by Robert Fojo | May 29, 2020 | Constitutional Law, Executive Power, Litigation |
This afternoon, the Hillsborough County Superior Court scheduled a hearing for June 18, 2020, at 9 a.m., on our client’s lawsuit challenging Governor Sununu’s “state of emergency” declaration and the City of Nashua’s recent enactment of an ordinance requiring individuals to wear face masks. Like the school closure lawsuit, this action contains another troubling revelation about government transparency and whether local governments are following the rule of law during this “pandemic.” The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Nashua resident, challenges (1) Governor Christopher T. Sununu’s Executive Orders 2020-08 and 2020-09, which extended New Hampshire’s declaration of a state of emergency until June 5, 2020 (totaling 84 days); and (2) and the City of Nashua’s enactment of an ordinance (O-20-018) requiring individuals who enter any business, who are present in any outdoor area serviced by a business, or who enter or are present in the communal spaces of any commercial or residential building with two or more units to wear face masks or coverings. The lawsuit, like the first action we filed on behalf of Mary Rivard, and the lawsuit challenging the Governor’s order closing schools and implementing remote instruction, also includes an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor and the City from enforcing the orders and the ordinance, respectively. More specifically, the lawsuit addresses two main concerns, the second of which is more troubling and was referenced above. First, this lawsuit includes the same principal argument underlying the Rivard and school closure lawsuits: the purpose for, and supposed “emergency” underlying, Governor Sununu’s original shutdown orders in March 2020 was that New Hampshire needed to “slow the spread” of the Coronavirus so the...
by Robert Fojo | May 27, 2020 | Constitutional Law, Executive Power, Litigation |
This morning, we filed the firm’s third lawsuit challenging Governor Sununu’s “state of emergency” declaration, and also challenging the City of Nashua’s recent enactment of an ordinance requiring individuals to wear face masks. Like the school closure lawsuit, this action contains another troubling revelation about government transparency and whether local governments are following the rule of law during this “pandemic.” The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Nashua resident, challenges (1) Governor Christopher T. Sununu’s Executive Orders 2020-08 and 2020-09, which extended New Hampshire’s state of emergency until June 5, 2020 (totaling 84 days); and (2) and the City of Nashua’s enactment of an ordinance (O-20-018) requiring individuals who enter any business, who are present in any outdoor area serviced by a business, or who enter or are present in the communal spaces of any commercial or residential building with two or more units to wear face masks or coverings. The lawsuit, like the first action we filed on behalf of Mary Rivard, and the lawsuit challenging the Governor’s order closing schools and implementing remote instruction, also includes an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor and the City from enforcing the orders and the ordinance, respectively. Contact us for a FREE consultation! More specifically, the lawsuit addresses two main concerns, the second of which is more troubling and was referenced above. First, this lawsuit includes the same principal argument underlying the Rivard and school closure lawsuits: the purpose for, and supposed “emergency” underlying, Governor Sununu’s original shutdown orders in March 2020 was that New Hampshire needed to “slow the spread” of the Coronavirus so the state’s healthcare...
by Robert Fojo | May 26, 2020 | Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Executive Power, Litigation |
This morning, the Rockingham County Superior Court scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday, June 2, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. on our clients’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against Governor Christopher T. Sununu’s Executive Orders 2020-08 and 2020-09, which extended New Hampshire’s state of emergency until June 5, 2020 (totaling 84 days); (2) Governor Sununu’s Emergency Orders #1, #19, and #32, and the New Hampshire Department of Education’s “emergency” amendment to one of its internal rules, ED 306.18(a)(7), all of which collectively canceled the rest of the 2019-2020 school year for all New Hampshire public schools, and substituted in its place an inadequate system of remote instruction that is failing to meet the needs of students across the state; and (3) the Salem School District’s implementation of remote instruction pursuant to the directives above. The Honorable Andrew R. Schulman denied the emergency request, for the time being, because he prefers Governor Sununu, the Department, and the Salem School District be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Court rules. (Judge Schulman labeled the request for a ruling without notice (known as an “ex parte” request) “wholly inappropriate.” The Defendants’ actions, however, in changing a Department rule overnight without notice to the public, and then waiting six days to post it online, is what is truly “inappropriate.”). The June 2 hearing takes place one week earlier than the hearing in the Rivard lawsuit. Late last week, we filed the firm’s second lawsuit challenging Governor Sununu’s shutdown orders, and this action contains a potentially explosive revelation that calls into question the transparency of our government officials and whether they...
by Robert Fojo | May 22, 2020 | Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Executive Power, Litigation |
This morning, we filed the firm’s second lawsuit challenging Governor Sununu’s shutdown orders, and this action contains a potentially explosive revelation that calls into question the transparency of our government officials and whether they have any desire to follow the rule of law during this “pandemic.” The lawsuit, on behalf of a father and his child (of Salem, New Hampshire), challenges (1) Governor Christopher T. Sununu’s Executive Orders 2020-08 and 2020-09, which extended New Hampshire’s state of emergency until June 5, 2020 (totaling 84 days); (2) Governor Sununu’s Emergency Orders #1, #19, and #32, and the New Hampshire Department of Education’s “emergency” amendment to one of its internal rules, ED 306.18(a)(7), all of which collectively canceled the rest of the 2019-2020 school year for all New Hampshire public schools, and substituted in its place an inadequate system of remote instruction that is failing to meet the needs of students across the state; and (3) the Salem School District’s implementation of remote instruction pursuant to the directives above. The lawsuit, like the first action we filed on behalf of Mary Rivard, also includes an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor, the Department of Education, and the Salem School District from enforcing these orders and rules. Contact us for a FREE consultation! More specifically, the lawsuit addresses two main concerns, the second of which is more troubling and was referenced above. First, this lawsuit includes the same principal argument underlying the Rivard lawsuit: the purpose for, and supposed “emergency” underlying, Governor Sununu’s original shutdown orders in March 2020 was that New Hampshire needed to “slow the spread” of the...
by Robert Fojo | May 18, 2020 | Constitutional Law, Executive Power, Litigation |
Today, the Merrimack County Superior Court scheduled a hearing for June 9, 2020, at 11 a.m., on hair salon owner Mary Rivard’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining Governor Christopher T. Sununu’s Executive Order 2020-08 and Emergency Order #40, which extended New Hampshire’s state of emergency for a second 21-day period and extended the shutdown of “non-essential” businesses through May 31, 2020. (This past Friday, May 15, 2020, Governor Sununu issued Executive Order 2020-09, which extended New Hampshire’s state of emergency a third time for another 21-day period, through June 5, 2020. That Executive Order, and any future orders extending the state of emergency declaration will be made part of the June 9 hearing.) The Honorable Richard B. McNamara neither granted nor denied Ms. Rivard’s request for a temporary restraining order but had requested a hearing be scheduled “at the Court’s early convenience.” That hearing is now scheduled for June 9. In the first lawsuit filed in mid-March challenging the shutdown, the same Court denied a similar emergency request within 24 hours and then dismissed the case. Last week, we filed a lawsuit on Ms. Rivard’s behalf challenging Governor Sununu’s orders. Like other lawsuits elsewhere in the country, we filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order requesting that the Court conclude Governor Sununu’s orders are void because he lacked the authority under the applicable statute to continue renewing New Hampshire’s “state of emergency.” Governor Sununu’s original shutdown orders in March 2020 were designed to “slow the spread” of the Coronavirus so New Hampshire’s healthcare system would not be overwhelmed. Over a month later, there was no question New...
