ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Mo. — A St. Louis County circuit judge has extended a temporary restraining order on the county's mask mandate by two days.
Judge Nellie Ribaudo asked the two attorneys to report back Wednesday at 11 a.m., but asked for a request: If there’s any ability for them to come up with a resolution before a preliminary injunction decision is made.
"For the two of you, have a discussion to what it is in the set of circumstances to avoid people getting sick and dying, because we all agree it's real," Judge Ribaudo said at Tuesday's hearing. "The numbers and risks are increasing and of the state of Missouri and St. Louis County, it would behoove everybody on how we can work together to protect citizens from a deadly disease. I anticipate that you all will do that this afternoon and report back to me tomorrow morning, before the court does a motion for preliminary injunction."
"I think it’s important for those who represent the state to express to their citizens who don’t want to wear masks, that this is a real danger, and the county to say if we aren’t going to enforce it, if we can do a strong recommendation and resolve/encourage people, as there are genuine risks," she added.
At issue is the current mandate issued by the St. Louis County Department of Public Health and County Executive Dr. Sam Page's office. The mandate is on hold while a suit by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt works its way through the legal system.
Tuesday morning, the plaintiff's attorney, representing Schmitt, requested a preliminary injunction to require the county to put more guidance on its website.
The argument was regarding the stlcorona.com page, saying the face-covering order is still there with no indication of a temporary restraining order. The plaintiff's attorney asked the court to require the health department to take it down or place a notice on the website.
Judge Ribaudo went back and forth with the plaintiff's attorney, vocalizing some confusion on the lawsuit.
"You believe the mask mandate is unlawful because it restricts access, but the inverse is true. Those who are concerned about the virus are restricted to going in because there’s no protection to going into these places," she said.
The lawyer said in response, "This raises just a purely legal question in the county. It’s not about good or bad policy. There are serious policy questions here and we don’t have to make that decision today, it’s just the fairly legal issue. It's a unique situation, but the county council terminated the order and that vote should be given legal effect."
Judge Ribaudo also wanted to address the severity of the pandemic.
"The issue I have as a representative of the state of Missouri, the people are asking how do we get out of this pandemic. I think this is an important discussion to be had. At this point, the state is saying you can’t make people wear masks. It also appears that there's no requirement to get people vaccinated, for them to show proof of vaccination and therefore we have people who are vaccinated but concerned of upsurge cases and have to stay home because people won’t be vaccinated or masks and there's no recourse for them," the judge said.
The plaintiff's attorney understood the concerns and admitted, "The pandemic is real and it’s a grave situation. But in the statute, if these defendants want a mask mandate, then they have to go back and vote, that’s the legal route we have."
St. Louis County's attorney responded by saying, "Judge, they want the department of public health to remove masks. The statute is to stop officials from closing businesses and that’s not happening here. You have the authority to say no. The court's focus needs to be here as a court of equity. The court should deny preliminary injunction and public interest should be considered."
Judge Ribaudo furthered the discussion by asking if the masking topic can be a strong recommendation and not a mandate.
"There needs to be some facility and some ability to address it, general enforcement issues won’t and haven’t happened," the county's attorney said.
Standing by her initial idea, Judge Ribaudo gave the two attorneys 24 hours to figure out a possible plan, before a decision is made.
Page tweeted a response to Tuesday's hearing, saying he looks forward to working with Schmitt's office.
HOW WE GOT HERE
On Aug. 3, St. Louis County circuit court granted a temporary restraining order, which halted the mask mandate placed by the St. Louis County Department of Public Health and St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page.
The mask mandate in St. Louis County went into effect on July 26 and Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a lawsuit that same day to stop the reinstatement of a mask mandate.
The mandate was repealed on July 27, after a vote from the St. Louis County Council.
STUCK IN LIMBO
Those feeling the effects of the constant back and forth are business owners.
David Busker, owner of Cyclebar in Chesterfield, wants to make sure his staff and customers are safe.
So much so, he's even offered incentives for his staff members to get the vaccine.
Legally though, he's decided to remove the mask requirements for vaccinated folks, "My understanding is legally, there is that a restraining order has been against the injunction, so we currently are not requiring the mask."
Unvaccinated people still have to wear a mask.
"It’s really business by business at this point, I see very different policies that every business. I think because there is no clear authority. We've just learned to we adapt," he says.
Yet, Busker is on stand by and has communicated with his members that things may change.
Frank Romano in Webster Groves is the managing partner at the Parkmoor Drive-In.
He tells 5 On Your Side, "It's very confusing for the customers as they’re coming to the restaurants. They say, 'I thought there was no mask mandate' and I say, 'there is not one legally, but for safety reasons, we are wearing masks'".
Romano calls it mask confusion. Yet, no matter what happens in the courts, they're going to continue follow their own course.
"The court’s case is a court case, it’s a legal case, it’s a political case, but safety, there’s no case against safety. We have to be safe in the restaurants," he adds.