Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T16:22:22.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regressive Federalism, Rights Reversals, and the Public’s Health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2022

James G. Hodge Jr. ,
Jennifer L. Piatt ,
Leila Barraza  and
Erica N. White
James G. Hodge Jr.
Affiliation:
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, USA
Jennifer L. Piatt
Affiliation:
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, USA
Leila Barraza
Affiliation:
MEL AND ENID ZUCKERMAN COLLGE OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA, USA
Erica N. White
Affiliation:
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the United States emerges from the worst public health threat it has ever experienced, the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider constitutional principles from bygone eras. Judicial proposals to roll back rights under a federalism infrastructure grounded in states’ interests threaten the nation’s legal fabric at a precarious time. This column explores judicial shifts in 3 key public health contexts — reproductive rights, vaccinations, and national security — and their repercussions.

Keywords

FederalismRegressionConstitutional PrinciplesPandemicNational Security Rights
Type
Columns: Public Health and the Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 50 , Issue 2: Commercial Speech and Commercial Determinants of Health , Summer 2022 , pp. 375 - 379
Copyright
© 2022 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

About This Column

James G. Hodge, Jr., J.D., LL.M., serves as the section editor for Public Health and the Law. He is the Peter Kiewit Foundation Professor of Law and Director, Center for Public Health Law and Policy, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University (ASU).

References

Hodge, J.G. Jr. “The Role of New Federalism and Public Health Law,” Journal of Law and Health 12, no. 2 (1997-98): 309–357, available at <https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jlah12&id=315&men_tab=srchresults> (last visited April 12, 2022).Google ScholarPubMed
See, J.G. Hodge Jr. Public Health Law in a Nutshell, 4th Ed. (West Academic Publishing, 2021): at 37.Google Scholar
Bernstein, A. and Staszewski, G., “Populism Has Found a Home at the Supreme Court, Too,” N.Y. Times, Dec. 16, 2021, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/opinion/supreme-court-populism.html> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 2619 (May 17, 2021) (No. 19-1392).Google Scholar
Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21-4603, 595 U.S. __ (Dec. 10, 2021).Google Scholar
C. Blow, “We’re Edging Closer to Civil War,” N.Y. Times, Dec. 12, 2021, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/opinion/abortion-rights-america.html> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Tsesis, A., “Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: Judicial Incursion into Legislative Authority, Social Justice 41 (2014): at 47, available at < https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040 &context=social_justice> (last visited April 12, 2022).Google Scholar
Hodge, J.G. Jr. and Piatt, J.L., “COVID’s Counterpunch: State Legislative Assaults on Public Health Emergency Powers,” Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 36, no. 1 (2022): 33–53, available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3846081> (last visited April 12, 2022).Google Scholar
Hodge, J.G. Jr. et al., “Legal Interventions to Counter COVID-19 Denialism,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 49, no. 4 (2021): 677–682, available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 3911198> (last visited April 12, 2022).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See, e.g., Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021), cert. denied (2021).Google Scholar
J.G. Hodge, Jr., “High Court’s Hints on Vaccine Mandates,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 10, 2022, available at <https://www.ajc.com/opinion/opinion-high-courts-hints-on-vaccine-mandates/ TS6CW3CQM5G3XEAFHVTE75ITDQ/> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Mello, M.M. and Parmet, W.E., “Public Health Law After Covid-19,” New Eng. J. Med. 385, no. 13 (2021): 1153–55, available at <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2112193> (last visited April 12, 2022).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
W. Parmet, “A Dangerous Legal Battle Over Vaccine Mandates Will Continue,” New York Times, Oct. 31, 2021, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/opinion/supreme-court-vaccine-mandates-covid.html > (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Hodge, Jr., supra note 2, at 406.Google Scholar
Hodge, J.G. Jr. “National Legal Paradigms for Public Health Emergency Responses,” American University Law Review 71, no. 1 (2021): at 73–83, available at <https://aulawreview.org/blog/national-legal-paradigms-for-public-health-emergency-responses/> (last visited April 12, 2022).Google Scholar
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020); S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (South Bay II), 141 S. Ct. 716, 718–19 (2021).Google Scholar
Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489–90 (2021).Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, 141 S. Ct. 2494 (2021).Google Scholar
M. Ziegler, “The Deviousness of Texas’s New Abortion Law,” The Atlantic, Sept. 1, 2021, available at <https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/deviousness-texass-new-abortion-law/619945/> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, 142 S. Ct. 522 (2021).Google Scholar
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 2619 (May 17, 2021) (No. 19-1392).Google Scholar
Cohen, I.G., Reingold, R.B., and Gostin, L.O., “Supreme Court Ruling on the Texas Abortion Law: Beginning to Unravel Roe v Wade,” JAMA, Jan. 28, 2022, available at <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788711?guestAccessKey=4d3645bd-bd66-4add-9873-73296 cb06a16&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama &utm content=olf&utm_term=012822> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Transcript of Oral Argument at 43, 76-77, 107, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (U.S. Dec. 1, 2021).Google Scholar
Id. at 76-77.Google Scholar
Id. at 87-88.Google Scholar
Wehle, K., “What Roe Could Take Down with It,” The Atlantic, Dec. 3, 2021, available at <https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/what-roe-could-take-down-it/620892/> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Brief for Texas Right to Life as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (U.S. Dec. 1, 2021).Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).Google Scholar
Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021, H.R. 3755, 117th Cong. (2021).Google Scholar
Nash, E., “State Policy Trends 2021: The Worst Year for Abortion Rights in Almost Half a Century,” Guttmacher Inst., Dec. 16, 2021, available at <https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/12/state-policy-trends-2021-worst-year-abortion-rights-almost-half-century> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
“Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe,” Guttmacher Inst., Jan. 13, 2022, available at < https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Foster, D.G., The Turnaway Study (New York: Scribner, 2020): at 21–22, 127, 146, 176.Google Scholar
Id. at 146.Google Scholar
Id. at 176.Google Scholar
Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., Nos. 21A244 & 21A247, 595 U.S. (Jan. 13, 2022).Google Scholar
COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 Fed. Reg. 61,402 (Nov. 5, 2021).Google Scholar
Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (1970).Google Scholar
“Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal Year 2020 (Oct. 1, 2019 to Sept. 30, 2020),” Occupational Safety & Health Admin., available at <https://www.osha.gov/top10citedstandards> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
NFIB, supra note 37.Google Scholar
“COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS,” Occupational Safety & Health Admin., Jan. 25, 2022, available at <https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
Bernstein and Staszewski, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, No. 3:21-cv-356, 2022 WL 188329 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022).Google Scholar
Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, No. 22-40043, 2022 WL 391820 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2022).Google Scholar
“Frequently Asked Questions Related to Compliance with the Applicable Preliminary Nationwide Injunction on Implementation and Enforcement of the Vaccination Requirement Pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14043,” Safer Fed. Workforce Task Force, Jan. 24, 2022, available at <https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/downloads/FAQs_compliance_injunction_EO%2014043_20220124.pdf> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S.B. 345, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2022).Google Scholar
D. Richards, “Georgia Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Ban COVID Vaccine Requirement in Schools,” 11 Alive, Jan. 25, 2022, available at <https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/anti-vaccination-bill-georgia-senate/85-dabc52a2-9af8-464d-835b-ff41651725ef> (last visited April 12, 2022).+(last+visited+April+12,+2022).>Google Scholar
S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020).Google Scholar
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 140 S. Ct. 2603 (2020).Google Scholar
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020).Google Scholar
Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021).Google Scholar
Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021).Google Scholar
Chrysafis v. Marks, 15 F.4th 208 (2nd Cir. 2021).Google Scholar
Coronavirus Aid, Relief & Economic Security Act, Pub. L. 116–136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020).Google Scholar
Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. (1952).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 264 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Control of Communicable Diseases, 82 Fed. Reg. 6890 (Jan. 19, 2017).Google Scholar
Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs, 141 S. Ct. 2320 (2021).Google Scholar
Id. at 2486.Google Scholar
Id. at 2490.Google Scholar
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 79 (2020) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
C. Blow, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, E., The Case Against the Supreme Court (New York: Penguin Books, 2015), at 334–335.Google Scholar