US Supreme Court opinions from the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic to date are reshaping national and subnational abilities to respond to public health emergencies. Substantial impacts in emergency legal preparedness and response arise in multiple legal areas including: (1) federal executive authorities; (2) access to health services and emergency care; (3) public health emergency interventions and mandates; (4) race-based limitations in resource allocations; (5) misinformation; and (6) scope of liability during and after emergencies. Against this backdrop an array of legal options and critical takeaways may help mitigate the impacts of US Supreme Court opinions and advance effective emergency responses ahead.
Moyle v United States, 603 US 324 (2024) (per curiam).
6.
MelloMM, JiangDH, ParmetWE. Judicial decisions constraining public health powers during COVID-19: implications for public health policy making. Health Aff (Millwood). 2024; 43(6):759-767.
7.
FindlingMG, BlendonRJ, BensonJM. Polarized public opinion about public health during the COVID-19 pandemic: political divides and future implications. JAMA Health Forum. 2022; 3(3):e220016.
8.
West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, 597 US 697 (2022).
9.
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (1984).
10.
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo, 603 US 369 (2024).
SugieNF, TurneyK, ReiterK, et al.Excess mortality in U.S. prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Adv. 2023; 9(48):eadj8104.
27.
AugustineD, KushelM. Community supervision, housing insecurity, and homelessness. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2022; 701(1):152-171.
28.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. 5 things you should know about COVID-19 vaccines. Published October 13, 2023. Accessed August 22, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/ncird/whats-new/5-things-you-should-know.html
29.
Cash-GoldwasserS, ReingoldAL, LubySP, JacksonLA, FriedenTR. Masks during pandemics caused by respiratory pathogens–evidence and implications for action. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(10):e2339443.
30.
YakushevaO, van den Broek-AltenburgE, BrekkeG, AtherlyA. Lives saved and lost in the first six months of the US COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cost-benefit analysis. PLoS One. 2022; 17(1):e0261759.
31.
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Newsom, 140 SCt 1613 (2020).
32.
ParmetWE. From the shadows: the public health implications of the Supreme Court’s COVID-free exercise cases. J Law Med Ethics. 2021; 49(4):564-579.
33.
StrasserM. COVID-19, free exercise, and Most Favored Nation Status. Lewis Clark Law Rev. 2023; 27(1):1-38.
34.
Groff v Dejoy, 600 US 447 (2023).
35.
303 Creative LLC v Elenis, 600 US 570 (2023).
36.
Biden v Missouri, 595 US 87 (2022) (per curiam).
37.
National Federation of Independent Business v OSHA, 595 US 109 (2022) (per curiam).
HodgeJGJr, HanflingD, HickJL, PiattJL. Diminishing disparities in U.S. crisis standards of care: medical and legal challenges. EClinicalMedicine. 2021; 34:e100838.
