The pandemic is over, but some of the public-policy questions it raised still linger like a case of long COVID. Chief among those questions is whether local health officials have the authority to implement public health restrictions during pandemic emergencies. A related question is whether local governments have the authority to defend their legal rights to protect their own residents when the Missouri attorney general's office refuses to.

Missouri's Supreme Court is considering a case relevant to both questions. It should be allowed to play out, despite the efforts of Attorney General Andrew Bailey and his predecessor in that office, Eric Schmitt, to leave these important questions unanswered.

The case stems from Schmitt's campaign to harass local governments and schools over their pandemic policies when he was attorney general. Armed with anti-scientific arguments against masking and distancing — and eyeing a U.S. Senate seat that he would eventually win by appealing to the Republican base's opposition to responsible health policies — Schmitt used his office to make life more dangerous for his constituents during a once-in-a-lifetime plague.

As part of that cynical campaign, Schmitt chose not to do his job when a court ruled against the state in a lawsuit brought by residents and businesses against the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. The ruling struck down the ability of state and local health officials to impose responsible restrictions limiting the spread of the virus.

Though a state appeal of such a ruling against a state agency would normally be routine, Schmitt chose to let it stand, then used it as justification to send threatening cease-and-desist letters to school districts with masking policies, even though the ruling didn't apply to elected bodies such as school boards.

St. Louis County and other counties asked the court for permission to join the case so they could appeal in defense of health regulations, because Schmitt refused to. The lower courts denied the request. The county is now asking the state Supreme Court to allow it. The attorney general's office — while still refusing to appeal the lower-court rulings and defend a state agency, as is its duty — is opposing the counties' efforts to do so.

While the case before the court now is technically about jurisdiction and legal standing, it's ultimately about the ability of local governments to protect their residents during public health emergencies. The opposition by Schmitt and now Bailey — both members of a political party that used to pride itself on defending the concept of local control of governmental decisions — is ironic but not unusual in an era when once-core GOP principles have become entirely situational.

St. Louis County and other counties involved in the effort argue that the court's ruling stripping health officials of authority created "chaos" during the pandemic emergency because local governments were suddenly unsure what regulations they could legally impose and how. The time to answer those questions is now, not in the midst of the next public health crisis. The court should allow the case to go forward.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: Anastasiia Chepinska at Unsplash