Forced Coronavirus Quarantines? Texas Appoints Judges for Emergency Hearings
If infected patients refuse to self-quarantine, there's a legal process to force them into isolation, but it involves courts, judges and hearings.
March 05, 2020 at 03:12 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
The Texas judiciary is bracing for the potential spread of coronavirus across the Lone Star State.
If infected patients refuse to self-quarantine, there's a legal process to force them into isolation, but it involves courts, judges and hearings.
In the past 24 hours, top judicial leaders ordered each judicial region presiding judge in Texas to appoint two on-call district judges in their region who can hold hearings at any time or day on the involuntary quarantine of coronavirus patients who refuse to self-quarantine, said David Slayton, administrative director of the Texas Office of Court Administration.
Slayton added that his office has sent district judges across Texas a primer on Texas quarantine laws, and also distributed advice about how judges and court staff themselves can avoid getting the virus.
Judges don't anticipate they'll hold many involuntary quarantine hearings.
Slayton said there have not yet been any case of coronavirus patients refusing to quarantine themselves, so the courts have not had to turn to the involuntary quarantine procedure.
But Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said he wants the state's judiciary to be ready for any challenge the new coronavirus might present. The judiciary is therefore preparing for hypothetical scenarios.
"One of them is to review cases where someone who is subject to being quarantined refuses, and there is state law that governs that. … We want to make sure we have judges throughout the state who know the law backward and forward, and are ready at a moment's notice," Hecht said. "This can come up in the middle of the night, on weekends, times when courts aren't usually open, and judges may not be available, so this is a system to make sure we can cover those hearings no matter what."
Related story:
As Coronavirus Spreads, Legal Industry Shifts into Crisis Management Mode
The hearing may result from patients refusing medial orders.
Slayton explained that local or state health authorities legally could issue control orders to isolate or quarantine people infected with transmittable diseases, such as the new coronavirus.
Courts only get involved if an infected patient refuses to self-quarantine, Slayton said. In that situation, a county attorney, district attorney or the Texas Office of the Attorney General will seek an emergency ex-parte court order from a district judge to force the patient into quarantine. The next day, the court must hold a full due-process hearing to continue the person's quarantine.
Slayton said that Hecht plans to issue an order that will allow all of the on-call judges to utilize statewide jurisdiction to hear involuntary quarantine cases coming from anywhere in Texas. They'll be on call even at 2 a.m. on a Saturday, he noted.
Presiding Judge Ray Wheless of the First Administrative Judicial Region, which includes Dallas County, said he appointed his region's two judges yesterday.
One of them is Dallas County's 14th Civil District Judge Eric Moyé, who said he was preparing yesterday and today for his role in the process.
Hecht added that the judges might use the telephone for the first hearing, which is an emergency ex-parte hearing, at which the patient is probably not represented by an attorney. But a patient will be able to have a lawyer at the full due process hearing the next business day. They will take precautions to ensure coronavirus doesn't spread further at these hearings, he added.
He said even though the state must be prepared, that he is not expecting very many involuntary quarantine hearings to be held, since they will only be necessary when patients refuse to self-quarantine.
"This is an effort by medical professionals to make sure that your family and your contacts and friends are protected, and you don't have to worry yourself, about giving the disease to a loved one," Hecht said. "People may not know the best ways to keep from passing the disease along, and this is just a way to try to help people know that they and their loved ones are safe."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute readFederal Judge Sends Novel Damages Question in Employment Dispute to State Court
5 minute readCounty Reps: Appeal Likely Following State Court's Sales Tax Ruling for Retail Marijuana
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250