VIRGINIA, Minnesota. – A judge rejected a petition by nearly 300 parents to issue an interim restraining order to ban the use of face masks from a school district in northeastern Minnesota, aimed at protecting students and staff from the deadly coronavirus.
A ruling by St. Louis County District Judge Robert Friday was issued last Friday, which says that “the court is not facing a political question of whether or not the school district should impose disguise,” but “whether people are required to wear masks. being in a school building violates their rights, so that irreparable harm will be done to them. “
On October 4, nearly 300 parents sued Rock Ridge Public Schools in an attempt to block the county’s mandate to use masks. Rock Ridge, which was formed in July 2020 from the amalgamation of the Virginia and Evelet-Gilbert school systems, requires all staff, students, and visitors to wear masks at all times while at the county facility.
Friday wrote in his order that, based on precedents, the constitutional harm claimed by the parents “is not real, but imaginary.”
“Applying the law to the facts set out in the amended complaint establishes that (the parents) failed to fulfill their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm, which entitles them to the emergency relief that the restraining order offers,” Friday wrote. “While there is a collective sense of violation of rights among (the parents) due to their individual opposition to the demands of disguise, such a feeling does not establish actual harm under the law.”
Robb Enslin, the parents’ attorney, said in an email to Forum News Service that his clients in the case “believe this issue is ongoing and are currently weighing their legal options. So at the moment they have no additional comments. “
Rock Ridge Superintendent Noel Schmidt said in an email that the county’s actions and its COVID-19 plan are “now confirmed.”
“In light of the court’s decision, the county will continue to adhere to its COVID-19 plan and will continue to track the number of cases when deciding to make any changes to the plan,” Schmidt said. “It’s time for the community to come together to make sure we are all doing our part to combat the spread of COVID-19 so that our students can continue their education in person at school.”
The lawsuit alleges that the mandate is not conducive to the health and safety of students, staff and visitors and “its application is arbitrary.” He also argues that the mandate “deprives students of the right to education under the Minnesota Constitution and forces parents to act unlawfully if their children exercise recognized fundamental rights.”
The lawsuit claims that the mandate is “unwanted and unjustified preventive treatment” that people have the right to refuse. The parents argue that if the student refuses to wear the mask, the school district will be denied their right to education. The lawsuit alleges that if students do not attend school due to the order, the parents will be subject to “criminal prosecution.”
Parents can be prosecuted for truancy, but will not serve time in prison.
The lawsuit falsely claims that to date, widely recognized medical or scientific research has not demonstrated the effectiveness of masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in children.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has cited several studies that show cloth masks can help reduce the spread of COVID-19 to all people and “can block up to 50-70% of these small droplets and particles and limit their spread. of those who were not captured. “