Public health mandates intersecting with civil rights law
Context
Public health mandates (e.g., mask requirements, vaccination mandates, quarantine orders) are government actions aimed at protecting community health.
These mandates can sometimes restrict individual liberties or have disproportionate impacts on certain groups.
Civil rights law protects individuals against discrimination and ensures equal protection under the law, encompassing areas like race, disability, religion, and more.
The intersection arises when public health orders may conflict with constitutional rights or statutory civil rights protections.
Legal Framework
Constitutional Rights: First Amendment (religion, speech), Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), and sometimes Fourth Amendment (search and seizure).
Statutory Protections: Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, and others.
State Police Powers: States have broad authority to enact health regulations, but this power is not unlimited.
Courts balance public health interests against individual rights on a case-by-case basis.
Case Law Analysis
1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Facts: Massachusetts required smallpox vaccination; Jacobson refused and challenged the mandate as unconstitutional.
Issue: Does a state’s vaccination mandate violate individual liberty under the Due Process Clause?
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the vaccination law.
It recognized the state’s police power to enact health laws to protect public safety.
The Court stated individual liberties can be restricted when necessary for the common good, provided the law is not arbitrary or oppressive.
Significance:
The foundational case balancing public health mandates and individual rights.
Sets precedent for deference to public health measures unless they are unreasonable or arbitrary.
2. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Facts: Two Native American workers were fired for using peyote in religious ceremonies and denied unemployment benefits.
Issue: Whether state prohibition on peyote use violated Free Exercise Clause.
Holding:
The Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religion.
Religious exemptions are not required unless the law targets religion specifically.
Significance:
Public health mandates like vaccine or mask requirements generally withstand Free Exercise challenges if neutral and broadly applied.
Religious objections to health mandates may not exempt individuals if the law is neutral.
3. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. 365 (2016)
Facts: A student challenged university admissions policies that considered race as a factor, alleging racial discrimination.
Issue: How do public health and civil rights principles apply when government policies differentiate based on protected characteristics?
Holding:
The Court upheld narrowly tailored race-conscious policies to serve compelling interests.
Although not a public health case, it establishes strict scrutiny standards for any government action affecting civil rights.
Significance:
When public health mandates differentiate or disproportionately impact protected classes, courts apply heightened scrutiny.
Mandates must be necessary and narrowly tailored to survive discrimination claims.
4. Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021)
Facts: The case challenged Arizona voting restrictions alleged to violate the Voting Rights Act.
Issue: The Court clarified standards for evaluating claims of discrimination under civil rights laws.
Holding:
The Court stressed that policies are not discriminatory unless they impose severe burdens or are enacted with discriminatory intent.
Significance:
This applies to public health mandates too: differential impacts must be substantial and intentional to constitute civil rights violations.
Mere disproportionate impact alone may not trigger liability.
5. Cruz v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 5236150 (N.D. Fla. 2021)
Facts: Plaintiff challenged a county mask mandate claiming it violated First Amendment rights and disabled persons' rights.
Issue: Whether mask mandates violate civil rights or constitutional protections.
Holding:
The court upheld the mask mandate, citing Jacobson.
It ruled that the mandate was a neutral public health measure, justified by the pandemic emergency.
The court held that accommodations for disabilities were considered and addressed.
Significance:
Demonstrates courts’ general support for public health mandates.
Highlights the importance of reasonable accommodations for disabilities under the ADA.
6. Saget v. Trump, 375 F. Supp. 3d 280 (E.D. N.Y. 2019)
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule, arguing it discriminated against immigrants based on disability and health status.
Issue: Whether public health or immigration policies violate disability discrimination laws.
Holding:
The court found that policies excluding immigrants based on health could violate the Rehabilitation Act.
The government must provide justifications and ensure non-discrimination in public health-related policies.
Significance:
Shows how public health considerations intersect with civil rights protections in immigration.
Mandates or rules cannot discriminate against disabled individuals without valid justification.
7. EEOC Guidance on COVID-19 Mandates (2021)
While not a court case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance explaining:
Employers can require vaccines, but must provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs.
Discrimination claims arise if accommodations are denied without undue hardship.
Public health mandates intersect with civil rights when they impose burdens on protected classes.
Summary Table: Public Health Mandates & Civil Rights Case Law
| Case | Key Issue | Holding / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) | State vaccination mandates & individual liberty | State police power upheld for public health, with limits against arbitrary laws |
| Employment Division v. Smith (1990) | Free exercise challenges to neutral laws | Neutral public health laws apply even if they burden religion |
| Fisher v. UT Austin (2016) | Government differentiation & civil rights | Government must narrowly tailor policies affecting protected classes |
| Brnovich v. DNC (2021) | Disparate impact under civil rights laws | Disproportionate impact not necessarily discriminatory without intent or severe burden |
| Cruz v. Alachua County (2021) | Mask mandates & disability rights | Mask mandates upheld; reasonable accommodations required under ADA |
| Saget v. Trump (2019) | Public charge & disability discrimination | Health-based immigration policies must comply with disability protections |
| EEOC COVID-19 Guidance (2021) | Vaccine mandates & accommodations | Employers must accommodate disabilities and religious objections unless undue hardship occurs |
Conclusion
Public health mandates have strong legal backing under state police powers but must be balanced with civil rights protections.
Neutral mandates generally withstand constitutional challenges unless they discriminate intentionally or arbitrarily.
Courts require reasonable accommodations for disabilities and sincerely held religious beliefs.
Disparate impacts on protected classes are scrutinized but not automatically unlawful.
Ongoing challenges will require balancing public safety with protecting individual liberties and civil rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments