I see. I also noticed the place where I read this has issued a correction that they reposted an article from May 2020 by mistake...Oooppps.
FWIW, here's my best understanding of Evers's orders and the court rulings on them.
Under state law, the governor can make an emergency declaration, and by doing so authorize various other administrative officials to take certain actions. Here, the emergency declaration authorizes the health director to be able to direct bars to close, limit size of public gatherings etc. etc. Those orders can have a duration of no more than 60 days, after which they either expire, or can be extended, but extended only though action by the legislature.
Evers made the first such declaration and the health officer took such actions in March - the exact dates aren't important, but we can look them up if necessary. Nobody questioned his authority to make the declaration or the health officer's authority to do that first round of restrictions.
When the restrictions were set to expire in May, the state health officer issued an extension of the measures, with modifications, etc. People and restaurants and bar owners sued. The state Supreme Court ended up ruling that the second set of restrictions were invalid, but not because Evers didn't have the authority - they left that question open. Rather, they said that because Evers' declaration had expired and was not renewed, the health officer was exceeding her statutory authority. Would it have all been OK if Evers' had simply extended or renewed his emergency declaration? They didn't say.
So then, when things starting getting bad again in September, Evers made another emergency declaration, triggering the authority for the health officer to make another round of restrictions, etc. My understanding of the lawsuits that followed argue that this is not a "new" emergency; it is just Evers is trying to extend the original declaration from March, and he can't do that. Evers argument is that we had a "wave" in March, it receded and then in September a second COVID wave started. Second wave means new emergency, and allows for a new declaration, all within his authority.
(Think about a river that floods in the spring. Emergency declared. Then the river recedes. Two months later, the river floods again. Same emergency, or a new one?)
So far, the circuit court said "no, same emergency". I have not looked at the appellate court ruling; I assume it also says "no, same emergency". The state Supreme Court has not yet ruled one way or the other.
But in the meantime, the water level in the river is rising. Rapidly.
