It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that Gov. Kathy Hochul and state Attorney General Letitia James have decided to appeal a Cattaraugus County judge’s ruling against an expansion of state powers.

The decision also seems foolhardy given the clear signals against administrative overreach sent recently by the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA, a case that curbed administrative rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,'” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.

But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

In our view, Judge Ronald Ploetz’ ruling in Borrello et al v. Hochul et al is in the same vein as Roberts’ opinion in West Virginia v. EPA. If administrative agencies can’t make environmental policy without legislative approval, then why should New York state’s government be given authority — without proper due process protections — to remove people from their homes through an administrative rulemaking process with no legislative approval?

The lone difference between the two is federal due process claims were removed from the Borrello v. Hochul lawsuit, leaving for Ploetz’ consideration only Rule 2.13’s relationship with existing state law and the state constitution. Ploetz didn’t rule on state due process claims, finding that Rule 2.13 violates protections contained in existing state Public Health Law. But, it’s hard to see how expanding the state’s ability to order someone into isolation and quarantine without hearings before the fact rather than after the deed is done isn’t in violation of the state constitution’s due process protections, particularly without legislative action.

The state’s appeal in Borrello et al v. Hochul et al is nothing more than a waste of time and money, particularly when the state’s Democratic supermajority could implement such rules any time they want. But nobody, particularly in an election year, wants to sign on to such legislation.

So much for transparency, eh?