Global Judicial Opinions Regarding Government-Issued COVID-19 Mitigation Measures.

Laws play an important role in emergency response capacity. During the COVID-19 outbreak, experts have noted both a lack of law where it is needed and a problematic use of laws that exist. To address those challenges, policymakers revising public health emergency laws can examine how existing laws were used during the COVID-19 response to address problems that arose during their application. Judicial opinions can provide a source of data for this review. This study used legal epidemiology methods to perform an environmental scan of global judicial opinions, published from March 1 through August 31, 2020, from 23 countries, related to government-issued COVID-19 mitigation measures. The opinions were coded, and findings categorize the measures based on: (1) the World Health Organization's May 2020 publication, Overview of Public Health and Social Measures in the Context of COVID-19, and (2) related legal challenges brought in courts, including disputes about authority; conflicts of law; rationality, proportionality, or necessity; implementation; and enforcement. The findings demonstrate how judicial review of emergency measures has played a role in the COVID-19 response. In some cases, court rulings required mitigation measures to be amended or stopped. In others, court rulings required the government to issue a measure not yet in place. These findings provide examples for understanding issues related to the application of law during an emergency response.

National Public Health Institute Legal Framework: A Tool to Build Public Health Capacity.

As countries face public health emergencies, building public health capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to threats is a priority. In recent years, national public health institutes (NPHIs) have emerged to play a critical role in strengthening public health systems and to accelerate and achieve implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005). NPHIs are science-based government institutions that provide national leadership and expertise for the country's efforts to protect and improve health. Providing a Legal Framework for a National Public Health Institute is a recently released Africa CDC publication intended to support NPHI development throughout Africa. Here we present a legal mapping analysis of sampled legal domains for 5 countries, using the "Menu of Considerations for an NPHI Legal Framework." The analysis delineates the types of legal authorities countries may use to establish or enhance NPHIs and demonstrates how legal mapping can be used to review legal instruments for NPHIs. It also demonstrates variability among legal approaches countries take to establish and enable public health functions for NPHIs. This article examines how the legal framework and menu of considerations can help countries understand the nuances around creating and implementing the laws that will govern their organizations and how countries can better engage stakeholders to identify or address potential areas for opportunity where law may be used as a tool to strengthen public health infrastructure.

Social distancing policies in 22 African countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: a desk review.

INTRODUCTION: on January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. As of October 5, 2020, there were over 34.8 million reported cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and more than 1 million reported deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), globally. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing policies, hand hygiene, and mask use, are key public health measures to control COVID-19. In response to, or in some cases even before, the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported in their countries, policy makers across Africa issued various social distancing policies. METHODS: we describe social distancing policies issued from March 1 to April 24, 2020 in 22 Anglophone countries of sub-Saharan Africa. We reviewed policies identified online. RESULTS: though all 22 countries closed schools and banned gatherings, they took a variety of approaches to sizes of gatherings banned and to stay-at-home orders, with 13 countries issuing national stay-at-home orders, four issuing subnational stay-at-home orders, and five not issuing stay-at-home orders. Enforcement provisions varied by country, as did funeral and health care exceptions. CONCLUSION: movement restrictions, business restrictions, and school closures can have substantial negative impacts on economies, education, nutrition, and routine health care. Yet easing or lifting of COVID-19 social distancing policies can lead to increased transmission. Our review documents a wide variety of policy alternatives used in Africa and can inform future adjustments as countries ease, lift, and reapply measures in response to their evolving epidemics.

An Assessment of State Laws Providing Gubernatorial Authority to Remove Legal Barriers to Emergency Response.

Legal Perspectives is aimed at informing healthcare providers, emergency planners, public health practitioners, and other decision makers about important legal issues related to public health and healthcare preparedness and response. The articles describe these potentially challenging topics and conclude with the authors' suggestions for further action. The articles do not provide legal advice. Therefore, those affected by the issues discussed in this column should seek further guidance from legal counsel. Readers may submit topics of interest to the column's editor, Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, at lrutkow@jhu.edu. Governors play a fundamental role in emergency preparedness and can help facilitate rapid responses to emergencies. However, laws that operate successfully under normal circumstances can inadvertently create barriers during emergencies, delaying a timely response. State laws could thus limit, or even prohibit, necessary response efforts. To combat this risk, legislatures have passed emergency powers laws in each state granting governors the authority to declare a state of emergency and to exercise certain emergency powers to meet the needs of the emergency. Researchers conducted a 50-state legal assessment, which identified and examined state laws that give governors the discretion to modify existing laws or create new laws to respond effectively to any type of declared emergency. This article outlines the findings of that assessment, which identified 35 states that explicitly permit governors to suspend or amend both statutes and regulations; 7 states in which governors are permitted to amend regulations during a declared emergency but are not explicitly authorized to modify or remove statutes; and 8 states and the District of Columbia that provide no explicit authority to governors to change statutes or regulations during a declared emergency. The article also provides examples of how this power has been used in the past to demonstrate the utility and scope of this authority in a variety of public health threats.

Law and the JEE: Lessons for IHR Implementation.

In an increasingly globalized world, countries face infectious disease threats and public health emergencies that transcend borders, making health security of paramount importance. Legal frameworks, at both the international and national levels, can empower governments to strengthen public health and preparedness systems to better detect and respond to infectious disease threats and public health emergencies. The development of the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) and the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), and the resulting Joint External Evaluation (JEE), are examples of coordinated global efforts to build capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to the international spread of disease. This article uses 3 case studies to describe a role for law in IHR implementation. It highlights the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Global Health Security Public Health Law Project and describes how legal mapping data and the resources developed are being used by countries to strengthen health systems and support IHR implementation.