Supreme Court of Mexico.

How Does the Mexican Constitution Regulate Crisis?

By David García Sarubbi

When the Mexican Constitution was issued in 1917, one of its main concerns was to regulate how democracy must deal with crisis, that is, with exceptional situations that demand the exercise of powers outside the Constitution’s regular limits to suppress potential dangers.

There is not an “off switch” available for political powers to put the Constitution to rest while solving urgent issues. Instead, there are complex rules to govern decisions in extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution’s Article 29 has a Suspension Clause, which contains a detailed regulation for such cases. Moreover, in Article 73, Section XVI, there is another regulation relating to pandemics like the one we are experiencing currently.

Thus, from the founding era, the Mexican constitution has upheld the value of the rule of law, even in extraordinary circumstances.

Read More

Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Concerns Mount About Rule of Law in Argentina During COVID-19

By Roberto Gargarella

From the first time that I wrote about the COVID-19 situation in Argentina, June 8, until the date I am writing this, September 7, things have changed significantly.

First, the number of people who have died of COVID-19 in Argentina has risen to nearly 10,000; the 16th highest death toll in the world. The total number of cases is 500,000; which places Argentina among the top 10 countries for infections worldwide.

These alarming statistics are particularly worrying in Argentina, given a number of additional facts mentioned in my original blog.

Read More

Protest against Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro.

Between Gross Negligence and Genocide: Brazil’s Failed Response to COVID-19

By Octávio Luiz Motta Ferraz

When my first piece in this series was published on May 12th, Brazil counted 11,000 deaths caused by COVID-19. A new health secretary had just been appointed to replace Dr. Luiz Henrique Mandetta, who was sacked for disagreeing with President Jair Bolsonaro’s views that the pandemic (which he infamously called a “little flu”) was a conspiracy of the media and that public health measures should be immediately lifted to avoid damage to the economy.

Fast forward to September 10th and the situation, predictably, has gotten significantly worse. Brazil now counts 128,539 deaths, the second highest number in absolute terms (after the U.S., where the death toll is 190,872), and the sixth in per capita terms, with just over 60 deaths per 100,000 population. When Brazil reached the 100,000 deaths mark in early August, the president thought it more appropriate to use his Twitter account to celebrate his football team’s win at the local tournament than to make any statement on the health crisis.

Read More

Downtown Santiago, Chile.

The Novel Coronavirus and Civil Rights: An Update from Chile

By Lidia Casas Becerra

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues apace in Chile, a test of the country’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law looms close – in just over a month, a historic referendum will be held on the possibility to change the Constitution.

The plebiscite was a key political demand during the social mobilization after October 19, 2019. But since March 18, 2020, Chile has been under the state of constitutional catastrophe or calamity due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which will continue at least through September 24, 2020.

Due to the pandemic, the date of the plebiscite was moved from April to October 25th after a political agreement between Congress and the executive. Chile does not have a system allowing for either electronic voting or voting by mail.

Read More

Masks.

Indiana’s Mask Mandate Debate Raises Public Health Enforcement Questions

By Ross Silverman

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb announced an Emergency Order to mandate mask wearing in public places beginning July 27, and indicated that violations of the order could potentially result in criminal penalties. Shortly after, Attorney General Curtis Hill issued an opinion questioning the Governor’s authority to criminalize mask violations under the state’s Emergency Management and Disaster Law (EMDL).

Indiana’s Executive Order, while in line with some 30 other states now imposing mask orders, represents a change of positions for the Governor. Holcomb has been an advocate for mask wearing in both word and deed, but, until now, not a mandate. As he indicated at his press conference, there have been “concerning changes” in the state’s trajectory of new COVID-19 cases, and that “By masking up, we can & will save lives & slow the spread of #COVID19.”

Read More

Map from Global COVID-19 Symposium.

Global Responses to COVID-19: An Inflection Point for Democracy, Rights, and Law

By Alicia Ely Yamin

Although some of the common challenges identified across our global survey of legal responses to COVID-19 have their roots in long-established realities, the economic and social inflection point created by COVID-19 provides an opportunity, as well as an imperative, to consider how these responses will shape social norms and structure democratic institutions in the post-pandemic world.

Read More

Madison, Wisconsin / USA - April 24th, 2020: Nurses at Reopen Wisconsin Protesting against the protesters protesting safer at home order rally holding signs telling people to go home.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Safer at Home Order

By Katherine Drabiak

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently struck down the state’s Safer at Home Order, calling it “unlawful, invalid, unenforceable.” Wisconsin Gov. Evers, politicians, and the media responded with outrage, alleging the decision would “throw the state into chaos” and demonstrated “reckless disregard for human life.”

These characterizations both misrepresent what the case was about and omit meaningful discussion of what state laws do – and do not – permit when responding to communicable disease.

Read More

Budapest, Hungary.

Hungary’s Response to COVID-19 Vastly Expands Executive Power

By Csaba Győry

Hungary was one of the first countries in Europe to introduce restrictions in order to flatten the curve of COVID-19 infections.

Policy wise, the restrictions overall were similar to those of other European countries. The legal basis for these restrictions, however, has proven very controversial because of the extremely broad sway it provides the executive, and has received a great deal of attention from EU institutions, scholars, and the press.

This is the conundrum of the Hungarian response to COVID-19: an almost unlimited authorization for the executive to rule by decree, which, at the same time, was used relatively sparingly and in a broadly similar manner as in other EU countries.

Read More