By JEFF LAMPE
For The Weekly Post
Two years of students and teachers wearing masks came to an abrupt end this week at some Illinois schools, but not all.
A ruling by Toulon native and Sangamon County Circuit Judge Raylene DeWitte Grischow last Friday at 5 p.m. prompted the change. In response to a request from attorney Tom DeVore of Greenville, Grischow issued a temporary restraining order on Gov. JB Pritzker’s executive orders requiring masking and quarantining for Illinois schools.
DeVore filed two lawsuits, one on behalf of parents against 146 districts and another by school employees against 21 districts. Grischow’s ruling extended beyond the lawsuits, as she has declared void the emergency rules issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Illinois State Board of Education.
“Thus, non-named Plaintiffs and School Districts throughout this State may govern themselves accordingly,” Grischow wrote in a footnote to her decision.
Response was mixed among nearby schools. Both Galva and Stark County schools are still requiring masks to be worn, pending a final ruling by the Appellate Court, which is considering an appeal of Grischow’s ruling.
A local district in the lawsuit is Brimfield, which could be ruled in contempt of court if it attempted to enforce the mask requirement. As of Monday, Brimfield had dropped its mandate, making mask wearing optional.
Elmwood, Princeville and Wethersfield are among the schools that this week voted to make masks optional or recommended.
Williamsfield opted to keep a mask requirement at least until its Feb. 15 board meeting.
In all cases, federal law still requires masks to be worn on school buses. And, as has been true throughout the pandemic, this could change quickly. Pritzker sought an appeal immediately after Grischow’s decision was announced and has asked for a stay to the injunction. While an Appellate Court decision could take up to two weeks, a stay could come within a few days.
At Stark County, Superintendent Brett Elliott posted the following on the district Website.
“In regards to the recent ruling on Friday, February 4, 2022, from the Sangamon County Courts placing a Temporary Restraining Order on Mask Mandates, Vaccination mandates and others school related mitigations, Stark County CUSD #100 was not a part of the lawsuit and will continue to follow our masking and other health guidelines as we have all school year. We ask that all students, staff and visitors, while in the school, continue to mask and honor our health-safety process.
“Stark County CUSD #100 will continue to monitor the appeals process in this court case that must conclude by Feb. 17, 2022. At that time, if any rulings are made that directly impact our school district, we will act accordingly in conjunction with our Board of Education, local health department and Regional Office of Education.”
At Galva, Superintendent Jerry Becker posted a letter that included the following:
“The goal of the District from the beginning of this school year was to stay in-person every day. I am proud that we have accomplished this the entire school year and I am thankful for your support and understanding despite many who feel some, if not all, of the mitigations in school are not necessary and should be removed. I also understand that everyone has COVID exhaustion and ready to move on from here. You are certainly not alone.
“I have recommended a cautious and deliberate approach moving forward after the Sangamon County decision. Galva CUSD #224 was not a litigant in the case and is not subject to the temporary restraining order. Likewise, I do not want to make a hasty decision today that is reversed on us tomorrow, as many of us have witnessed throughout this pandemic. Because of this, we will continue to keep the mitigations in place and prepare for the Appellate decision in the coming days or week(s). However, I do believe now is the time to review and update our Return to Learn plan to prepare our school environment for less mitigations moving forward, the effects this will have on our staff and students, and the ability to stay safely in-person at school.”
In Princeville, Superintendent Shannon Duling released the following after Tuesday’s School Board meeting.
“This evening the Board of Education modified our Return to Learn Plan. Although there were many changes to our existing plan, perhaps the biggest change is that the District has moved to a “masks recommended” strategy for Level 1 (Minimal) and Level 2 (Moderate). Based on the current number of positive COVID cases in the District at this time, the District falls in the Level I (Minimal) category. Therefore, students and staff have the option to wear masks while at school beginning Wednesday, February 9th. The daycare is governed by DCFS regulations and masks will remain mandatory at the daycare.
“…Princeville School District will not enforce IDPH/ISBE Emergency Rules cited as ‘null and void.’ It is also important to understand that the court case has been appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court “could” make a change to the current ruling that may require the District to consider modifying our Return to Learn Plan (require masking). It is likely that this case could move all the way to the Supreme Court before a final ruling is made, however, based on the current ruling, the District will not enforce the IDPH or ISBE Emergency Rules enacted September 17, 2021.”
“At our Board Meeting scheduled for … Feb. 8, the Board will review information from our attorney and determine if we will continue to follow the Governor’s Executive Orders or if the District should ‘govern themselves,’ per the TRO.”
Pritzker issued executive orders in August of 2021 related to the reopening of public schools. IDPH and ISBE then issued rules to implement the orders. That prompted lawsuits against nearly 170 school districts. Cases were eventually consolidated in Sangamon County.
In her ruling, Grischow said that at the time the emergency rules were issued, the Department of Public Health had known about COVID-19 for well over a year and a half and that vaccines had been around for more than nine months. She questioned why rules could not have been developed that would have allowed for public comment and legislative review.
She also noted that state law gives the Department of Public Health authority to issue vaccine mandates. But in this case, IDPH did not issue such a mandate, the governor did, and then the State Board of Education issued rules to carry out the governor’s order – something she said was an improper delegation of an executive branch agency’s authority.
“The court cannot find (nor did any party provide) any law enacted by the state Legislature that grants the IDPH the authority to delegate and transfer its duties and responsibilities to ISBE and local school districts,” Grischow wrote.
She also found that exclusion from school buildings was a form of quarantine, and under state law, people who are ordered quarantined have a right to challenge the order in court and receive due process.
Her order strikes down several provisions of the emergency rules IDPH and ISBE issued in September and specifically restrains the agencies from requiring school districts to enforce mask mandates without a lawful quarantine order from a local health department.
