Javascript must be enabled to continue!
I Don't Want To, And You Can't Make Me: Policy And Legal Battles Over Mask Mandates During The Pandemic
View through CrossRef
<p>This article explores the policy and legal debates over mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article explains why many Americans opposed mask mandates so strongly that they protested in the streets and filed lawsuits to overturn the mandates. The article then examines the wide variety of reasons given for opposing mask mandates. While those arguments were largely unsuccessful during the early stages of the pandemic as state and local governments imposed mask mandates throughout the country, they proved more persuasive later in the pandemic as governors in several states rescinded their mandates and issued orders forbidding local governments and school boards from issuing their own mask mandates. </p><p>The article next relates the legal battles that blossomed in state and federal courts over the authority of governmental entities to issue mask mandates and over the constitutionality of those mandates as they applied to businesses, religious institutions and K-12 schools. With very few exceptions, both state and federal courts found adequate authority in state statutes for mask mandates issued by governors, state health officials, local governments, and school boards, and they consistently rejected constitutional challenges to those mandates. The governors’ orders precluding local mask mandates generally survived judicial review in state courts, but received mixed reviews in federal courts when challenged under federal disability statutes. The mask mandates issued by the Biden administration likewise received mixed reviews in the federal courts as they differed over how to apply the Supreme Court’s recently articulated “major questions” doctrine to analyzing the authority of federal agencies to issue mask mandates in a pandemic.</p><p>Finally, the article examines the implications of the mask mandate litigation for the epidemics and pandemics that are certain to arise in the future in a world in which lockdowns and quarantines are unlikely to stop the spread of airborne pathogens and masking may be the most effective way to prevent massive illness and death. Future mask mandates issued by state and local governmental entities are likely to survive judicial scrutiny, but recent judicial hostility to federal agency assertions of broad statutory powers suggests that congressional action will be necessary to ensure that federal agencies have adequate authority to issue mask mandates for interstate transportation and federally sponsored assistance programs.</p>
Title: I Don't Want To, And You Can't Make Me: Policy And Legal Battles Over Mask Mandates During The Pandemic
Description:
<p>This article explores the policy and legal debates over mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The article explains why many Americans opposed mask mandates so strongly that they protested in the streets and filed lawsuits to overturn the mandates.
The article then examines the wide variety of reasons given for opposing mask mandates.
While those arguments were largely unsuccessful during the early stages of the pandemic as state and local governments imposed mask mandates throughout the country, they proved more persuasive later in the pandemic as governors in several states rescinded their mandates and issued orders forbidding local governments and school boards from issuing their own mask mandates.
</p><p>The article next relates the legal battles that blossomed in state and federal courts over the authority of governmental entities to issue mask mandates and over the constitutionality of those mandates as they applied to businesses, religious institutions and K-12 schools.
With very few exceptions, both state and federal courts found adequate authority in state statutes for mask mandates issued by governors, state health officials, local governments, and school boards, and they consistently rejected constitutional challenges to those mandates.
The governors’ orders precluding local mask mandates generally survived judicial review in state courts, but received mixed reviews in federal courts when challenged under federal disability statutes.
The mask mandates issued by the Biden administration likewise received mixed reviews in the federal courts as they differed over how to apply the Supreme Court’s recently articulated “major questions” doctrine to analyzing the authority of federal agencies to issue mask mandates in a pandemic.
</p><p>Finally, the article examines the implications of the mask mandate litigation for the epidemics and pandemics that are certain to arise in the future in a world in which lockdowns and quarantines are unlikely to stop the spread of airborne pathogens and masking may be the most effective way to prevent massive illness and death.
Future mask mandates issued by state and local governmental entities are likely to survive judicial scrutiny, but recent judicial hostility to federal agency assertions of broad statutory powers suggests that congressional action will be necessary to ensure that federal agencies have adequate authority to issue mask mandates for interstate transportation and federally sponsored assistance programs.
</p>.
Related Results
Piece by piece: Collaborative mosaic-making for inclusive policy development
Piece by piece: Collaborative mosaic-making for inclusive policy development
This report sets out the findings from one of four projects commissioned by Wellcome Policy Lab to pilot creative approaches to policy development. In this project, Scientia Script...
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere
From Constitutional Comparison to Life in the Biosphere is a monograph that argues for a fundamental reorientation of constitutional law around the realities of biospheric interdep...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
COVID-19 Pandemic: Face Mask Mandates, Hospitalization, and Infection Rates in the United States
COVID-19 Pandemic: Face Mask Mandates, Hospitalization, and Infection Rates in the United States
Face masks have been identified as one of the preventive methods for the control of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Un...
THE ANALOGY OF STATUTE AND THE ANALOGY OF LAW AS DOCTRINAL INSTRUMENTS FOR LEGAL RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC CHALLENGES
THE ANALOGY OF STATUTE AND THE ANALOGY OF LAW AS DOCTRINAL INSTRUMENTS FOR LEGAL RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC CHALLENGES
Ukraine's contemporary legal system is undergoing a period of significant transformation, which necessitates not only a robust and stable legal framework, but also a flexible doctr...
Responsibilised Resilience? Reworking Neoliberal Social Policy Texts
Responsibilised Resilience? Reworking Neoliberal Social Policy Texts
Introduction This essay begins with the premise that resilience, broadly defined as positive adaptation despite adversity (Garmezy and Rutter), and resilience building are importa...
Prevalensi dan faktor risiko mask acne pada mahasiswa program studi sarjana kedokteran dan profesi dokter Universitas Udayana angkatan 2019-2021
Prevalensi dan faktor risiko mask acne pada mahasiswa program studi sarjana kedokteran dan profesi dokter Universitas Udayana angkatan 2019-2021
Introduction: One of the mandatory health protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic is wearing a mask. Masks that are used for a long time can increase the risk of developing acne vul...
Bridging online and offline dynamics of the face mask infodemic
Bridging online and offline dynamics of the face mask infodemic
Abstract
Background
Online infodemics have represented a major obstacle to the offline success of public health interventions during the COVID-19 pa...

