Judicial Review of Public Health Powers Since the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trends and Implications.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, officials in the United States at all levels of government utilized their legal authorities to impose a wide range of measures designed to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; the causative agent of COVID-19), including shutting down businesses, limiting the size of gatherings, requiring masking, and mandating vaccination. These orders and regulations were challenged in court cases that resulted in more than 1000 judicial decisions. Common claims were based on alleged procedural and substantive due process violations, violations of religious liberty, and violations of officials' scope of authority. In more than three fourths of the decisions, the court refused to grant the plaintiffs the relief sought. However, plaintiffs found success in several notable cases, especially in federal court. These recent decisions, as well as broader prepandemic trends, have important implications for public health officials' exercise of their public health powers, especially when those exercises implicate religious liberty. In this legal environment, officials may need to rely more on the powers of persuasion than on their legal authority alone. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(3):280-287. https://doi.org/10.2105/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307181).

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.