They didn't do that here. They wanted a direct check on the agency's decision, rather than executing the power they actually had.

To quote my other response, on why this was a stupid ruling:

>Which is literally the court's excuse for the "rulemaking" ruling - that they should have gone through the 12mo+ tradition of regulation-development that legislatively-empowered agencies utilize. Which isn't how public health powers usually work - the public health powers are delineated in empowering statutes and regulations ahead of time, and allow leewey to do things like "order quarantine" within broadly-worded statutes+regs.

> Which is why this was phenomenally stupid. Besides ignoring context, this was a ruling that basically boiled down to "agencies cannot exercise the powers developed in the scope of their founding statutes and regulations unless those (edit: specific manifestations) have been very explicitly laid out ahead of time, otherwise, they need to go to rulemaking for every application of their powers." It effectively guts the ability of agencies to do things they are supposed to do, have been doing, and prevents them from acting in time-frames <12months.

All in the context of a legislative body that had a legal remedy afforded to them, but that would have been too slow. So for political purposes, they've now gutted the ability of emergency agencies to respond to emergencies, so that legislatures don't have to legislate changes to legislation.