Why is Uhlfelder allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit?
<blockquote>
<p>A former Florida Supreme Court justice has lined up in support of a
Santa Rosa Beach attorney who’s the focus of investigations after he
dressed up as the Grim Reaper and sued Gov. Ron DeSantis for refusing
to shut down state beaches last year amid the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>Daniel Uhlfelder garnered national headlines for donning the costume
to criticize DeSantis’ handling of the pandemic. As COVID-19 cases
surged throughout the state in March 2020, Uhlfelder filed a lawsuit
asking a judge to order the governor to close beaches and issue a
“safer-at-home” order to curb the spread of the virus.</p>
<p>Leon County Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll in April 2020 found that he
lacked the authority to force the governor to shut down beaches and
dismissed the case but encouraged Uhlfelder to pursue an appeal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-grim-reaper-florida-legal-fight-20210913-vekdyjfec5bojcyvgtkpemazsa-story.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-grim-reaper-florida-legal-fight-20210913-vekdyjfec5bojcyvgtkpemazsa-story.html</a></p>
<p><a href="https://outline.com/FW6VSq" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://outline.com/FW6VSq</a></p>
<p>Why is Uhlfelder allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit? He ordered the governor to close beaches and issue an order to curb the spread of the virus, but he has absolutely no authority to do so, so how come he's allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit that was rejected and likely is to be rejected again. Is there something I am missing?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>how come he's allowed to pursue an appeal over a frivolous lawsuit that was rejected and likely is to be rejected again</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The fact that a claim is most likely to fail in upper courts does not mean it is frivolous. Interestingly, the second link you provide reflects that the judge who dismissed the case encouraged Uhlfelder to pursue an appeal. This is at odds with Lewis's import that the lawsuit was ruled as frivolous.</p>
<p>Maybe it is the appellate court which <em>might have</em> called the claim frivolous. Without knowing the arguments at issue it is hard to get an idea of what happened, more so where the last two paragraphs of that article insinuate political motives. The journalist(s) could (and should) have done a better job by giving at least a bare glimpse of the main legal arguments.</p>
<p>That being said, the top court of other countries have been issuing various rulings in the sense that some measures under pretext of the &quot;pandemic&quot; are in violation of that country's constitutional law.</p>
<p>One example that would contravene Uhlfelder's type of claim is <a href="https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/en/Resolucion/Show/26778" rel="nofollow noreferrer">STC 148/2021, de 14 de julio</a>, FJ 5 (paragraph starting with &quot;<em>Tal restricción aparece [...]</em>&quot;), where the Constitutional Tribunal of Spain held that it was unlawful for the government to <em>de facto</em> suppress during its decreed &quot;state of alarm&quot; the <em>freedom of movement</em>. The tribunal pointed out that the restrictions impermissibly amounted to a generalized suspension <em>a radice</em> of that fundamental right. It is impermissible because it exceeds the limitations of the legal tool known under Spanish law as &quot;state of alarm&quot;. Likewise, Uhlfelder's purpose of shutting down public areas (i.e., the state beaches) sounds in impairing the people's freedom of movement.</p>

united-states