Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Massachusetts
  3. DUT-MA-020

Ex. DUT-MA-020 Standing duty Primary source read

Desrosiers v. Governor, 486 Mass. 369, SJC-12983 (argued Sept. 11, 2020; decided Dec. 10, 2020)

Decision holding that the Civil Defense Act authorized the Governor's March 10, 2020 declaration and the COVID-19 emergency orders, that the Public Health Act does not displace the Act, and that the orders and their penalties are constitutional

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, Kafker, JJ.; opinion by Budd, J.) · Massachusetts (Court)

The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Level
Court
Authority
Reservation and report from the Superior Court (Worcester County); St. 1950, c. 639; G.L. c. 17, s. 2A; G.L. c. 111
Issued
2020-12-10 Dec. 10, 2020
Effective
2020-12-10
End
standing (statement of law) (read as 2021-09-30)
In force
Standing since Dec. 10, 2020 (a statutory duty; in force throughout the six quarters)
Quarters
2020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
Limitation types
Emergency declarationBusiness closureGathering capStanding duty
Addressees
  • persons generally; all businesses and organizations addressed by the emergency orders
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Massachusetts DUT-MA

Operative words

We conclude that the CDA provides authority for the Governor's March 10, 2020, declaration of a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and for the issuance of the subsequent emergency orders; the emergency orders do not violate art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and the emergency orders do not violate the plaintiffs' Federal or State constitutional rights

Penalty

Confirms the s. 8 criminal penalty and the orders' civil fines as lawful exercises of delegated police power

What it required

The court described the orders as having 'required all businesses and other organizations not providing designated COVID-19 essential services to close premises to workers, customers, and the public,' quoted s. 7 (the Governor 'shall have and may exercise any and all authority over persons and property, necessary or expedient for meeting said state of emergency'), and held at note 22 that 'the penalties that are provided for in some of the emergency orders, see, e.g., Order No. 13, are provided pursuant to the CDA. See St. 1950, c. 639, s. 8 ("Whoever violates any provision of [an executive order or general regulation promulgated by the governor under the CDA]... shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than [$500], or both").' Character as recorded: adjudication (orders upheld).

Retrieval note

Pin cites from the exhibit's page markers: authority under the CDA at 376-379 ('other natural causes' encompasses the pandemic); relation to the Public Health Act at 379-381; note 22 (penalties) at 385; conclusion at 392-393. The court also recorded that the emergency orders 'placed restrictions on daily activities' including gathering caps, school closures, the suspension of on-premises service and the closure of non-essential premises (486 Mass. at 370-371).