Judicial Decisions Constraining Public Health Powers During COVID-19: Implications For Public Health Policy Making.

Public health legal powers are increasingly under pressure from the courts in the United States. During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals and organizations successfully challenged many community mitigation orders (for example, mask mandates, vaccination mandates, and restrictions on gatherings), demonstrating the legal vulnerability of disease control measures. Analyzing 112 judicial decisions in which the plaintiff prevailed from March 2020 through March 2023, we examined the ways in which courts constrained public health powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that in these 112 decisions, courts shifted how they analyze religious liberty claims and reviewed challenges to the exercise of statutory powers by health officials in novel ways. We discuss implications for public health policy going forward, and we recommend ways in which legislatures and health officials can design policies to maximize their prospects of surviving legal challenges.

Public Health Law and Policy Implications: Justice Kavanaugh.

Following the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in one of the most sensational jurisprudence events of the modern era, we examine potential repercussions across multiple themes in public health, law, and policy stemming from his ideology and the confirmation process.

The Role of Advocacy in Public Health Law.

This article discusses how advocacy can be taught to both law and public health students, as well as the role that public health law faculty can play in advocating for public health. Despite the central role that advocacy plans in translating public health research into law, policy advocacy skills are rarely explicitly taught in either law schools or schools of public health, leaving those engaged in public health practice unclear about whether and how to advocate for effective policies. The article explains how courses in public health law and health justice provide ideal opportunities to teach advocacy skills, and it discusses the work of the George Consortium, which seeks to engage public health law faculty in advocacy efforts.

Immigration and Health: Law, Policy, and Ethics.

Immigration poses numerous challenges for health professionals and public health lawyers. This article reviews these challenges. We begin by offering some background on immigration and health and then explain some of the reasons why immigrants are less likely than natives to have health insurance. Next we turn to a discussion of some of the particular challenges relating to the health care of refugees. We conclude by analyzing and rejecting some of the arguments that are made for discriminating against immigrants with respect to the provision of public health benefits and services.

Health: Policy or Law? A Population-Based Analysis of the Supreme Court's ACA Cases.

This essay argues that it matters for the fate of health policies challenged in court whether courts consider health merely as a policy goal that must be subordinate to law, or as a legal norm warranting legal weight and consideration. Applying population-based legal analysis, this article demonstrates that courts have traditionally treated health as a legal norm. However, this norm appears to have weakened in recent years, a trend evident in the Supreme Court's first two decisions concerning the Affordable Care Act, NFIB v. Sebelius and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby However, in its more recent Affordable Care Act decision, King v. Burwell, the health legal norm is once again evident. Whether the Court will continue to treat health as a legal norm will prove critical to the deference and weight it grants health policies in the future.

The Perils of Panic: Ebola, HIV, and the Intersection of Global Health and Law.

This Article explores the connections between emerging infectious diseases, domestic disease panics, global health, and the law by comparing the American response to Ebola to the initial American response to the AIDS epidemic. We demonstrate that in both cases the arrival of a new deadly disease was initially met with fear, stigma and the use of law to "other" those associated with the disease. We begin by reviewing the initial responses to the AIDS epidemic. We then offer a brief history of emerging infectious disease scares over the past few decades, highlighting the problematic rhetoric that paved the way for the Ebola panic. We then review the 2014 Ebola outbreak, noting its similarities and distinctions from the early AIDS epidemic. Finally, we examine United States policies regarding HIV and Ebola in Africa. We conclude with some tentative observations about the relationship between germ panics, law, and public health.