Between March 1 and May 31, 42 states and territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders affecting 2,355 (73%) of the 3,233 U.S. counties (Figure 1). The first territorial order was issued by Puerto Rico (March 15) and the first state order by California (March 19). Eight jurisdictions issued only an advisory order or stay-at-home recommendation, and six did not issue stay-at-home orders. Most jurisdictions issued multiple orders during the observation period, and coding varied from order to prescription. The duration and termination of each order varied by jurisdiction. During the observation period, 22 jurisdictions switched from mandatory to advisory orders, 11 rescinded or allowed orders to expire without extension, and the order in one jurisdiction was struck down by the state Supreme Court.§§ The first state to revoke or expire a stay-at-home order was Alaska (April 24). Eight jurisdictions had binding orders that applied to at least part of the population beyond May 31. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions are beginning to use stay-at-home orders to stack costs. For example, an Indiana man who was arrested for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated was also charged with violating the statewide stay-at-home order — a Class B offense under Indiana law, which carries a fine of up to $1,000 or 180 days in jail. And in Ohio, a traffic stop led to the arrest of two people for drug possession and violating the governor`s stay-at-home order. The 14-day period immediately following the enactment of the first stay-at-home order in the United States was associated with a significant decrease in movement in all rural-urban strata compared to the 14-day period immediately preceding its introduction.*** The period following the easing of a stay-at-home order by the first state was associated with an increase in population movements at the class between states or territories. that had not relaxed stay-at-home orders during the same period.††† The findings of this report are subject to at least five limitations.

First, while relative device coverage is largely correlated with U.S. population density, some regions or demographics may be over- or under-represented.**** Second, people may own multiple mobile devices and not take certain devices with them when they leave home (e.g., tablets) or take multiple devices with them at the same time (e.g., phones and smartwatches). Third, although the signed Wilcoxon cluster rank test is used with counties as a group, since the mean pre- and reorganization values for each county are paired comparisons rather than independent observations, the potential spatial dependence between counties is not taken into account. Fourth, this report does not assess whether population movements were influenced by nationwide protests during the observation period†††† Finally, this report analyzes the relationship between home support arrangements and population movements and does not assess the complex relationship between stay-at-home orders and incidence rates of illness or death. Data on state and territory stay-at-home orders were obtained from government websites containing executive or administrative orders or press releases for each jurisdiction. Each order was analyzed and coded into one of five mutually exclusive categories: 1) mandatory for all individuals; 2) mandatory only for persons in certain areas of competence; 3) mandatory only for persons at increased risk in the jurisdiction; 4) mandatory only for persons at increased risk in certain areas of jurisdiction; or 5) advice or recommendations (i.e., not mandatory). Jurisdictions that had not issued an order were coded so as not to have a state or territorial order.† These data were subject to secondary verification and quality assurance and were published in an open-source dataset (4). On March 27, Governor Roy Cooper issued Executive Order 121 (EO 121), which imposed a national stay-at-home order, which went into effect on March 30. Among other things, the order: In cases where the scope of executive vs. The Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned nearly all of the health secretary`s stay-at-home orders, while the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the governor`s order. While these cases each revolve around specific provisions of state law, they also reflect the broader political debate over the extent of executive power to restrict individual rights during a public health crisis.

The Wisconsin decision is the only case where almost all provisions of a stay-at-home order have been overturned. The case was taken to state courts, which questioned the authority of the Secretary of State for Public Health to issue a longer stay-at-home order without going through an administrative process. While most courts have emphasized that stay-at-home orders are designed to protect individuals during a public health emergency, the Wisconsin court instead emphasized the importance of the administrative rule-making process to “protect all people” in a decision four or three times. The Kansas Supreme Court authorized the governor`s order to limit religious gatherings to 10 people, noting that a seven-member legislative coordinating council does not have the power to override the governor. The governor filed a lawsuit after the council voted to revoke his order. In both cases, opposing political parties controlled different branches of state government. Wisconsin`s decision has caused confusion about when it will take effect and what restrictions are in place in the meantime. Parliament had requested that the court`s decision be stayed to allow time to move on to another, less restrictive stay-at-home order, but the majority decision did not grant a stay. However, the Chief Justice who wrote the majority decision also wrote a separate concurring decision recognizing the stay request and increasing uncertainty as to their vote.

Following the court ruling, some taverns planned to reopen, while some city and county local governments planned to issue their own stay-at-home orders. Following the state Supreme Court order, the health departments of Milwaukee, Appleton and other counties issued their own orders. Seventeen people, including a pastor, a restaurant owner and a state assembly candidate, are now challenging these local ordinances in federal court. Decrees do not create new laws; Rather, they unlock emergency powers that have been previously granted, or new emergency powers that have gone through the legislative process, Tysse said. It`s true, as the Facebook post notes, that governors and mayors can`t “make a law and impose a penalty for non-compliance,” but stay-at-home orders don`t fit that description because they have established activated powers. Some people in North Carolina have been, are being, or will be quarantined or isolated by public health officials if the criteria for issuing such orders under state health laws are met. This type of order will affect a relatively small part of the population. One of the most politically sensitive provisions of the lockdown orders was restrictions on public gatherings, such as those that apply to religious worship.

There have been several examples around the world of worship services serving as super-spreading events for COVID-19. Federal appellate courts have split over whether social distancing orders should be lifted or remain in place, while prosecutions for alleged violations of religious freedom are pending. In the two religious cases that have so far to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court allowed social distancing orders to remain in effect while appeals are pending. In the lawsuit against restrictions on personal worship, churches and other places of worship argue that worship services are distinguished and are not treated in the same way as other commercial activities. As states begin to reopen, some complaints claim churches should be included in earlier than later phases of reopening. Anonymised location data publicly available from mobile devices was obtained to estimate raw movement data at district level (5). Population movements were estimated by calculating the percentage of individual mobile devices (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, or watches) reporting each day that were completely at home (i.e., had not moved within 150 metres of their common nighttime location) in a given county, using a 7-day moving average to smooth out time series values before and after the order of each county.

This analysis used four types of order index data based solely on mandatory orders: 1) the start date of each stay-at-home order in a state or territory for each county in that jurisdiction; (2) the date of relaxation or expiration of each home residence order of a state or territory for each county in that jurisdiction; 3) the effective date of the first state-issued stay-at-home order (i.e., in California); and (4) the first date a state-issued stay-at-home order ended (i.e. in Alaska).§ Home stay-at-home orders are a strategy to contain the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. My argument for semantic precision is directed at local governments in North Carolina. Everyone in North Carolina is subject to a statewide stay-at-home order issued by the governor.