Attorney Bethany Hager, who represented both Danville District 118 teachers who did not want to have the COVID vaccine and Hoopeston parents who did not want their kids to have to wear masks in school, says there is a lot to keep in mind about the recent fallout from a Sangamon County Circuit Court ruling.
First, although Judge Raylene Grischow did rule against mask mandates and vaccination requirements, appeals are definitely coming, and maybe more than one. Second, it IS true that neither the original Danville case nor the original Hoopeston case were part of the actual
ruling by Judge Grischow. Simply put, there were so many similar cases from around the state being referred down to Springfield that some were joined into that group, and some were not.
But while Danville 118 has stated that they are not making any changes to mask mandates and vaccination requirements, the Hoopeston School District’s reaction to the judge has been to continue to advise adherence to what the CDC recommends, but not require it at this time; as Hager read from Hoopeston Area District 11’s statement.
AUDIO: (Hager reading from Hoopeston Schools Statement) We will encourage the recommendation of the CDC; such as masking, social distance, and vaccinations. The school will not exclude close contact, (and) the school will not exclude students who are unmasked during this time.
Meanwhile, Hager also says that school districts sticking to the status quo, such as 118, need to be prepared for what might happen next, both legally, and reaction wise.
AUDIO: The judge specifically said that: (By) IDPH, ISBE; there was some emergency rule making that went on, really in the middle of the night, in September of 2021. And they came out with these emergency rules that changed the definition of quarantine, so that quarantine did not apply to mask wearing. Well, Judge Grischow said that emergency rule making wasn’t valid. She also made very clear that in her legal opinion those emergency rules are null and void.
Hager stated that if school districts are taking measures against students beyond what they are authorized to do by law, then they would be liable to the students and their families for damages that occur from kids being forced to wear masks all day.
