In a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) took a confrontational stance against Ryan Young Park, nominee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. The heated exchange focused on Park’s role as Solicitor General, defending the North Carolina governor’s executive order during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed businesses like Walmart and Lowe’s to remain open while forcing churches to close.
The Argument Over Restrictions
Senator Hawley began his questioning by referring to Park’s defense of the executive order that restricted church gatherings. The order banned indoor gatherings of 10 or more people, with exceptions for certain businesses deemed essential, such as Walmart and Lowe’s. Hawley pressed Park on why churches were not considered essential, implying that this was discriminatory against religious institutions.
Disparity in Treatment
He pointedly asked, “Why is it that Walmart and Lowe’s can be open but churches had to be closed?” This question highlighted the perceived disparity in treatment between religious and commercial entities during the pandemic.
Park’s Defense of His Actions
In response, Ryan Young Park attempted to clarify his role, stating that he was representing the state’s interest as Solicitor General and that he did not personally design the policy. He explained that his involvement in the case was minimal, saying, “I had a brief involvement in that case.” However, Hawley quickly pointed out that as Solicitor General, Park was responsible for defending the governor’s order, thus holding him accountable for the arguments presented to the court.
The Legal Basis for the Restrictions
Park referenced Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence in the South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision, which provided the legal basis for allowing certain businesses to remain open while restricting others, such as churches. Park explained that the court had held retail establishments to have shorter-lived durations of exposure compared to church gatherings, which justified the different treatment. However, Hawley remained unconvinced by this argument and continued to challenge Park on the issue of fairness and respect for religious liberties.
A Debate on Constitutional Rights
Senator Hawley criticized the defense of the executive order, arguing that it constituted discrimination against religious practices. He stated, “Our respect for our rights, our constitutional rights, our civil liberties, they’re not tested when it’s easy. They’re tested when it’s hard.” Hawley was clearly frustrated with what he saw as an infringement on First Amendment rights during a time of crisis.
Park’s Justification and Retrospective
Park maintained that he was fulfilling his duty to represent his client, the state of North Carolina, and that at the time, the legal precedent supported the restrictions on church gatherings. He explained that following the court’s decision, he and the governor chose not to appeal, acknowledging the evolving legal landscape. Park emphasized that the decision not to appeal reflected an understanding of the changing judicial perspective on religious gatherings during the pandemic.
Constitutional Freedoms and Public Health Measures
This exchange between Hawley and Park underscores a broader national debate on the balance between public health measures and constitutional freedoms. The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments to make difficult decisions that affected both individual rights and public safety. This hearing highlights the ongoing tension between those priorities and the importance of examining how these decisions were made and defended in court.
“Broke the Highest Law”
People in the comments shared their thoughts: “Why the hell was Fast Food ‘essential’ while literally EVERY mom n’ pop store was forcibly shut down??”
Another commenter added: “Liquor stores and marijuana dispensaries were ‘essential’ but churches and gyms were closed.”
One person added: “He broke the highest law of the land. Why are there no prison terms for violating people’s constitutional rights?”
Political and Legal Challenges
Senator Hawley made it clear that he disagreed with Park’s defense of the executive order and viewed it as a failure to uphold constitutional liberties. He concluded his questioning by warning that he would not support judicial nominees who had advocated for such restrictions. The hearing exemplified the political and legal challenges faced by public officials during the pandemic and the scrutiny they face in the aftermath.
Judicial Accountability
What do you think? To what extent should legal representatives be held accountable for defending controversial government policies, especially in times of crisis? How should legal standards adapt to unprecedented situations like a pandemic, and what role do historical precedents play in shaping these decisions? How can public trust be maintained in governmental and judicial decisions that involve significant restrictions on civil liberties?
Watch the entire video on Forbes Breaking News’ YouTube channel for more information here.
