title: The courts and public health: caught in a pincer movement.
abstract: Public health practitioners are familiar with the general outlines of legal authority and with judicial standards for reviewing public health regulations. What may not be as familiar are 3 emerging judicial doctrines that pose considerable risks to public health initiatives. We explain the contentious series of judicial rulings that now place health departments' broad grant of authority in jeopardy. One doctrine invokes the First Amendment to limit regulatory authority. The second involves the Supreme Court's reinterpretation of federalism to limit both federal and state public health interventions. The third redefines the standard of evidence required to support regulations. Together, these judicial trends create a pincer movement that places substantial new burdens on the ability of health departments to protect health.
authors.affiliation: Wendy E. Parmet is with the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, MA. Peter D. Jacobson is with the Center for Law, Ethics, and Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor.
authors.forename: Wendy E
authors.initials: WE
authors.lastname: Parmet
authors.forename: Peter D
authors.initials: PD
authors.lastname: Jacobson
mesh_terms: D003249:Constitution and Bylaws; D006801:Humans; D017009:Professional Autonomy; D011635:Public Health Administration / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D015980:Public Health Practice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States