Balancing on a tightrope twenty feet above the ground is outside the comfort zones of many health law professors. Being there forces you to consider in new ways yourself, your skills, and your surroundings. Fears arise, and yet you must still act. And you must trust that the person who offered you this opportunity cared about you and your well-being, and that they would ensure there was a way to get from where you began to the other side.

Public health laws and policies are uniquely able to mitigate the adverse and inequitable health impacts of climate change. This article summarizes some key considerations in developing such laws and policies and a variety of approaches local public health departments are using to increase climate resilience and health equity.

This paper summarizes key shifts in judicial decisions relating to public health powers during the pandemic and the implications of those decisions for public health practice. Then, it gives a preview and call for partnership in developing a legal framework for authority that guides public health to better activities, processes, and accountability in service of the public’s health.

The power afforded to the administrative state is heavily reliant on public trust and the perception of evidence-based agency decision-making. Organizational reputation is key to preserving regulatory power. However, recent investigations reveal that existing scientific integrity policies may not be sufficient to preserve the credibility of many federal agencies. In fact, a significant number of career scientists across various entities – including the FDA – have observed unreported incidents of political interference. While political influence exerted by the executive branch to set policy goals and determine agency priorities can be beneficial, political pressures must not undermine public trust in scientific agencies. Recently, public perception regarding the FDA’s COVID-19 response threatened to weaken the agency’s longstanding reputation as the gold standard of review. The COVID-19 pandemic publicized vulnerabilities that exist across agencies, as well as those that are unique to the FDA. The FDA’s evolution as an increasingly public health-focused agency that must function in the landscape of politicized science exposes the agency to a greater risk of political interference. After all, the FDA’s involvement in public health requires increased participation in non-ideal, value-based decision-making. Throughout its history, the FDA has managed to maintain its reputation through its firm responses to scandal. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a platform for the FDA to – once again – look introspectively and institute safeguards addressing vulnerabilities that plagued the agency’s pandemic response. This Article examines the FDA’s early COVID-19 response to propose reforms that promote meaningful transparency, public accountability, and scientific integrity.

The COVID-19 Law Lab platform enables quantitative representation of epidemic law and policies in a given country for multiple years, enabling governments and researchers to compare countries, and learn about the impacts and drivers of policy choices. The Law Lab initiative is designed to address the urgent need for quality legal information to support the study of how law and policy can be used to effectively manage this, and future, pandemic(s).

This contribution marks a dual milestone at the intersection of public health law and JLME: my 50th publication of a substantive manuscript in the 50th anniversary of the Journal in 2022. In recognition of these coinciding landmarks, this installment of the Public Health Law column for JLME features observations and reflections of the field based largely on prior publications.

The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) is a multilateral, multisectoral partnership comprised of more than 70 countries, international organizations, foundations, and businesses to strengthen global health security.

Involuntary commitment links the healthcare, public health, and legislative systems to act as a “carceral health-service.” While masquerading as more humane and medicalized, such coercive modalities nevertheless further reinforce the systems, structures, practices, and policies of structural oppression and white supremacy. We argue that due to involuntary commitment’s inextricable connection to the carceral system, and a longer history of violent social control, this legal framework cannot and must not be held out as a viable alternative to the criminal legal system responses to behavioral and mental health challenges. Instead, this article proposes true alternatives to incarceration that are centered on liberation that seeks to shrink the carceral system’s grasp on individuals’ and communities’ lives. In this, we draw inspiration from street-level praxis and action theory emanating from grassroots organizations and community organizers across the country under a Public Health Abolition framework.

This article analyzes the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” Free Exercise cases relating to COVID-19. The paper highlights the decline of deference, the impact of exemptions, and the implications of the new doctrine for vaccine and other public health laws.

Similar to the triaging of patients by health care workers, legal and public health professionals must prioritize and respond to issues of law and ethics in declared public health emergencies. As revealed by the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza outbreak and other events, there are considerable inconsistencies among professionals regarding how to best approach these issues during a public health emergency. Our project explores these inconsistencies by attempting to assess how practitioners make legal and ethical decisions in real-time emergencies to further critical public health objectives. Using a fictitious scenario and interactive visualization environment, we observed real-time decision-making processes among knowledgeable participants. Although participants' decisions and perspectives varied, the exercise demonstrated an increase in the perception of the relevance of legal preparedness in multiple aspects of the decision-making process and some key lessons learned for consideration in future repetitions of the exercise and actual, real-time emergency events.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S242-S251)

Health care providers and their legal counsel play pivotal roles in preparing for and responding to public health emergencies. Lawyers representing hospitals, health systems, and other health care provider components are being called upon to answer complex legal questions regarding public health preparedness issues that most providers have not previously faced. Many of these issues are legal issues with which public health officials should be familiar, and that can serve as a starting point for cross-sector legal preparedness planning involving both the public health and health care communities. This article examines legal issues that health care providers face in preparing for public health emergencies, and steps that providers, their legal counsel, and others can take to address those issues and to strengthen community preparedness. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:50–56)