Deep Gulasekaram wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, about cities who claim to be sanctuaries for businesses and refuse to enforce state health orders.

“Supporters of these sanctuary resolutions argue that their opposition to state orders is grounded in the Constitution. The Atwater resolution, for example, states that the closure orders violated unspecified “fundamental constitutional principles.” But why should the city’s view of the Constitution prevail over the state’s contrary interpretation? Allowing localities to opt out of complying with and enforcing state orders because they oppose the state’s legal conclusion is a dangerous path. It would essentially permit every city to pick and choose state policies it supports and to nullify others through non-enforcement.”

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.