- A Texas judge said Austin officials could continue to enforce the city’s mask mandate.
- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton requested a temporary injunction against the order.
- Although the judge denied the injunction, she did not make a final decision on the case.
- See more stories on the Insider business page.
A Texas judge ruled on Friday that the city of Austin and the surrounding county could continue to apply its masking mandate after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued to prevent the order.
Travis County District Court Judge Lora Livingston denied on Friday the Texas Attorney General’s request to issue a temporary injunction against orders from Travis County and the city of Austin requiring masks in public spaces, informed the Courthouse News Service.
“As long as the City Mask Mandate is in effect, our community will be safer because the message is clear that masking works and is effective,” Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in a statement after the decision. “Only the delay in the court’s decision, in effect during the spring break, was a victory for doctors and policy data.
“Abbott’s decision to remove the mandate from the mask puts politics on people, rhetoric on the effort to open even more and keep schools and businesses open,” he continued.
Abbott on March 10 closed the state’s mask order, despite warnings from public health experts that such decisions were premature amid the launch of vaccines and the spread of mutant variants of the disease. Abbott also relaxed corporate capacity limits this month, allowing bars, restaurants and other companies to serve customers at 100% capacity.
Read More: As live music venues, theaters and talent managers can get up to $ 10 million from $ 15 billion in COVID grants – no need to reimburse them
Part of Abbott’s order stated that “no jurisdiction” could impose its own masked mandate unless they met a limit determined by COVID-19-related hospitalizations, according to a report by The Texas Tribune.
But Travis County and the city of Austin continued to place restrictions on business to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including a mask mandate that was extended until April 15. Paxton sued Travis County and the city of Austin, arguing that they were unable to propose mandates of their own because they conflicted with their order, which suspended the mandate and allowed companies to operate at full capacity.
“It is clear that we have not yet won COVID-19,” said Mark Escott, the acting health authority for Austin and Travis County, “noting that the city was still seeing about 100 new cases of COVID-19 diagnosed each day. . ” Of course, if we manage to maintain these protections, it will give us time to vaccinate more people. And, in the end, it will save lives. “
State attorneys argued that cities and counties were unable to impose their own restrictions because they conflicted with their state mandates issued by the Texas Disaster Act, although the judge expressed doubts about the idea.
“He could … say that because he declared a disaster, you shouldn’t wear red on Tuesdays and you can’t wear red on Thursday, that’s an order that the governor could put into practice, and we couldn’t do anything. about it because under the Texas Disaster Act, he has unlimited power, “Livingston asked state attorneys, according to the Courthouse News Service. “Is that the position you are taking?”
Paxton is likely to appeal the decision, the Texas Tribune said. Livingston did not make a final decision in the case, which means that orders for masks by Austin and Travis County officials may be blocked by the state.
According to data analyzed by Johns Hopkins University, Texas has reported more than 2.7 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 since the pandemic began, resulting in more than 47,000 deaths. Currently, only 12% of the Texas population is fully vaccinated for COVID-19, according to Hopkins’ data.
Paxton had previously sued Austin and Travis County over a local law that created a curfew over the New Year holiday weekend last year. Although Paxton won the suit, the decision came after the holiday, meaning it had already been enforced.