This Viewpoint provides historical and legal context for governmental directives to close schools and businesses, ban public gatherings, impose curfews, issue stay-at-home orders, require quarantines for travelers, and impose travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, urging transparent evidence-based processes to ensure equity and social justice.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) modeling suggests that, without mitigation, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), could infect more than 60% of the US population. 1 President Trump has declared a national emergency along with 50 governors declaring state emergencies (Figure), which are unprecedented actions. Social distancing aims to flatten the epidemic curve to moderate demand on the health system. Consequently, whether through voluntary actions or state mandates, individuals are increasingly sheltering at home, schools and universities are closing, businesses are altering operations, and mass gatherings are being canceled. On March 16, the health officers of 6 local governments in the San Francisco Bay Area issued mandatory orders to shelter in place, making it a misdemeanor offense to leave home for any nonessential purpose. Some countries have resorted to more aggressive measures, including cordons sanitaire (guarded areas in which individuals may not enter or leave) or large-scale ordering of individuals to remain in their homes at all times. What powers do the president and governors have in the United States? How should individual rights be balanced with public health at a critical point in safeguarding the nation's health? Federal Emergency Powers

No abstract

No abstract

A belief that the government does (and should) have broad authority to protect and improve health, coupled with an understanding that collective action is often necessary to address public health challenges effectively, is central to the public health mindset. But many are questioning whether this vision of a strong government role is applicable to non-communicable disease threats and the social determinants of health. Arguments about public health paternalism are playing a role in political opposition to new law and policy interventions and in legal challenges aimed at striking down existing public health laws. This article explores the forces behind the cultural and political resonance of concerns about public health paternalism, "personal responsibility," and the "nanny state" and attempts to outlines a potential path forward from here.

This piece explores legal, ethical, and policy arguments associated with using interventions that leverage feelings of shame and social exclusion to promote uptake of childhood immunizations by parents.

for their invaluable feedback and support; Jamie Hennelly, Nick Masero, and Lauren Nussbaum for their fantastic research assistance; and Dean Claudio Grossman for his unflagging support of junior faculty scholarship.

Contact me when this article is cited. Topic collectionsContact me when new articles are published in these topic areas.