© Nick Wagner Gov. Greg Abbott, flanked by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, left, and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, R-Lake Jackson, on March 31 orders Texans to stay at home except for work or errands considered essential, such as grocery shopping or to pick up medication at a pharmacy. [NICK WAGNER/AMERICAN-STATESMAN]

State law gives Gov. Greg Abbott expansive and far-reaching power to deal with emergencies, and he has responded to the growing coronavirus outbreak with a torrent of action that is affecting lives and livelihoods across Texas.

Along the way, Abbott's actions have been met with praise for his decisiveness as well as escalating criticism that he has gone too far (often from the right wing of his Republican Party) or not far enough (often from Democrats and local officials).

© Nick Wagner Gov. Greg Abbott, speaking at a news conference on Monday, says the latest state data on coronavirus cases point to a possible slowing in the rate of new infections. [NICK WAGNER/AMERICAN-STATESMAN]

And, no surprise with such high stakes in play, the lawyers have gotten involved.

Multiple lawsuits are seeking to overturn Abbott's stay-home order or limit his reach on abortion, voting and criminal justice, with attorneys for Texas fighting to keep the expanded powers within the governor's grasp.

The day that changed Texas arrived with moderate fanfare on March 13, when there were 30 confirmed cases statewide of COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus, but with indications that things were about to get much worse.

© RICARDO B. BRAZZIELL / AMERICAN- Gov. Greg Abbott gives a coronavirus update on April 10, expressing optimism that measures he put in place to limit person-to-person interaction were working to slow the spread of the coronavirus. A week later, he would ease some restrictions amid pressure from some conservatives in his own party to do so. [RICARDO B. BRAZZIELL/AMERICAN-STATESMAN]

In the days before social distancing, Abbott told a Capitol room crowded with reporters and state officials that he had declared the entire state, all 254 counties, a disaster area.

© RICARDO B. BRAZZIELL / AMERICAN- Gov. Greg Abbott arrives at a news conference on April 10 to give a coronavirus update with Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd, followed by Texas Department of State Health Services Commissioner Dr. John Hellerstedt and Dr. John Zerwas, University of Texas System executive vice chancellor for health affairs. [RICARDO B. BRAZZIELL/AMERICAN-STATESMAN]

The action unleashed a broad set of powers that Abbott would soon tap under the Texas Disaster Act, passed by the Legislature in 1975 and amended numerous times since.

In addition to becoming the "commander in chief" of state agencies and commissions that have emergency responsibilities, the act allows the governor to:

Issue executive orders and proclamations that "have the force and effect of law."

Control the "movement of persons," including barring them from entering or leaving the disaster area.

Suspend any agency rule or regulation that would "in any way prevent, hinder or delay" the ability to cope with a disaster.

The Texas Disaster Act also puts real teeth behind the expanded authority, making it a crime to violate a disaster-related executive order that can bring up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

To keep the extra power in check, disaster declarations can last no more than 30 days, though they can be renewed by the governor — which Abbott did on April 12.

Other checks include the Legislature, which can end a state of disaster but typically meets every other year, and state and federal courts, which have been getting a workout since the coronavirus emergency began.

First legal fight

Six days after declaring all of Texas a disaster area, Abbott issued the first executive order under his new powers.

With 108 known COVID-19 cases in Texas and three people dead, the order barred Texans from gathering in groups of more than 10, and it closed schools, gyms, bars and restaurant dining rooms (but not drive-thru, pickup or delivery options).

"We are doing this now today so that we can get back to business as usual more quickly," Abbott said at the time.

Three days later, with confirmed infections having risen to 263 and the death toll at five, Abbott issued his second executive order, prohibiting all nonessential surgeries and medical procedures.

The goal, he said, was to free hospital space for the coming wave of COVID-19 patients and to conserve gloves, breathing masks, face shields and other equipment needed to protect health workers from the spreading virus.

That March 22 order launched the first legal challenge after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that any abortion not needed to save a woman's life or health was prohibited under the order, with criminal penalties to be enforced. Because life-saving abortions are rare, the prohibition effectively ended, for the first time in almost half a century, abortions in Texas.

