Cox gave impassioned oral arguments against draconian isolation and quarantine measures imposed by the NYSDOH to fight the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
"Does the [NYSDOH] have to follow … state law when they want to remove someone from society who is a public health threat?" Cox posed the question earlier. "The answer to that overwhelmingly clear question is yes."
This lawsuit had its origins in April 2022 when it was first filed in the State Supreme Court of Cattaraugus County. The petitioners included notable figures such as State Sen. George Borrello, State Assemblyman Chris Tague, U.S. Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY) and the advocacy group Uniting NYS.
The focal point of contention was a regulation that granted the authority to mandate isolation and quarantine orders for individuals without concrete proof of their illness or exposure to diseases specified in the regulation. Essentially, this regulation vested DOH officials with the power to enforce indefinite isolation and quarantine for New Yorkers of any age, for any reason.
In a significant victory for constitutional liberties, NYS Supreme Court Judge Ronald Ploetz ruled in favor of the Republican state senators, deeming the regulation unconstitutional.
This ruling, however, prompted an immediate appeal from New York Attorney General Letitia James, acting on behalf of the administration of Gov. Kathy Hochul and the NYSDOH, in an attempt to overturn Ploetz's decision.
During the recent hearing, Cox forcefully addressed the issue of overreaching powers granted to the state's health commissioner. She argued that this rule allowed for "unbridled power to pick and choose which New Yorkers could be locked up," all without the need for evidence of illness or exposure to a contagious disease.
Furthermore, she emphasized the absence of age restrictions, highlighting that this policy could apply to individuals of all ages, including children and the elderly.
Cox's passionate arguments symbolize a larger struggle to uphold the constitutional rights of American citizens.
Concerns have arisen that the pandemic has been utilized as a pretext for implementing policies that unduly encroach upon individual freedoms. The outcome of this legal battle now rests in the hands of a five-judge panel, with a ruling expected in the coming months.
The New York court drama is just one of many cases that have emerged across the United States.
In Maine, a contentious debate erupted over the state's mandate for school children to receive vaccines, including those for COVID-19, to attend in-person classes. Parents and students who opposed the mandate argued that it encroached upon their fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children.
In California, a series of lawsuits challenged the state's indoor mask mandate, which required individuals to wear face coverings in certain indoor settings. Plaintiffs, including business owners and individuals, contended that the mandate violated their personal freedoms and autonomy. (Related: All-black Morris Brown College in Atlanta RESCINDS mask mandate for COVID following massive public outcry.)
Kentucky faced legal challenges related to restrictions on religious gatherings during the pandemic. Some religious organizations and individuals argued that these restrictions infringed upon their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.
Meanwhile, Hawaii implemented stringent travel restrictions to curb the spread of COVID-19, requiring travelers to undergo mandatory quarantines upon arrival. Legal actions arose from individuals who believed these measures unduly limited their ability to travel freely between states.
Head over to HealthFreedom.news for more similar stories.
Watch this video about quarantine camps in New York.
This video is from the BombMomOf6 channel on Brighteon.com.