Legal Precedents

Many parents claim that their right to choose supersedes the power of schools and local governments to instate mask mandates. We need to examine America’s legal tradition that is grounded in the Constitution and backed by hundreds of years of legal precedents, as well as a plethora of recent examples, to determine the validity of this viewpoint. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from directly imposing a mask mandate on the states, but state and local health authorities do have this power. Local health authorities actually have much broader power than people imagine; Pennsylvania’s Disease Prevention and Control Law, passed in 1955, grants state and local health departments the authority to “carry out the appropriate control measures in such manner and in such place as is provided by rule or regulation” in the case of a disease “which is subject to isolation, quarantine, or any other control measure.” COVID-19 fits the bill. 

And several legal precedents, most notably Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case establishing the legality of vaccine mandates, have asserted that a local government is within its power to implement safety measures in the name of public health. 

Legal challenges to mask mandates have been struck down across the country, although not unanimously; successful attempts to overturn mandates have been the exception, not the norm, and have not successfully challenged any fundamental understanding of the Constitutional definition of personal liberty.

In Tandon v. Newsom, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that California did not have the right to limit the gathering of an at-home Bible study group even if it violated COVID-19 restrictions. But the Court ruled this way because the plaintiff was able to prove that the religious activity was being held to stricter health and safety standards than other secular activities in the state; in most other cases regarding religious activities, such as Denis v. Ige and Delaney v. Baker, mask mandates have been upheld when people have challenged on religious grounds. And recently, a federal judge in Texas ruled that Governor Abbott’s ban on mask mandates in schools is unlawful, violating the rights of students with disabilities.

Broadly, courts have ruled that mask mandates do not curb freedom of speech, assembly, or religion; that they do not amount to unwanted medical treatment; that they do not discriminate against a protected class or violate any fundamental rights; and that parental liberty does not extend so far as to prohibit schools from instating measures to protect students from a contagious and deadly virus.

As Suzanne Eckes, an education law professor, points out, “Parental rights in the public school context have never been absolute.” Schools are able to enforce certain rules for students, like a dress code and ban on profane language. It’s understood that certain rules are in place for schools to operate safely for students and staff.  

NA’s Code of Conduct prohibits students from bringing weapons to school, making terroristic threats, cyberbullying, and cheating. When signing off on the Code of Conduct agreement at the beginning of each school year, students even agree to not lie, sext, eat outside the cafeteria, do “inappropriate displays of affection,” or possess laser pointers. No parents or students are protesting against these restrictions.