2020年3月23日，DC首都华盛顿，司法部长威廉·巴尔在白宫新闻发布室等候。
司法部长威廉巴尔(William Barr)周五表示，司法部正在“密切关注”州一级的COVID-19限制，他认为这些限制“过于笼统”，不符合宪法对公民自由的保护。他补充说，司法部将试图“与州和地方政府合作”，解决对侵权行为的担忧，但“会考虑在必要时采取行动”。
该声明是对周五该部门在推特上的#阿斯卡里巴问答环节中的一个提问的回应。自称是基督教和宪法保守派的用户@凯瑟琳达西(User @CatherineDarsey)曾询问过巴尔保护“目前受到州和市民选官员阻挠的公民宪法权利”的计划
司法部长此前曾宣布，他打算寻求州一级的COVID-19限制，这可能会侵犯宪法保护。在周一给美国律师的一份备忘录中，巴尔指示检察官开始监督这些更本地化的政策，例如影响宗教集会或和平集会权利的封锁限制。
他写道:“如果州或地方法规超越了适当行使权力阻止COVID-19扩散的界限，成为对宪法和法律保护的专横侵犯，司法部可能有义务在联邦法院解决这种越权行为。”。
在问答环节中，巴尔表示，在流感大流行期间，政府“毫无疑问有权”实施“合理和临时的限制”他警告称，这些限制必须被证明是必要的，政府必须证明，通过使用限制较少的规则，它无法取得类似的结果。
最近几周，随着抗议活动(许多与边缘组织者有关)蔓延至公众，围绕封锁令的紧张局势爆发。例如，周四，数百名抗议者冲击了兰辛的密歇根国会大厦，表达了对州长格雷琴·惠特莫处理危机的不满。
参加那次集会的有密歇根自由民兵组织的成员——根据南方贫困法律中心的说法，这是一个反政府组织——其中许多人携带武器。4月中旬，其他几个州爆发了反封锁热潮，引发了公众示威。
在紧急时期发布的命令的合法性的争议——当专家说州政府是最强大的时候——也已经到达联邦司法机构。美国地方法院法官约翰·布鲁姆早些时候阻止了堪萨斯州一项禁止大型宗教集会的法令的执行。布鲁姆在他的裁决中总结道，宗教机构被不恰当地挑出来。
布鲁姆写道:“教堂和宗教活动似乎被列为更严格对待的重要职能之一。”。“这似乎是唯一的基本功能，它的核心目的——以崇拜为目的的结社——已经基本上被消除了。”
封锁令的捍卫者辩称，对这些限制的许多反对似乎是人为制造的，或者与边缘演员有关。公众舆论支持维持家庭秩序，直到危机得到控制。在全国广播公司的新闻中华尔街日报上周的民意调查显示，近60%的美国登记选民表示，他们更关心的是放松限制，而不是相关的经济损害。
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 'ON THE LOOKOUT' FOR LOCKDOWN POLICIES THAT INFRINGE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, WILL TAKE ACTION IF NECESSARY
Attorney General William Barr waits in the press briefing room of the White House March 23, 2020, in Washington, DC.
Attorney General William Barr said Friday that the Department of Justice is "on the lookout" for state-level COVID-19 restrictions he believes are "too generalized" to be compatible with civil liberties protections in the Constitution, adding that his department will attempt to "work with the state and local governments" to address concerns about infringements, but "would consider taking action" when necessary.
The statement came in response to a query Friday in the department's #AskAGBarr question-and-answer session on Twitter. User @CatherineDarsey, a self-described Christian and constitutional conservative, had asked about Barr's plans to safeguard "the Constitutional Rights of Citizens that are currently being impeded by state and city elected officials."
The attorney general had previously announced his intention to seek out state-level COVID-19 restrictions that may be encroaching on constitutional protections. In a memorandum to U.S. attorneys on Monday, Barr directed prosecutors to start surveilling these more localized policies, such as lockdown restrictions impacting religious gatherings or the right to peaceful assembly.
"If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court," he wrote.
In the question-and-answer session, Barr said that during a pandemic the government "unquestionably has the right" to impose "reasonable and temporary restrictions." These restrictions, he cautioned, would have to be justified as necessary and the government would have to show it cannot achieve similar results by using less restrictive rules.
Tensions over lockdown orders have flared in recent weeks as protest movements, many connected to fringe organizers, have spilled into public. On Thursday, for example, hundreds of protestors stormed Michigan's Capitol building in Lansing, voicing dissatisfaction with Governor Gretchen Whitmer's handling of the crisis.
That rally was attended by members of the Michigan Liberty Militia—an anti-government group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center—many of whom came armed. In mid-April, several other states saw anti-lockdown fervor result in public demonstrations.
Disputes over the legality of orders issued during periods of emergency—when experts say state governments are at their most powerful—have also reached the federal judiciary. U.S. District Court Judge John Broomes earlier blocked the enforcement of a Kansas order that would have prohibited large religious gatherings. Broomes concluded in his ruling that religious institutions had been improperly singled out.
"Churches and religious activities appear to have been singled out among essential functions for stricter treatment," Broomes wrote. "It appears to be the only essential function whose core purpose—association for the purpose of worship—had been basically eliminated."
Defenders of lockdown orders argue that much opposition to the restrictions appears to have been generated artificially, or is associated with fringe actors. Public opinion supports maintaining stay-at-home orders until the crisis is more subdued. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last week, almost 60 percent of U.S. registered voters said they were more concerned about relaxing restrictions than about related economic harm.
