Despite what law professors keep saying on Twitter, the AG has the right to take legal action to enjoin patterns and practices of constitutional violations. This entire argument that the AG can't act is based on an assumption that these "emergency" orders are constitutional. https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1252651276187373569

That seemed easier to believe in the first week or two, but now its been over a month. Harder to believe that orders that allow liquor stores but not clothing stores or orders that allow beer purchases at a store but not seeds at the same store, are narrowly tailored.

The exceptions that all of these orders contain undermine the basic premise. My son can work at Wendy's with no issues. But if he threw a party with all of his Wendy's coworkers - whom he interacts with almost daily - he's in violation.

None, that I'm aware of, contain exceptions for people who have already recovered. What rational does the state have for violating their 1st Amendment rights?