IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from eroding the trust of those lied to.
The legal system is explicitly set up to encourage this. Laws don't actually spell out in detail every situation to which they might apply - there's no way a legislator can foresee this. Rather, the laws provide general guidelines of legislative intent, and then if two firms disagree on what that means, they take it to court, where the judge and often jury look at the specifics of the case, the text of the laws, how similar past cases were decided, and the general principle that similar situations should be decided in similar ways. Then they come down with a decision, which becomes case law by which future cases are decided.
If you want to succeed in Western countries it's worth internalizing this. In the absence of legal advice to the contrary, just assume that what you're doing is legal and assert it confidently, and most people won't challenge you. If they do, it helps to have lots of money to afford lawyers on retainer, so that a.) you're more likely to actually be right when you assert that what you're doing is legal and b.) you can craft very good arguments to persuade the judge and jury if it turns out you're wrong.
Can you explain? The second paragraph of the majority decision quotes the Louisiana law which it upholds:
"In case that any parish, town, or city, or any portion thereof, shall become infected with any contagious or infectious disease, to such an extent as to threaten the spread of such disease to the other portions of the state, the state board of health shall issue its proclamation declaring the facts and ordering it in quarantine, and shall order the local boards of health in other parishes, towns, and cities to quarantine against said locality"
That sure sounds like it's talking about local quarantines to me.
No judge is going to sign off on an injunction when an epidemic is raging nationwide, with a large number of confirmed cases on the west coast [1]. I'll eat crow if you find one with that much chutzpa.
They may in extreme circumstances - the courts still will function and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of BS challenges to this restriction - but if authorities step over the line and, for instance, close down a small political rally of 300 while an opponent's rally of 500 is unaffected, then injunctions will happen.
IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from eroding the trust of those lied to.