According to court watchers, the recent federal court ruling finding several restrictions Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf imposed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic were unconstitutional is an outlier—with regard to both pandemic-related litigation and longstanding precedent.

But it might not remain that way for long, as some legal observers see the court’s sweeping language as legitimizing rarely seen judicial second-guessing and potentially emboldening like-minded judges to rule similarly.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]