Abortion providers sued, arguing that Abbott and Paxton, vocal opponents of abortion, had used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to ban the procedure.

A federal judge in Austin blocked the executive order as it applied to abortions, ruling that violating a constitutional right could not be justified by a policy that did not free up hospital beds (abortions are outpatient procedures) or save protective medical equipment, which is rarely used by abortion providers.

An appeals court overturned the order by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who followed by issuing a second, more limited order that Paxton also appealed. While that appeal proceeds, however, two parts of Yeakel's order were allowed to remain in force:

Drug-induced abortions, typically available in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, were allowed to resume because dispensing medication is not considered a medical procedure.

Women could obtain abortions if delays pushed a pregnancy beyond the 20th week, after which the procedure is banned in Texas.

Abbott would later issue a new order calling into question the impact on abortion providers.

But with several other Republican-led states enforcing similar coronavirus-related bans, and other judges stepping in to block those policies, the issue could be destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Forced quarantines

Abbott issued his third executive order on March 24, two days after the decree barring elective surgeries, as the death toll hit 10 and confirmed cases rose to 712.

The order required hospitals to report daily how many beds were available to treat COVID-19 patients. Results of all coronavirus tests, positive and negative, also had to be reported to the state.

Abbott made national news with his March 26 order (when there were 18 dead, 1,394 confirmed infections) requiring air travelers coming from coronavirus hot spots in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Orleans to self-quarantine for 14 days or for the length of their stay in Texas, whichever was shorter.

Four days later, with the death toll at 38 and with 2,874 confirmed cases, the governor's fifth executive order of the coronavirus outbreak expanded the quarantine list to all Louisiana residents traveling into Texas by road. He also expanded his earlier order on air travelers to include mandatory self-quarantines for those from Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago and any airport in Louisiana, California and Washington state.

That same day, March 30, Abbott also issued an executive order prohibiting no-money bonds for suspects accused of violent crimes or previously convicted for violent acts — even if their current charges were nonviolent — saying efforts to reduce jail populations should not endanger public safety.

The order led to another legal challenge that is still being fought in the courts.

Bail order fought

Judges, lawyers and activists swiftly filed suit to block Abbott's bail order, arguing that it infringed on judicial authority in violation of the Texas Constitution's separation of powers. They also argued that the order discriminates against poor people, who rely on personal bonds to get out of jail while their cases are pending — a limitation that doesn't apply to defendants of means.

The lawsuit said judges should not be prohibited from common-sense efforts to reduce populations in jails, where conditions are ripe for the rapid spread of the coronavirus to guards, workers and inmates.

"The Disaster Act empowers the governor to respond to disasters but not to usurp the roles of the judiciary and Legislature," the lawsuit argued.

State District Judge Lora Livingston of Travis County agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the bail limits on April 10, but the Texas Supreme Court halted enforcement of Livingston's ruling the next day to allow time to review Paxton's appeal, earning praise from the attorney general.

"A health crisis cannot stop the need for justice, and the district court's decision directly endangered the public," Paxton said.

A separate fight before the Court of Criminal Appeals also seeks to have Abbott's bail order declared unconstitutional on behalf of a Travis County inmate, Luis Arroyos, who was initially denied bail for possession of less than a gram of a controlled substance because of a 9-year-old assault conviction.

'Draconian' rules

Abbott's seventh executive order arrived March 31.

With 3,266 confirmed infections and 41 fatalities, Abbott issued what was essentially a stay-home order, though he took pains to label it differently as conservative Republicans chafed at the economic impact of shutdown orders at the state, county and city levels.

Replacing the ban on social gatherings of more than 10, Abbott's order required "every person in Texas" to avoid contact with other people not in their household unless seeking an "essential service," such as going to the grocery store or gas station.

It also continued the shutdown of nonessential businesses such as gyms, salons, bars and tattoo studios, but it designated houses of worship as essential, allowing in-person services as long as precautions were taken; and it overruled any local rules in conflict with his new order.

The order also prompted a lawsuit by conservative activists, pastors and business owners that seeks to overturn Abbott's stay-home order as "draconian and unconstitutional."

