Austin can continue to maintain the local mask mandate for the time being, the judge said

Austin and Travis County may need masks a little longer after a district judge rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request for a temporary block on the local mandate.

Paxton sued local officials for refusing to end the mandate after government Greg Abbott lifted state restrictions earlier this month. Paxton will likely appeal the decision.

District Judge Lora Livingston has yet to make a final verdict on the merits of the case, meaning Austin and Travis officials may later be told to follow up with state officials.

But in the meantime, county judge Andy Brown said Friday’s ruling at least extends the amount of time masks are needed in their communities – giving them more time to vaccinate their residents.

“I’ve done everything I can to protect the health and safety of people in Travis County,” Brown said in an interview. “And Judge Livingston’s ruling today allows us to continue to do so.”

Abbott ended nearly all of the state’s COVID-19 security restrictions on March 10, including the statewide mask mandate, citing the decline in COVID-19 hospitalizations and cases. Many public health experts said the move was too early, before the majority of the state was vaccinated or even eligible for an injection.

In his order, Abbott said that “no jurisdiction” can require a person to wear a mask in public if the area does not meet a certain threshold for coronavirus hospitalization in that hospital region. As a result, many local governments dropped their restrictions. However, this was not the case in Travis County, where officials said they would continue to demand the use of a public mask.

Paxton sued Austin and Travis County the day after state restrictions were lifted. He claimed that Abbott’s order supersedes all local jurisdictions.

State attorneys urged the judge to grant a temporary injunction the next day, but Livingston said it would have been unfair to give the defendants just one day to prepare. Hence, masks remained mandatory in Travis County in the meantime.

“Any day that we can maintain the mandate of the local health authority is a victory,” Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in an interview. with The Texas Tribune on Fridays. “The fact that we have been able to keep it in place for the past two weeks over Spring Break is a win no matter how long it takes.”

Adler said that as the number of cases levels off and vaccination eligibility grows, the city may follow plans to open more businesses – but the mask mandate must remain in effect.

“You can wear masks and still open businesses, you can wear masks and have more students in school,” Adler said, “You could wear masks and do all those things, and it’s such a small price to save lives. and people. “

Texas has seen improved conditions as new COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions have plummeted to lows not seen since October. Vaccinations are on the rise with more than 11.5% of the population fully vaccinated – although Black and Hispanic Texans face systemic medical disparities and are vaccinated at disproportionately low rates. From Monday, all Texans over 16 years old can register for a vaccination appointment.

But while the numbers are improving, Dr. Mark Escott, Travis County’s Interim Health Authority, testified in court on Friday that he sees the downward trend flattening out over the past week. And with variant COVID-19 strains in the mix, Escott said the situation could worsen without public health intervention.

“Obviously, we have not yet beaten COVID-19,” said Escott. “And it is clear that if we are able to maintain that protection, it will give us time to get more people vaccinated, and it will ultimately save lives.”

This isn’t the first time Paxton has sued over COVID-19 restrictions. In December, Paxton successfully sued Austin and Travis County for setting a night clock over the New Year’s weekend. However, the case was not decided until after the holidays and officials enforced curfews.

Paxton also blocked El Paso County’s order to tell non-essential businesses to close in November.

The eventual outcome of the case could affect other Texas cities and counties for how local governments can enforce their own public health mandates, even after the state orders them to be terminated.

At Friday’s hearing, the discussion broadly focused on the question: What powers do local public health departments have, and how do the governor’s emergency powers affect them?

Austin and Travis’s attorneys said public health officials have the authority to implement health measures – such as mask mandates – outside the context of the pandemic, and therefore should not be affected by Texas’ latest order.

State attorneys argued that Abbott’s emergency powers due to the pandemic exceed all local orders.

Livingston returned to some of the prosecution’s arguments that not having to use masks allows for individual freedom.

“I’m trying to understand why the person with the deadly virus should have more power than the person trying to stay alive and not contract the deadly virus,” Livingston said.

She pointed to past examples of Abbott delegating authority in the pandemic’s response to local governments – and said she understands why officials say they have received mixed messages.

“It must be quite confusing for local officials to know when they will be charged, in the Governor’s opinion, and have the responsibility to respond locally and take charge locally – and when they shouldn’t,” said Livingston to state attorneys. “I just had to let you know I like puzzles like that.”

Neelam Bohra contributed to this story.

Disclosure: Steve Adler is a former board chairman of the Texas Tribune and has been a financial supporter of the Tribune, a non-profit, non-partisan news organization funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no part in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a full list here.