Editorial |
Lora Fox and Melissa Roberge
Masks in Schools By statute, the local board of education has the authority to “manage and control all public schools established.”1 Courts interpret this grant of authority broadly to include the power to regulate the dress and appearance of students while they are in school.2 Mask requirements are an extension of the board’s authority over students and teachers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Tennessee schools received considerable guidance from the Tennessee Department of Education on opening, closing, providing online classes, training staff, and meeting the needs of special populations.3 The Tennessee Department of Health recommended that CDC guidelines be followed in schools. (The CDC recommended that teachers, staff, and students wear cloth face coverings, as able, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.)4 In the locally litigated case Citizens for Limited Government and Constitutional Integrity, Inc., d/b/a Recall Williamson, et al. v. Jason Golden, in his capacity as Superintendent for Williamson County Schools, et al., plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged Williamson County Schools’ mask requirements for students.5 In an order entered April 30, 2021, Chancellor Michael W. Binkley determined that mask mandates did not constitute an equal protection violation under the Tennessee Constitution.6 The Court held
22
that strict scrutiny did not apply because the face-covering requirement did not disadvantage a suspect class or involve a fundamental right; and the mask policy passed the rational basis test. While the Court expressed uncertainty about whether mask mandates were permitted after the Governor’s and Mayor’s orders mandating them had expired, the Court dismissed all claims against the school system because the Plaintiffs lacked standing.7 8 Similarly in ARJN #3, LLC, d/b/a Jonathan’s Grille, et al. v. John Cooper, et al., U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson determined that health-based restrictions are reviewed through a rational-basis test; and the party challenging the government action must negate every conceivable basis for the restriction.9 ARJN #3 was a challenge brought by the Nashville restaurant Jonathan’s Grille against officials of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, asserting that the Health Director’s Orders mandating restaurant curfews and occupancy restrictions violated the restaurant’s right to equal protection and its substantive due process rights under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. Judge Richardson determined that rational-basis review was appropriate because the health orders did not implicate
NASHVILLE BAR JOURNAL | AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2021
(continued on page 23)
