Federalism in pandemic administration
🔹 What Is Federalism?
Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the federal government and the states. During a pandemic, this system is tested as different layers of government respond through:
Public health mandates (masks, vaccines, lockdowns)
Emergency powers
Resource allocation
Travel restrictions
Commerce regulation
The COVID-19 pandemic sparked significant litigation about the scope of federal vs. state powers in emergencies, particularly regarding:
States' police powers
Federal supremacy in certain domains (e.g., OSHA, CDC)
Individual rights and mandates
🧾 Key Case Law: Federalism & Pandemic Administration
Below are 7 landmark or illustrative cases, showing how courts interpreted constitutional and statutory limits on pandemic-related authority:
✅ 1. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020 & 2021)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: California
Issue:
Did California’s COVID-19 restrictions on houses of worship violate the First Amendment and federal constitutional rights?
Holding:
In multiple iterations, SCOTUS vacated California’s restrictions on religious gatherings.
Found that California discriminated against religious practices by treating secular activities more favorably.
Significance for Federalism:
Demonstrated limits on state emergency powers when federal constitutional rights are involved.
Signaled that federal courts can invalidate state health orders if they are not neutrally applied.
Reinforced the principle that federal constitutional rights trump state police powers, even in a pandemic.
✅ 2. Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services (2021)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nationwide
Issue:
Was the CDC’s federal eviction moratorium constitutional?
Holding:
SCOTUS struck down the CDC’s eviction moratorium.
Ruled that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority under the Public Health Service Act.
Significance for Federalism:
Underscored limits on federal agency power without clear congressional authorization.
Affirmed that property law is largely a state domain, and federal interventions require explicit legislative backing.
Marked a judicial pushback against federal administrative overreach.
✅ 3. National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Department of Labor (OSHA) (2022)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nationwide
Issue:
Did OSHA (a federal agency) have the authority to impose a vaccine-or-test mandate on large private employers?
Holding:
SCOTUS blocked OSHA’s vaccine mandate.
Found that COVID-19 is not an occupational hazard unique to workplaces, and Congress did not clearly authorize OSHA to impose such a broad rule.
Significance for Federalism:
Reinforced the “major questions doctrine”: federal agencies need clear authorization from Congress for significant policy actions.
Left pandemic workplace mandates to state discretion unless Congress intervenes.
Elevated state powers in managing health and workplace safety, unless federally preempted.
✅ 4. Biden v. Missouri (2022)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nationwide
Issue:
Could the federal government, via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), require vaccination for healthcare workers in facilities receiving federal funds?
Holding:
SCOTUS upheld the CMS vaccine mandate.
Found the rule within the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ authority to ensure health and safety in federally funded facilities.
Significance for Federalism:
Supported federal power over entities receiving federal funding.
Established that conditional spending programs (like Medicare/Medicaid) allow the federal government greater regulatory control.
Drew a line: federal funding = federal strings attached, even during a pandemic.
✅ 5. Tandon v. Newsom (2021)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: California
Issue:
California restricted in-home religious gatherings more strictly than commercial gatherings.
Holding:
SCOTUS struck down the restrictions.
Found that California’s rules discriminated against religion, violating the First Amendment.
Significance for Federalism:
Another case showing federal courts overriding state health regulations when constitutional rights are infringed.
Reinforced that pandemic does not erase constitutional protections.
Limited the scope of state public health powers in areas involving religious liberty.
✅ 6. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Issue:
New York imposed capacity limits on churches and synagogues during the pandemic.
Holding:
The Court issued an injunction, holding that restrictions likely violated the First Amendment.
Significance for Federalism:
Similar to South Bay and Tandon, it showed that federal constitutional protections constrain state emergency measures.
Emphasized that state health orders must be neutral and narrowly tailored.
✅ 7. Texas v. United States (2021–2022)
Court: Federal courts, multiple levels
Jurisdiction: Texas and national impact
Issue:
Texas challenged federal vaccine mandates, arguing that they infringed upon state sovereignty and individual rights.
Holding:
Various rulings blocked federal mandates (e.g., federal contractors, Head Start programs).
Courts found that some mandates were not clearly authorized by Congress and encroached on state authority.
Significance for Federalism:
Marked a wave of state-led resistance to federal pandemic interventions.
Courts sided with states' rights and the need for legislative clarity.
Strengthened judicial scrutiny of federal executive action in health emergencies.
🔍 Key Doctrinal Themes Emerging from These Cases
| Legal Doctrine / Theme | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Federal Supremacy | Federal constitutional rights override conflicting state orders. |
| Major Questions Doctrine | Agencies need clear congressional authorization to act on major policies. |
| State Police Powers | States retain broad authority over public health, safety, and welfare. |
| Conditional Spending Power | Federal government can impose conditions on recipients of federal funds. |
| First Amendment Limits | States cannot discriminate against religion, even in emergencies. |
| Judicial Pushback on Agencies | Courts are more willing to limit federal administrative power. |
📊 Federalism During Pandemics: U.S. Model
| Federal Role | State Role |
|---|---|
| CDC guidelines, OSHA rules, federal funding | Enforced lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine distribution |
| National emergency declarations | Localized response strategies |
| Immigration and border health screening | School and business closures |
| Medicare/Medicaid rules | State public health agency actions |
🧠 Final Reflections: What the Future Holds
The pandemic has reshaped administrative federalism in the U.S., revealing both strengths and vulnerabilities:
Expected Reforms & Trends:
Stricter limits on federal agencies acting without Congress
Codification of public health emergency powers at state level
Increased judicial review of emergency executive action
More balanced federal-state partnerships in health infrastructure
Comparative Insight:
Unlike centralized systems (e.g., France or China), U.S. federalism decentralizes pandemic response, leading to:
Variation in outcomes
Litigation over mandates
Stronger constitutional challenges from citizens and states
RELATED Blog
0 comments