edwards returned fire in a July 16 letter that accused Landry of shifting his views on the legality of pandemic responses for seemingly political reasons.
Edwards’ letter quotes Landry as saying during a March 18 press conference, “Some have asked me if the governor has the authority to take auctions like limiting the size of public gatherings, suspending legal deadlines, and ordering restaurants and bars to limit their service. The short answer is: ‘yes.’”
In response to a query from the Louisiana Record, the Attorney General’s Office provided a letter from Landry rebutting Edwards’ interpretation.
“Things have changed,” the response states. “We now know the severity of this disease and how it is nowhere in the ballpark of predictions made in March, not only because of our previous actions but because the scientific data indicates this to be the case.”
The March data proved off-base on a large scale, according to Landry, and now the state’s response needs to change by an appropriate order of magnitude.
He also accused the governor of inconsistencies when he applauded the actions of large numbers of demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd at the hands of police and not admonishing them for violating previous orders on the need for social distancing.
“The concern, under the law, is that you have seemed to pick and choose who receives the brunt of your executive authority,” Landry wrote this week. “In place of a thoughtful use of your authority, you have decided to punish everyone not marching in the streets or destroying statues.”
Both also accused the other of supporting positions that will lead to frivolous litigation against businesses in the state. If businesses heed Landry’s view that mask wearing should be voluntary, those enterprises not requiring masks will be in violation of general guidelines advocated by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Edwards argued.
At that point, they could lose legal immunity protections from COVID-19 litigation passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor, leading to lawsuits being filed in courts around Louisiana.
Landry, however, said that Edwards’ executive order this month put the burden of enforcement on businesses and that state immunity protection doesn’t protect business owners from litigation filed in federal courts.
“State immunity does not protect our job creators from federal civil rights claims or the myriad of other federal liabilities they may face in executing your edicts,” Landry said.