HodgeJ. G.Jr.GostinL. O.HanflingD.HickJ. L., “Law, Medicine, and Public Health Preparedness: The Case of Ebola,”Public Health Reports, 130 (2014): 1–4, at 2.
3.
HodgeJ. G.Jr.MeaserG.AgrawalA. M., “Top 10 Issues of Law, Public Health, and Ebola,” ABA Health e-Source 2015.
4.
ShawF. E.McKieK. L.LiveoakC. A.GoodmanR. A., and the State Public Health Counsel Review Team, “Variation in Quarantine Powers Among the 10 Most Populous US States in 2004,”American Journal of Public Health, 97no. S1 (2007): S38–S43, at S38.
5.
U.S. Const. Amend. X.
6.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26 (1905).
7.
Id., at 27 (“Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”).
8.
Id., at 25 (“It is equally true that the state may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States, nor infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.”).
9.
Id., at 29 (“But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”).
10.
Jew Ho v. Williamson, 103 F. Supp.10 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1900).
11.
Id., at 24. Additionally, the court questioned whether the bubonic plague was at all present, as no living cases had been examined and there had been no evidence of “transmission of the disease from any of those who have died.” Id., at 25. Ultimately, the court stated “the evidence in this case seems to be sufficient to establish the fact that the bubonic plague has not existed, and does not now exist, in San Francisco.” Id., at 26.
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960) (“In a series of decisions this Court has held that, even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. The breadth of legislative abridgment must be viewed in the light of less drastic means for achieving the same basic purpose.”).
14.
See Shaw, supra note 4.
15.
See 20 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 2305/2(c) (West 2014).
16.
Emory University, CEPAR Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, available at <www.emergency.emory.edu> (last visited January 13, 2015) (CEPAR is the Center for Emory enterprise-side planning for, and coordinated response to, catastrophic events affecting Emory and the broader community. It partners with various schools, departments, organizations, groups and governing bodies throughout the institution and the community).
17.
IsakovA.JamisonA.MilesW.RibnerB., “Safe Management of Patients with Serious Communicable Diseases: Recent Experience with Ebola Virus,”Annals Internal Medicine (2014), available at <http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1906849> (last visited January 13, 2015); FoxJ.BornsteinB.GrantS., “Emory Healthcare Ebola Preparedness Protocols,”available at <www.emoryhealthcare.org/ebolaprep> (last visited January 13, 2015) (for a compilation of Emory's protocols and external resources used in the treatment of patients with Ebola).
