School districts, parents spar over anti-mask lawsuits at hearing before Erie judge

Upset parents in the Millcreek and North East school districts sued over the mask mandates and quarantine rules that school directors followed to deal with COVID-19, a brand-new disease.

A 128-year-old court ruling is standing out as the school districts' biggest ally as they seek to vindicate their actions and impose a costly defeat on the parents in Erie County Common Pleas Court.

At a hearing on the parents' lawsuits, Judge Erin Connelly Marucci repeatedly referred to an 1894 ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as she sharply questioned the parents' lawyer about why she should not grant the school districts' request to toss the parents' suits as legally groundless.

Connelly Marucci was also skeptical about the argument of the parents' lawyer that some Christians might deserve religious exemptions from wearing masks during the pandemic. The lawyer said mask-wearing, for those people, could be tantamount to "satanic ritual."

The odd religious reference aside, the 1894 state Supreme Court ruling, which remains precedent, was at the center of a wide-ranging court hearing on Thursday on the lawsuits. The ruling affirmed a school district's authority to require smallpox vaccinations.

Ready for argument:Anti-mask lawsuits against Millcreek, North East schools reach next stage in court

The Millcreek and North East school districts are arguing that the decision, other court rulings and state law gave the respective school boards the authority to require facemasks and quarantines for students and staff to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus.

"In my assessment, that appears to be very on point," Connelly Marucci told the parents' lawyer, referring to the 1894 ruling.

After hearing arguments from both sides for an hour, Connelly Marucci said she would issue a ruling "sooner rather than later" on the school districts' motion to dismiss the parents' cases. The districts also want the judge to order the parents to pay the districts' legal fees if the parents lose.

School districts call lawsuits 'frivolous'

The parents want Connelly Marucci to remove from office the school board members who approved the mask and quarantine requirements. The parents are citing a part of the Pennsylvania School Code, Section 3-318, that allows a Common Pleas Court judge to oust school directors who fail to perform certain duties or neglect their duties. The judge would appoint the new school directors.

Setting precedent:In 1894, PA Supreme Court ruled in favor of smallpox shots for students. What does it mean today?

A number of parents sued the Millcreek Township School District on April 25, and a group of North East parents filed a virtually identical petition on May 19. The parents said they sued under the auspices of a group called Erie County PA Parents Protecting Children.

The Millcreek School District has not required masks and quarantines for its 6,400 students since March 1. The North East School District lifted similar requirements for its 1,600 students on Feb. 28.

The parents, in a local example of the lingering opposition to masks and other COVID-19 measures nationwide, are claiming that the school districts nonetheless violated the rights of their children by imposing the mandates.

The school districts are arguing that the school directors were following the state directives at the time, and that the 1894 court decision, other court rulings and state law all give school boards the authority to take actions to safeguard student health.

Millcreek case:Parents' group sues to remove Millcreek school directors over previous mask requirements

District's response:Calling it 'nonsense,' Millcreek School Board wants parents' mask lawsuit tossed

"To suggest that the school district lacks the authority over health and safety — there is no basis for that," one of the lawyers for the school districts, Michael Musone, told Connelly Marucci.

As he listed some of the decisions that he said set precedent, Musone said "the cases go back a century."

He called the Millcreek and North East lawsuits "frivolous."

Parents' lawyer mentions 'satanic ritual'

The lawyer for the parents, J. Chadwick Schnee, of Lebanon County, argued that the mask and quarantine rules violated students' and parents' rights under the Pennsylvania constitution. He questioned the applicability of the 1894 decision, Duffield v. School District of the City of Williamsport.

He said requiring students to wear facemasks violated the Pennsylvania constitution's guarantee that "the people have a right to clean air."

"Masks interfere with the ability to breathe clean air," Schnee said.

He said the masks had also violated students' religious freedom because he said the school districts had not considered exempting students from wearing masks due to their religious beliefs.

"Under what religion can't you wear a mask?" Connelly Marucci said to Schnee.

He responded that, based on his understanding, some "fundamental Christians" believe that wearing a mask is "participating in some kind of satanic ritual."

Courtroom packed as lawyers spar over what is 'good faith'

Connelly listened to the arguments in a courtroom so packed with spectators that sheriff's deputies had to turn people away because no seats were left in the gallery. Many of the members of the audience were supporting the parents who were the lead petitioners in the cases — Troy Prozan in the Millcreek case and Erin Beckes in the North East case.

In the audience, those supporting the parents' positions included Lou Aliota, a former Millcreek school director who has been involved with extensive litigation against the Millcreek School District. Also supporting the parents was Greg Hayes, a former Republican candidate for state representative who has been outspoken in his opposition to masks.

For the school districts, supporters in court included Millcreek schools Superintendent Ian Roberts and Millcreek School Board President Gary Winschel.

North East case:North East School Board hit with anti-mask lawsuit; follows case against Millcreek board

As he closed out his arguments for the parents, Schnee, their lawyer, asked Connelly Marucci to refrain from making any decision that would force the parents to pay the legal fees for the school districts. He said the parents had filed reasonable petitions to address legitimate concerns.

"We have good faith legal issues," he said.

Musone, the lawyer who argued for the school districts, countered that school directors have been trying to act in the best interest of students, and that the petitions for removal have "no basis in law and fact."

Musone asked Connelly Marucci to follow precedent — most notably, the 1894 state Supreme Court decision — and set precedent of her own by tossing the cases and forcing the parents to pay the districts' legal costs.

Statewide concern?:Court fights could increase as Erie, other Pennsylvania schools reinstate mask mandates

Connelly Marucci, "should draw a line in the sand," Musone said, and ensure that the local courts will not tolerate such lawsuits.

Otherwise, Musone said, "What is the next case that is going to be brought before this court?"

Contact Ed Palattella at epalattella@timesnews.com. Follow him on Twitter @ETNpalattella.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: Anti-mask lawsuits: Erie judge hears arguments on whether to toss cases