If you lived in Pennsylvania between March 2020 and May 2021, you remember it well — the fear, the uncertainty, the quiet main streets, and the endless “updates” from Governor Tom Wolf’s office under the legal guidance of then Attorney General Josh Shapiro deciding who could work and who could not. 

During that time, Governor Wolf declared a Disaster Emergency on March 6, 2020, then ordered all “non–life-sustaining” businesses closed on March 19, 2020. The classifications were arbitrary from the start. Car dealerships were closed while big-box stores stayed open. Small family-owned hardware stores were shuttered while multinational chains prospered. It was impossible for most business owners to even reach the administration. The so-called “waiver process” was confusing, opaque, and constantly changing.

Behind these decisions stood a handful of unelected bureaucrats — and a judiciary unwilling to defend the citizens’ rights guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 1, which declares:

“All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”

Instead of defending those inherent rights, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in 2020 and 2021 chose to defend the Governor’s emergency powers — not the people’s liberty.

The Justices Who Allowed It

Three justices — Christine Donohue, David N. Wecht, and Kevin M. Dougherty — are up for retention election in November 2025. Their records during the COVID shutdowns tell a story every Pennsylvanian should know.

Justice Christine Donohue (D)

Justice Donohue authored the majority opinion in Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf (April 2020), the case challenging Wolf’s business closure orders. Her opinion upheld the shutdowns, accepting the Governor’s word that his actions were necessary for “public health.” There was no requirement for data, no proof of efficacy, no consideration for those whose livelihoods were destroyed.

Later that same year, Donohue joined the majority in Wolf v. Scarnati (July 2020), ruling that the legislature could not end the Governor’s disaster declaration without his approval. That decision effectively gave the Governor the ability to rule indefinitely by decree — precisely the imbalance PCIC warned against in our 2020 action alerts.

Only after public outrage and legal pressure did she join a later opinion striking down the statewide school mask mandate (Corman v. Acting Secretary of Health, 2021). Even then, the Court limited its reasoning to technicalities — saying the Department of Health failed to follow rulemaking procedures — not because the mandate itself violated constitutional rights.

❌ Verdict: Donohue’s record shows unwavering deference to executive authority and almost no recognition of individual liberty.

Justice David N. Wecht (D)

Justice Wecht was the architect of the Governor’s emergency power preservation. In Wolf v. Scarnati, Wecht authored the majority opinion declaring that legislative resolutions to end an emergency must still be “presented” to the Governor for approval — a procedural interpretation that rendered the legislature powerless to act.

Wecht also joined Donohue in upholding business closures in DeVito, again deferring to “public health necessity.” Only later, in the mask mandate case, did he limit administrative overreach — but only on statutory, not constitutional, grounds.

❌ Verdict: Wecht’s opinions consistently favored centralized control and institutional authority over the rights of citizens.

Justice Kevin M. Dougherty (D)

Justice Dougherty was the only one of the three who raised genuine constitutional concerns. In DeVito, he joined then-Chief Justice Saylor’s dissent, which warned that the business-closure orders may violate due process and property rights. In Scarnati, Dougherty again cautioned that the legislature’s inability to end an emergency could render the statute unconstitutional.

While he also joined the Court’s later mask-mandate decision, his record reflects at least some understanding that rights cannot be suspended by executive decree.

❌ Verdict: Dougherty’s opinions demonstrate a limited but notable defense of checks and balances.

The Timeline of Overreach

• March 6, 2020: Governor Wolf declares a Disaster Emergency.
• March 19, 2020: All “non–life-sustaining” businesses ordered closed.
• July 1, 2020: Supreme Court (Wecht, Donohue majority) upholds the Governor’s authority to continue the emergency without legislative termination (Wolf v. Scarnati).
• May 20, 2021: Wolf issues final amendment to the emergency declaration.
• May 31, 2021: Most restrictions lifted — after 14 months of goal-post shifting, waiver confusion, and economic devastation.

During this entire period, the Wolf administration and then-Attorney General Josh Shapiro made inconsistent, sometimes contradictory, decisions about which industries could operate. Restaurants reopened only to be shut down again. Churches and gyms faced scrutiny while casinos and liquor stores found loopholes. Some businesses never recovered.

The Human Cost

When the government decides who may earn a living, liberty becomes conditional. Families lost their businesses. Parents lost their sense of purpose. Many fell into debt. Depression, addiction, and suicide rates rose. Young adults lost years of progress.

Public health cannot be protected by policies that destroy the very fabric of life they claim to defend.

Yet during the crisis, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court — led by Donohue and Wecht — refused to weigh these human realities. They hid behind procedural technicalities instead of defending the inherent rights of mankind written into our Constitution.

Moving Forward

The COVID era revealed a hard truth: emergency powers can be abused, and even courts can forget their role as defenders of the people.

As we approach the November 2025 retention elections, Pennsylvanians have a choice:

• Will we retain judges who shielded one-man rule under the guise of public health?
• Or will we demand that our courts defend the Constitution — even in times of crisis?

PCIC stands for liberty, informed consent, and the right to live and work free from government coercion.
The events of 2020–2021 must never be repeated.

Let this election be a reminder: rights delayed are rights denied — and rights denied are never returned voluntarily.

Why Retention Votes Matter

In Pennsylvania, judges don’t have to campaign for re-election like other public officials. Instead, every ten years, they face a quiet “retention vote” — a simple yes or no question on whether they should keep their seat. 

No opponents. No debates. No public scrutiny. Just another decade of power with no real accountability.

At Pennsylvania Coalition for Informed Consent (PCIC), we believe that the judiciary is where liberty stands or falls. When our rights were under siege during the COVID-19 emergency, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had the opportunity — and the duty — to defend the constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property guaranteed under Article I, Section 1 of our state constitution.

Instead, three justices — Christine Donohue, David N. Wecht, and Kevin M. Dougherty — sided with executive power over individual freedom.

• They upheld Governor Wolf’s business-closure orders, which stripped Pennsylvanians of their livelihoods and purpose.
• They allowed the Governor’s emergency powers to continue indefinitely, blocking the legislature’s attempt to restore balance.
• They deferred to government agencies rather than the rights of citizens.

The result? Thousands of Pennsylvanians lost their ability to work, to feed their families, and to live freely — not because the Constitution failed them, but because the courts refused to uphold it.

Accountability Matters

When a judge’s record shows disregard for the rights of citizens, retention should not be automatic.
Imagine any other job where an employee never faces a performance review — where they can make sweeping, life-altering decisions with no oversight and still be guaranteed another ten years of employment.
That’s not accountability. That’s entitlement.

Judges wield immense power. When that power is used to preserve government control instead of protecting liberty, the people have a moral duty to say no.

Our Position Is Clear

Vote NO on the retention of Justices Christine Donohue, David N. Wecht, and Kevin M. Dougherty on November 4, 2025.

A “NO” vote is not partisan — it’s a principled stand for liberty, transparency, and constitutional accountability.
If these justices wish to continue serving, let them stand before the people in a real election, defend their records, and earn that trust again — not simply be handed another ten years of unchecked authority.