Several Florida school districts are appealing an administrative law judge’s decision upholding the state Department of Health’s rule that allows parents to send their children to school without masks intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Judge Brian Newman handed down the decision on Nov. 5, rejecting arguments in favor of local school mask mandates made by school boards in Miami-Dade, Leon, Duval, Orange, Broward and Alachua counties. The decision disappointed the petitioners, who are now appealing to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, according to Coral Gables attorney Edward Guedes.
“Substantively, though, the provisions the school districts challenged – those purporting to protect a parent’s ‘right’ to dictate whether his or her child wears a mask or whether the child should return to school after being exposed to someone who tested positive for COVID-19 – do nothing to control or limit the spread of COVID-19,” Guedes said in an email to the Florida Record, “and in the opinion of the vast majority of medical authorities, actually increase the danger to other children, teachers and staff.”
Eight Florida school districts are facing steep financial penalties for enacting mask mandates that do not contain broad parental opt-out provisions.
Newman affirmed the language of the state’s emergency COVID-19 directive that says the ultimate decisions on student mask wearing should rest solely with parents and guardians.
“Respondent’s emergency rule strikes the right balance by implementing protocols that are no more restrictive than required to keep children safe and learning in school,” the judge’s opinion states.
In addition, the state’s decision to allow parents to determine whether asymptomatic children who came into contact with individuals testing positive for COVID-19 can attend school or other school-related events does not foster the spread of the virus, according to Newman.
Overall, the state’s policy on masking in schools did not exceed the Department of Health’s rulemaking authority, and the quarantine opt-out provisions are not vague, the opinion said.