America is now in a moment of national crisis.  The harrowing truth is that any African-American taken into police custody, regardless of how minor his violation, is likely to run a risk of losing his very life.

In Minneapolis, George Floyd was asphyxiated by a police officer as a result of suspicion that he passed a $20 counterfeit bill.

In Atlanta, Rayshard Brooks was shot to death by police after being taken into custody for appearing to be under the influence of alcohol and consequently falling asleep at the wheel while waiting in line at Wendy’s.  The entire tragedy would have been avoided had Brooks been permitted to walk home and leave his car and keys in the custody of the police, as he requested.

Over a half century ago, in March, 1968, the federal Kerner Commission, appointed by the then President Lyndon Baines Johnson, found that the prime proximate cause of the racial disturbances then rampant in America’s cities had been racist police practices.  The tragedies of Minneapolis and Atlanta, along with other recent unjustifiable homicides committed by white police officers against African-American victims are graphic evidence of the continuing widespread racist police brutality to which our African-American citizens are daily subject.

When New Jerseyans elect a governor, we are electing a moral leader as well.  When New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy took part in the protest marches at the beginning of June in Hillside and Westfield, he was in a very real sense acting within the scope of his official duties as a moral leader of the citizenry of our state.

This is important to note, because of the apparent conflict between the governor’s official action as a protest march participant and his Executive Order mandating social distancing and the wearing of masks during the Coronavirus outbreak.

Assembly Republican Leader Jon Bramnick has sponsored an Assembly resolution with two basic conclusions: 1) an expression of legislative “concern” regarding Murphy’s alleged violation of his own Executive Order, in effect a censure of Governor Murphy; and 2) a statement that Murphy should be  subject to the same standards as other New Jerseyans cited for participating in public gatherings of more than 25 people in violation of his Executive Orders, namely fines and other penalties.

If one accepts the argument that Murphy’s protest march participation was in the course of his official duties, then he would have the absolute discretion to waive the enforcement of any executive order, statute, or regulation that would prevent him from carrying out such a justifiable official executive action.  This is particularly true in cases like this where the Governor’s protest march action conveyed upon himself no direct or indirect personal benefit, financial or otherwise.

For the purposes of argument, however, let us accept the Republican contention that Murphy’s protest march action was personal, rather than in his official capacity as governor.  Then, the issue is whether Murphy’s action in contradiction of his own executive order was an appropriate act of civil disobedience, in the tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

An action of civil disobedience has three basic conditions:

1. An act in violation of a law which the protestors either a) assert was unjust; or b) concede was just but contend that compliance in a particular case would work an injustice.

The latter is the case here.  The Murphy executive orders were both appropriate and indeed laudable and necessary measures to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus.  Strict compliance with these Executive Orders in the cases of the Westfield and Hillside marches, however, would work an injustice, namely the obstruction of a powerfully legitimate protest against the racist police brutality that has now plunged our nation into a major continuing crisis.

2. The violation of the law in question would not negatively impact respect for the rule of law in general.

The renowned New Jersey criminal trial defense attorney and social justice advocate, Joseph Hayden has most accurately contended that the violation by Murphy of his executive orders was at most of a de minimis nature.  That is particularly true in view of the fact that Murphy wore a mask while marching, demonstrating emphatic compliance with the spirit of the law, namely prevention of the spread of the Coronavirus.

Indeed, the de minimis nature of the alleged violation of the executive order makes it most unlikely that Murphy’s action would in any way generate any disrespect for the rule of law.

3, The party violating the law in question is willing to plead guilty and pay the penalty in question.

This is exactly what Bramnick should call for and Murphy should do in this case.

Murphy’s executive orders in this regard were seriously flawed in that they did not provide an exception for political protests.  He remedied the defect on Tuesday, June 9, by issuing an order exempting political protests from the state’s rules on outdoor gatherings during the Coronavirus outbreak.

If Murphy should arrange to plead guilty to a charge of violation of the executive order, he will have engaged in a most moral and defensible case of civil disobedience, one the citizenry of New Jersey should applaud.’

Jon Bramnick is a profoundly decent man and not a racist.  Yet his sponsorship of this resolution sends out a most inappropriate signal of opportune political partisanship at a time of national crisis.

I did not vote for Phil Murphy for governor in 2017.  Yet his moral courage and adherence to principle have won my admiration.  His actions on the issue of racist police brutality should be a subject for the expression of legislative approbation, rather than censure.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush and as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission