Reviewing administrative Law’s response to public health crises: lessons learned
Reviewing Administrative Law’s Response to Public Health Crises: Lessons Learned
Introduction
Public health crises—such as pandemics, epidemics, and environmental health emergencies—require swift and effective administrative action. Agencies are tasked with:
Implementing emergency regulations,
Enforcing quarantine or vaccination mandates,
Regulating business operations and movement,
Allocating scarce resources.
Administrative law governs how these powers are exercised, balancing public safety with individual rights, statutory limits, and procedural fairness.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed both strengths and weaknesses in administrative law’s ability to respond, producing important lessons for future crises.
Key Themes in Administrative Law Response
Scope of Agency Powers
Determining how far agencies can go under existing statutes during emergencies.
Judicial Deference
Courts often defer to agency expertise but may limit this when rights or separation of powers are implicated.
Procedural Fairness and Transparency
Ensuring fair process even during urgent action.
Balancing Public Health and Individual Rights
Protection of civil liberties amid emergency measures.
Intergovernmental Coordination
Administrative law reflects the roles of federal, state, and local authorities.
Key Cases Demonstrating Administrative Law in Public Health Crises
1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
➡️ Classic Foundation of Public Health Authority
Facts:
Massachusetts required smallpox vaccinations.
Jacobson refused and challenged the law.
Holding & Explanation:
The Supreme Court upheld the state law, ruling that states have broad police powers to enact health regulations.
The decision established the principle that public health can justify reasonable regulations limiting individual liberties.
It remains foundational for administrative authority in health crises.
2. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)
➡️ Limits of Deference to Emergency Orders Affecting Fundamental Rights
Facts:
COVID-19 restrictions limited attendance at religious services.
The Diocese challenged the orders as unconstitutional.
Holding & Explanation:
The Supreme Court blocked the restrictions, emphasizing that even during emergencies, fundamental rights require strict scrutiny.
Courts showed less deference when government orders burden constitutional freedoms like religion.
This case signals that emergency administrative actions must be narrowly tailored and non-discriminatory.
3. Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
➡️ Limits on Agency Authority in Economic Public Health Measures
Facts:
The CDC issued an eviction moratorium during COVID-19.
The moratorium was challenged as beyond CDC’s authority.
Holding & Explanation:
The Supreme Court struck down the moratorium, ruling the CDC exceeded its statutory powers.
This case underscored that administrative agencies must act within clear statutory authority, even in emergencies.
Courts are wary of agencies making broad economic or social policy decisions without legislative backing.
4. BST Holdings, LLC v. OSHA, 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021)
➡️ Judicial Review of Vaccine Mandates in the Workplace
Facts:
OSHA issued a rule mandating vaccines or weekly testing for large employers.
Businesses sought injunction.
Holding & Explanation:
The Fifth Circuit stayed the rule, citing lack of statutory authority and concerns over individual liberty.
The court emphasized the “major questions doctrine”, limiting administrative power in wide-reaching mandates.
This reflects increased judicial scrutiny over administrative emergency actions affecting large populations.
5. Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)
➡️ Upholding Public Health Mandates Within Statutory Authority
Facts:
Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers under Medicare/Medicaid conditions.
Holding & Explanation:
The Supreme Court upheld the mandate, finding it consistent with HHS’s statutory powers.
Shows courts will defer where agencies act within clear, specific legislative authority, especially in healthcare contexts.
Confirms that administrative law balances authority and limits carefully in health emergencies.
Lessons Learned from Administrative Law’s Response to Public Health Crises
1. Emergency Powers Must Have Clear Statutory Basis
Agencies cannot assume broad powers without explicit legislative authorization.
Courts will limit agency overreach even during emergencies (e.g., CDC eviction moratorium case).
2. Judicial Deference is Context-Dependent
Courts defer to agency expertise on technical health matters but less so when constitutional rights or major economic impacts are involved.
The major questions doctrine limits deference on significant policy questions.
3. Fundamental Rights Remain Protected
Public health measures must be narrowly tailored and non-discriminatory (e.g., religious service limits).
Balancing public safety and individual freedoms is a central administrative law challenge.
4. Procedural Fairness and Transparency are Crucial
Despite urgency, agencies must respect procedural norms and allow for public input when possible.
This maintains legitimacy and reduces legal challenges.
5. Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination is Vital
Clear delineation of federal vs. state powers helps avoid confusion and conflicting mandates.
Summary Table of Cases and Lessons
| Case | Key Issue | Lesson Learned |
|---|---|---|
| Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) | State police power in health | Foundations for broad public health authority |
| Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo (2020) | Religious freedom limits | Courts protect fundamental rights during crises |
| Alabama Realtors v. HHS (2021) | Agency authority limits | Statutory basis required for emergency powers |
| BST Holdings v. OSHA (2021) | Vaccine mandates & authority | Major questions doctrine restricts agency power |
| Biden v. Missouri (2022) | Healthcare vaccine mandate | Deference when agency acts within clear authority |
Conclusion
Administrative law plays a crucial role in managing public health crises but must carefully balance:
Effective emergency response,
Respect for individual rights,
Clear statutory authority, and
Procedural fairness.
COVID-19 highlighted that while agencies need flexibility, judicial oversight remains essential to prevent overreach and safeguard democratic principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments