From its inception, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptive force on U.S. health care and public health systems. President Biden’s announced termination of the national public health emergency on May 11, 2023 portends a return to normalcy and relief for Americans from the greatest infectious disease scourge the nation has ever faced. In reality, closing out this pandemic presents a tempest of legal and practical complications.

Among the morass of critical issues impacting the results of the midterm elections in 2022 were core public health issues related to health care access, justice, and reforms. Collectively, voters’ communal health and safety concerns dominated outcomes in key races which may shape national, state, and local legal approaches to protecting the public’s health in the modern era.

Amid undulating conceptions of the role and prowess of federalism emerges its central constitutional role: protecting American liberties against unwarranted governmental intrusions. To the extent that federalism is used as a guise for withdrawing fundamental rights to abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, individual rights are sacrificed in contravention of constitutional structural norms.

In a dynamic term of the United States Supreme Court in 2021-2022 a series of critical cases raise manifold changes and impacts on individual and communal health through 10 key areas ranging from abortions to vaccinations.

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.

This contribution marks a dual milestone at the intersection of public health law and JLME: my 50th publication of a substantive manuscript in the 50th anniversary of the Journal in 2022. In recognition of these coinciding landmarks, this installment of the Public Health Law column for JLME features observations and reflections of the field based largely on prior publications.

A series of denialist state laws thwart efficacious public health emergency response efforts despite escalating impacts of the spread of the Delta variant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immunizing hundreds of millions against COVID- 19 through the most extensive national vaccine campaign ever undertaken in the United States has generated significant law and policy challenges.

The fight for public health primacy in U.S. emergency preparedness and response to COVID-19 centers on which level of government — federal or state — should “call the shots” to quell national emergencies?

Escalating demands for limited food supplies at America’s food banks and pantries during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised ethical concerns underlying “first-come, first-served” distributions strategies. A series of model ethical principles are designed to guide ethical allocations of these resources to assure greater access among persons facing food insecurity.

In his letter, Peace is a better focus than Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), David M. Brett-Major provides a vital reminder of the tragic undercurrent of violence and political instability dominating African regions currently impacted by the second worst Ebola outbreak in modern history. He characterizes health-centric activities as a “common mistake” to remedy the “vicious cycle” of endemic violence and disease outbreaks in DRC and surrounding areas. What is truly needed is a “concerted peace and development process, with health as a voice in a chorus – not alone.”

Thirty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have legalized medical cannabis. While no two state medical cannabis programs are alike, public health concerns related to advertising, packaging and labeling, pesticide use, scientific research, and the role of medical cannabis in the opioid crisis are emerging across the country. This article examines these issues, the policy approaches states are adopting to protect patients and the public, and an assessment of the underlying federal legal landscape.

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.