Events        Jobs        Contact        Migration Stats        Supplier Lists        Municipal Aggregation
Federal Court Rules Pennsylvania Business Closure, Stay At Home Orders Are Unconstitutional

September 15,2020



A federal court has ruled that COVID-19 emergency mitigation orders from Pennsylvania's governor which closed "non-life-sustaining businesses" and which adopted a "stay at home" directive are unconstitutional

The court found that both directives violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment, and that the closure of "non-life-sustaining businesses" also violated the Equal Protection Clause

The immediate impact on retail energy, and specifically door to door or other in-person marketing which remains prohibited by the Pennsylvania PUC, is expected to be limited, as the court's order was addressing the "red" phase of the Governor's orders. As previously reported, the PUC's ongoing prohibition of various in-person marketing has been premised on subsequent gubernatorial re-opening orders, adopting the premise from such re-opening orders that any interactions that can be conducted virtually should be done so

The governor has also said that he will seek an appeal and stay of the court's order

Still, there is some meat for retail energy marketers in the Court's opinion

Notably, the Court's opinion said that the 14th amendment guarantees a citizen's right to support themself by pursuing a chosen occupation.

Additionally, the Court noted that under the emergency orders, certain businesses offering the same services were treated in an impermissibly disparate manner -- citing a small appliance shop which was forced to close, while larger retailers, which sell appliances, such as The Home Depot, Walmart, etc, were permitted to remain open and sell such appliances. The Court found no rational basis for this disparate treatment

In the same vein, given that the PUC only regulates retail energy, door to door or other in-person sales of goods, even similar energy goods (non-EGS solar, energy efficiency, HVAC) may be occurring, subject to broader local or state regulations, with only retail energy being subject to an additional prohibition

See the opinion here

The case is 2:20-cv-00677-WSS COUNTY OF BUTLER et al v. THOMAS W. WOLF et al



Tags:
Pennsylvania   Sales & marketing   Door-to-door  

Comment on this story


ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com
TPV-SALES-EXECUTIVE -- Back Office Provider -- Other
Sr-Market-Risk-Analyst -- Wholesale Supplier/Trader -- New York - New York City Metro
Head-of-Retail-Operations -- Wholesale Supplier/Trader -- Other
Energy-Regulatory-Specialist -- Other -- Other
More Stories on RetailEnergyX.com:
'Tentative' Pa. Order Would Cancel Licenses Of Two Retail Suppliers, Several Brokers
'Tentative' Pa. Order Would Cancel Licenses Of Active Retail Supplier, Brokers
Former Pa. PUC Chair Cawley Recommends Banning, Or 'Reducing' Reliance On, Door-to-Door Sales
Tentative Order Would Cancel Licenses Of 3 Retail Suppliers, 7 Brokers
Settlement In Lawsuit Against Retail Supplier Nears Approval; PUC Case Continues


comments powered by Disqus





Advertise here:
Email retailenergyx@gmail.com


Events Jobs Contact Migration Stats Supplier Lists Municipal Aggregation

About Disclaimer Privacy Terms of Service

Home


Developed by: Avidweb Technologies inc.