During the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials exercised their police powers to combat the spread of the virus. The pandemic-related legal interventions adopted throughout the United States included lockdown orders and mask mandates. However, these policies and interventions meant to promote the general welfare of the public, in defense of common good, were met with legal challenges, especially in opposition to interventions’ impact on the exercise of religion. This article provides a legal analysis of the policies meant to curb the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on legislative and judiciary actions and their implications for religious freedom. Ultimately, we hope this article will help inform future legal analyses on conflicts between public health and religious freedom in the context of pandemic legal preparedness efforts.

The struggle for control of this nation's life-giving blood resources was, up until five years ago, largely a private affair between representative organizations of the blood collectors. The system that emerged from that struggle was declared unhealthy by several experts who complained that blood was too often unsafe or unavailable. Then in 1972 the government, predominantly the federal government, responded to public pressure and joined the fray. This Comment examines some legal, political, and policy aspects of the battle over blood collection—a battle from which no stable guiding force has yet evolved.

Spurred by President Ronald Reagan's 1986 Executive Order seeking to establish a drug-free workplace and by the growing empirical data purporting to show a loss of time, money and productivity due to the adverse effects of substance abuse, employers in both the public and private sector have implemented drug testing programs on an unprecedented scale. Today, employers subject an estimated thirty million workers to some type of employer-sponsored drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. A 1996 survey by the American Management Association reports that eighty-one percent of all major corporations now employ some type of drug testing program, a fourfold increase in nine years.

While drag testing in the health care sector is rising, it still lags behind other industries. When a hospital does test, it often exempts a crucial job classification—physicians. This Article's thesis centers on the potential liability hospitals face by failing to include drug testing in its hiring and credentialing process.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed myriad and complex challenges for our national health care system spanning preparedness, response, access, costs, infrastructure, coordination, and medical innovation. These challenges implicate federal, state, and local agencies and actors, as well as international collaborative bodies. One constant throughout the pandemic has been the pressing need for safe and effective diagnostics, prophylactic vaccines, and drug treatments to counter the virus.1 Inarguably, significant problems with the multi-faceted system of drug and vaccine innovation and regulation manifested long before the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The pandemic, however, has laid bare the inextricable connections among federal funding, patents, product review and approval mechanisms, and the eventual medical products and resulting costs.