Parents of children with disabilities are seeking assistance from a federal appeals court after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ executive order aimed at barring schools from imposing mask mandates was given a nod by a judge, according to US media reports.

A notice was filed by the legal representation of the parents in the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the ruling given by Judge K. Micheal Moore on September 15, 2021, according to reports from Sun Sentinel.

Also Read: House fines Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for going maskless in US Capitol

A lawsuit filed in the state of Florida last month argues that an executive order signed by Governor DeSantis stands in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other such laws, which are considered to be essential in protecting the rights of students with disabilities, who are at an increased risk of being impacted by COVID-19.

In a district court document filed on Friday last week, the plaintiffs of the case argued, “Defendants have unlawfully discriminated against plaintiffs by refusing to allow local school districts the prerogative to allow masks and other common-sense precautions, as reasonable accommodations, to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that are necessary for disabled children to enjoy the same school services as their classmates”, according to reports from Sun Sentinel.

The report added, “The governor’s order adopts a policy, enforced by the Florida Department of Education against local school districts, that subjects qualified disabled children to discrimination on the basis of their disability in violation of the ADA.”

Also Read: Nearly 50% US companies to impose COVID vaccine mandate by 2021 end: Survey

The Tallahassee judge who briefly restricted a ban on the mask mandate wrote in a one-page decision, “We have serious doubts about standing, jurisdiction, and other threshold matters”, according to reports from Associated Press.

The decision added, “Given the presumption against vacating the automatic stay, the stay should have been left in place pending appellate review.”