Supreme Court Amends Order Regarding Masking in Illinois Courthouses
The Illinois Supreme Court today announced a change to its order on masking in Illinois Courthouses in order to conform to recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
The amendment to the Court’s August 27, 2020, order on Illinois Courts Response to COVID-19 Emergency (M.R. 30370) is available on the Court website by clicking here.
“Over the past year, the Court has done its best to follow the most recent advice from the relevant health professionals,” Chief Justice Anne M. Burke said. “The CDC now advises that it is unnecessary for vaccinated people to be masked in most circumstances. We have revised our order to account for this change in CDC guidance.”
The Supreme Court’s order sets the CDC rule as a “baseline” for masking requirements – it should be clear that unvaccinated persons must still be masked. The recommendation of temperature checks has also been removed from the amended order. Additionally, local jurisdictions may choose to be more protective than the CDC guidance.
The Illinois Judicial Conference’s Court Operations During COVID-19 Task Force (Task Force) proposed to the Court the amendment to M.R. 30370. The Task Force was created in June 2020 to serve as a rapid response unit to address ongoing challenges to court operations caused by the pandemic. The Chair of the Task Force is J. Timothy Eaton, Partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and the Vice Chair is Chief Judge Eugene Doherty of the 17th Circuit.
Member Comments (8)
Recent studies have indicated that people who have had Covid don't need to be vaccinated, as they have long term built up immunity. It seems that they, as well, as those who have been vaccinated, don't need to wear masks but are going to be required to under this Order. In addition, there is no instruction on how courthouse pesonnel are to determine if a person has been vaccinated when they attempt to enter a courthouse (i.e., require proof, just take their word?). And leaving it up to each courthouse to determine if they want to impose more strict guidliness is really making it a hodgepodge of confusion. Either require everyone to wear a mask or no one - statewide.
Alan
i would love to see a link to those studies. I had been told that having had COVID gives some protection but the vaccine gives more. this study would be of comfort to some people I know if it is true.
It would seem that when you go through the security checkpoint you should have to show your shot receipt or should have to wear a mask. You cannot trust some of our population who do not believe in masks or shots to follow rules without verification.
As a further comment now that we are using Zoom.....which should have been allowed years ago... a Supreme Court Rule should make remote access an option except for jury trials when covid-19 it no longer a concern.
I agree that there needs to be proof of vacination for all our protection. Courthouses are very public and crowded places with a heightened risk for infection. Please don't put judges, attorneys and court personnel in danger for doing their job.
"Not with a bang, but with a whimper." Isn't my personal health information, well, personal? What about other conditions or communicable diseases? Why stop at a COVID 'passport?' Mandate implantion of a chip containing any health information the authorities think they need 'for the greater good.' Take away all the 'priveleges' of persons whom are noncompliant in the interest of some 'greater good' (According to whom? Is there a council or a committe?) If you teach your children anything other than what the government (or social media) says you must, or you fail to have them vaccinated, the school should kick your kids out and DCFS should take them from you for abuse and neglect. 'Murica! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
Requiring a card with Healthcare information to enter a public place based upon a person's medical information? And the failure to do so, would result in being treated differently? Apparently, the right to keep your medical information private is no longer a right.
The original requirement for mask wearing by all is much more reasonable, and legally supportable. The CDC and those entities that issue edicts need to make a decision that applies to every individual and doesn't require the sharing of medical information. Such as, all must wear masks or masks are not required regardless of your personal health status. There are many folks who are already immune due to prior infection, as well as many folks that can not risk the vaccine due to other health conditions.
My legal research on rights during a pandemic-which was published in the Illinois bar journal - indicates that mandatory vaccination laws were upheld following 1918. Since that is true, wouldn't the requirement that somebody prove they have had a vaccination also be lawful?
I dunno. 102 years old is a pretty old precedent. A great deal of law was considered Constitutional over the last 100 years, much of which would now unthinkable by today's standards. Worth noting: The Supreme Court hadn't invented the fundamental right to privacy yet.