A Baldwin County judge has rejected an emergency legal effort to compel Sheriff Huey “Hoss” Mack to more aggressively enforce Gov. Kay Ivey’s statewide “safer at home” order, ruling after a hastily arranged teleconference hearing that the petitioner had not shown a legal basis for the court to intervene.
Circuit Judge Clark Stankoski denied the writ of mandamus, which had asked the court to force Mack’s office to take direct enforcement action against businesses and religious organizations that were not complying with the statewide health order tied to the coronavirus pandemic. In his ruling, Stankoski wrote that the petitioner “failed to present any evidence of a justifiable controversy for the court to decide,” adding that statements made by the sheriff, standing alone, did not amount to the kind of proof needed to prevail on the claims.
The dispute traced back to a video Mack posted on social media days earlier, in which he said his office would not take law enforcement action against businesses or religious institutions that defied the order. Instead, he said deputies would simply notify violators that the order was in effect and leave enforcement to other regulatory bodies, such as the Alabama Department of Public Health.
That stance prompted Baldwin County consumer advocate Paul Ripp, who has a history of pursuing legal challenges against local governmental bodies, to file the emergency petition. In the filing, drafted by attorney Harry Still, Ripp argued that Mack’s public comments amounted to a “dereliction of duties” that risked creating a public health crisis in the county. The petition characterized the sheriff’s position as political activity directed against an unpopular order and argued Ripp had the same right as any Alabama citizen to see a legally adopted order enforced.
Mack’s office pushed back forcefully in a written response filed the night before the hearing, arguing Ripp had not met the legal burden required for a court to issue a writ of mandamus. The response, prepared by attorney Randall Hillman, argued that the sheriff is given wide discretion in carrying out the duties of his office, and that any statements he made about his preferred methods or strategies for enforcing state law fell squarely within that discretion. Hillman argued that such statements, on their own, could never support a claim of dereliction of duty or a failure to act.
During the emergency hearing, held by teleconference, Mack testified that his office had received only a handful of informal complaints about possible violations of the health order and that each one had been investigated and found unfounded. He said his decision against pursuing custodial arrests for order violations reflected a broader, collective policy shared among law enforcement agencies across the region, reached after consulting with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, and the 12 police chiefs who lead departments throughout Baldwin County. Mack also acknowledged, however, that Attorney General Steve Marshall was not informed of his enforcement plan before it was made public.
Ripp, testifying in support of his own petition, conceded he had no specific evidence that Mack’s approach had caused a public health crisis, but said he and his wife both have underlying health conditions that put them at greater risk from COVID-19. Attorney Harry Still pointed the court to guidance previously issued by the Attorney General’s Office, which advised Alabama law enforcement agencies that they are authorized to issue misdemeanor citations and take other action “as needed” to enforce state health orders.
Stankoski also sustained an objection raised by Hillman concerning a potential conflict of interest, related to Mack’s ownership stake in a Robertsdale funeral home and a commercial real estate business, though the judge said he would issue a more detailed explanation of his ruling in a follow-up filing.
The legal fight played out against a fast-changing backdrop at the state level. The same morning the writ was denied, Ivey amended her statewide health order, which had been set to expire May 14, to allow restaurants, close-contact service businesses and certain gatherings, including religious services, to resume operating under new restrictions and guidelines beginning the following Monday.
The episode highlighted broader tensions across Alabama and the country in the spring of 2020, as local officials weighed how aggressively to enforce state pandemic restrictions on individual businesses and residents, often balancing public health guidance against concerns about government overreach and enforcement capacity.