Public health emergency declarations and judicial review
🔹 Overview: Public Health Emergency Declarations & Judicial Review
Public health emergency declarations allow governments (federal, state, or local) to activate extraordinary powers to contain or manage crises like pandemics, epidemics, or bioterrorism. These powers often include:
Quarantines or isolation orders
Business or school closures
Vaccine mandates or mask requirements
Travel restrictions
Emergency procurement or regulatory waivers
However, these measures raise constitutional and legal questions, and courts may be called upon to review whether such actions:
Exceed statutory authority
Violate constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, religious freedom, etc.)
Are arbitrary or capricious under administrative law principles
🔹 Legal Framework for Judicial Review
Judicial review typically evaluates:
Statutory authority: Did the executive have the power to act under emergency laws (e.g., Public Health Service Act, state emergency management laws)?
Constitutional rights: Did the action infringe on rights such as free exercise, assembly, or due process?
Standards of review: Courts use deferential review during emergencies but require rationality, evidence, and proportionality.
🔹 Major Cases: Public Health Emergencies & Judicial Review
1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
Facts: A man refused to comply with a Massachusetts law requiring smallpox vaccination and challenged it on liberty grounds.
Issue: Whether the state could mandate vaccinations during a public health emergency.
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that individual liberty can be restricted for the common good during a public health crisis.
Significance: This is the foundational case for government public health powers. It established the principle that public health measures are constitutional if they are reasonable, necessary, and not arbitrary.
2. Compagnie Française de Navigation à Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health (1902)
Facts: A steamship company challenged Louisiana’s quarantine laws that restricted passenger disembarkation during a yellow fever outbreak.
Issue: Whether state-imposed quarantine laws violated the Constitution or interfered with interstate commerce.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the state's authority to quarantine, finding no constitutional violation.
Significance: Affirmed broad state police powers in public health, even against business or economic concerns.
3. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020)
Facts: New York imposed attendance limits on houses of worship during COVID-19 under emergency public health orders.
Issue: Whether the restrictions violated the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Holding: The Supreme Court struck down the restrictions, finding them discriminatory because similar restrictions were not imposed on secular businesses.
Significance: Marked a shift away from Jacobson-style deference and signaled stronger judicial scrutiny when emergency orders burden fundamental rights.
4. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2021)
Facts: California imposed limits on in-person worship services during COVID-19.
Issue: Whether such limits were constitutional under the First Amendment.
Holding: The Supreme Court blocked California’s restrictions, saying they were not neutral and burdened religion more than comparable secular activities.
Significance: Reinforced that public health orders must treat religious and secular gatherings equally unless justified by compelling evidence.
5. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak (2020)
Facts: Nevada limited church gatherings to 50 people but allowed casinos and restaurants to operate at higher capacities.
Issue: Whether the state was unfairly burdening religious exercise.
Holding: The Supreme Court issued an emergency injunction against the state’s restriction.
Significance: Further confirmed that emergency declarations must not discriminate against religion, even during health crises.
6. Bayley’s Campground & RV Park v. Mills (2020)
Facts: The governor of Maine restricted out-of-state visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issue: Whether travel restrictions violated constitutional rights (e.g., right to travel and equal protection).
Holding: The court upheld the restrictions, finding they were narrowly tailored and based on public health data.
Significance: Showed that courts may uphold travel and mobility restrictions during emergencies if well-justified and temporary.
7. In re Abbott (2020) – 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Facts: Texas postponed elective medical procedures during COVID-19, including abortions, under emergency powers.
Issue: Whether emergency orders could restrict access to abortion.
Holding: The court initially allowed the state to impose temporary restrictions, citing Jacobson, but later the restrictions were struck down.
Significance: Revealed tension between emergency authority and reproductive rights, and courts’ evolving approach to balancing both.
8. Does 1-3 v. Mills (2021)
Facts: Healthcare workers challenged Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, arguing it violated their religious freedoms.
Issue: Whether the vaccine mandate infringed on First Amendment rights.
Holding: The Supreme Court declined to block the mandate, allowing the state policy to stand.
Significance: Demonstrated judicial support for vaccine mandates under emergency health powers, especially where states offered a rationale and public health justification.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Main Issue | Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) | Vaccine mandate vs. liberty | Mandate upheld | Liberty can yield to public health needs |
| Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo (2020) | Worship limits vs. free exercise | Restrictions struck down | Religious rights protected during emergency |
| Compagnie Française (1902) | Quarantine vs. commerce rights | Quarantine upheld | State has broad quarantine power |
| South Bay v. Newsom (2021) | Worship restrictions | Restrictions struck down | Must treat secular/religious equally |
| Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (2020) | Worship vs. business capacities | Restrictions struck down | No unequal treatment of religion |
| Bayley’s Campground v. Mills (2020) | Travel restrictions | Restrictions upheld | Mobility can be restricted temporarily |
| In re Abbott (2020) | Abortion access during emergency | Restrictions partially upheld/overturned | Emergencies don't eliminate rights entirely |
| Does 1–3 v. Mills (2021) | Religious exemption from vaccine mandate | Mandate upheld | Public health can override religious claims |
🔹 Key Takeaways
Emergency powers are broad, but not unlimited.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts remains a foundational case but is now read in light of modern constitutional standards.
Public health measures must be justified, non-arbitrary, and proportionate.
Fundamental rights (like religion or reproductive rights) may not be overridden without compelling justification.
Courts often defer to health authorities—but not when rights are clearly infringed without proper justification.
RELATED Blog
0 comments