Filed Thursday in Travis County state District Court, the lawsuit argued that the order is illegal and void because it required Abbott to suspend a number of state laws, a power that belongs only to the Legislature.

Abbott's order also sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the state economy to be shut down during future health scares, said Jared Woodfill, a former Harris County GOP chairman who filed the lawsuit.

"The coronavirus has resulted in politicians creating an environment and policy based on fear," the lawsuit said. "Once government and its constituents start operating on the basis of fear rather than facts, they are willing to take whatever medicine is prescribed, no matter how harmful the side effects may be."

On Friday, Abbott said his stay-home order could be eliminated as early as April 27, returning to the standard barring gatherings of more than 10 people, if the spread of the coronavirus continues to slow.

More mail-in voting?

Abbott also has issued a string of proclamations in response to the pandemic, including two that postponed elections — the May 26 primary runoffs and the May 2 special election to replace retiring state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin — until July 14.

A third proclamation suspended state laws to let cities, counties, school districts and other local jurisdictions delay May 2 elections until Nov. 3.

It made no sense, Abbott said last month, to threaten the health of voters and poll workers by asking them to congregate in confined spaces.

The Texas Democratic Party, which has been pushing to greatly expand voting by mail as a safe, if not required, alternative, followed with two lawsuits.

The first, filed in Travis County, led to an order by state District Judge Tim Sulak that allows mail-in voting for those who fear COVID-19. Sulak relied on a provision in state election law that allows mail-in ballots for those with a "disability" whose health could be hurt by appearing at a polling location.

Lawyers for Paxton, who is expected to appeal, had argued that the power to expand mail-in voting should remain with Abbott, who is in the best position to determine what's required for safety, particularly for a runoff that is three months in the future.

The second lawsuit, filed in San Antonio federal court, argues that failure to expand mail-in balloting is a violation of voting rights. That lawsuit is still in the early stages.

Abbott's latest orders

On Friday, with the state death toll at 428 and with 17,371 confirmed COVID-19 infections, the governor issued three new executive orders, bringing his total to 10 thus far related to the pandemic.

One established a "strike force" of political, medical and business leaders to advise Abbott on how to best reopen the state's economy.

The second order established a "retail to go" model allowing stores to reopen beginning this coming Friday by delivering purchased items to a customer's car or home with minimal contact. The order also shut down schools — public, private and higher education — for the rest of the semester.

The third order relaxed rules limiting medical procedures now that there appears to be adequate hospital beds and protective medical equipment available to meet expected needs.

Procedures will again be allowed to help "diagnose or correct" a serious condition, Abbott said Friday, pointing to tests for cancer as an example, but he said surgeries must still be postponed if they are not medically necessary.

Asked if abortions would be allowed under the looser rules, Abbott said abortion was not mentioned in the order.

"Ultimately, obviously that will be a decision for courts to make," he said.

But abortion providers believe they fit under an exemption listed in Abbott's Friday order, which takes effect Wednesday and allows surgeries for licensed health centers that will not request protective equipment from public sources, provided they set aside 25% of hospital capacity for COVID-19 patients. Because they don't need public supplies and don't have hospital beds, the providers said they will request an exemption from state health officials.

Test of time?

The governor's disaster powers originally were written with shorter-term events in mind, particularly hurricanes, not a long and slow-moving disaster like a pandemic, said Rice University political science professor Mark Jones.

"Things are not going to fall as neatly within the structure of the law," Jones said, leaving Abbott to operate in a gray area that gives him one distinct advantage.

"The governor is the first mover, and it's up to anybody who opposes him to try to stop him via the courts," he said.

And while the courts have yet to rule on a number of weighty issues related to the governor's use of power in the current crisis, Kevin Roberts, executive director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank ideologically aligned with Abbott, said he expects emergency power to remain concentrated in the governor's hands once the pandemic passes.

Leadership by committee doesn't work as well in an emergency, he said.

"I think the way the state constitution is written with power flowing to the governor, and the way the governor (exerted his power) will both stand the test of time," Roberts said.