Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:48:35.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

After September 11: Rethinking Public Health Federalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Wendy E. Parmet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the fall of 2001, the need for a vigorous and effective public health system became more apparent than it had been for many decades. With the advent of the first widescale bioterrorist attack on the United States, the government's obligation to respond and take steps to protect the public health became self-evident.

Also obvious was the need for of an effective partnership between federal, state, and local officials. Local officials are almost always on the front lines of the struggle against bioterrorism. They are the first to recognize a suspicious case and to provide testing and treatment for the affected population. At the same time, state officials are needed to support and coordinate local efforts, providing an expertise that may be lacking in many communities, especially smaller ones.

But few would doubt that the federal government has a key role to play. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is expected to lead the epidemiological investigation and provide expertise on how to cope with diseases that remain unfamiliar to most physicians.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , Summer 2002 , pp. 201 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Stolberg, S.G., “A National Challenged: The Disease: Anthrax Threats Points to Limits in Health Systems,” New York Times, October 14, 2001, at A1.Google Scholar
Koplan, J.P., “Building Infrastructure to Protect the Public's Health,” a public health training network broadcast, available at <http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/documents/koplanASTHO.pdf> (last visited March 26, 2002). (last visited March 26, 2002).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Koplan,+J.P.,+“Building+Infrastructure+to+Protect+the+Public's+Health,”+a+public+health+training+network+broadcast,+available+at++(last+visited+March+26,+2002).>Google Scholar
Smithson, A.E., “To Bioterror, A Local Response,” New York Times, October 20, 2001, at A23.Google Scholar
Stolberg, S.G., “A Nation Challenged: The Public Health System: Tests and Calls Swamp States' Laboratories,” New York Times, October 16, 2001, at A5.Google Scholar
See CDC Strategic Planning Workgroup, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Biological and Chemical Terrorism: Strategic Plan for Preparedness and Response,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 49 (April 21, 2000), available at <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4904a1.htm>..>Google Scholar
Cendy, D. Kuczynski, A., “Second Anthrax Case Lead F.B.I. to Join Inquiry,” New York Times, October 9, 2001, at A1.Google Scholar
Miller, J. Stolberg, S.G., “A Nation Challenged: The Strategy: Sept. 11 Attacks Led to Push for More Smallpox Vaccine,” New York Times, October 22, 2001, at A1.Google Scholar
See text accompanying notes 56–100 infra.Google Scholar
See Greenhouse, L., “The Nation: Will the Court Reassert National Authority?,” New York Times, September 30, 2001, at Sec. 4, 14.Google Scholar
See text accompanying notes 66–78 infra.Google Scholar
E.g., Calabresi, S.G., “Federalism and the Rehnquist Court: A Normative Defense,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 574 (2001): 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.O. Parmet, W.E., “The Imperial Sovereign: Sovereign Immunity & The ADA,” Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 35 (forthcoming 2002).Google Scholar
Hamilton, A., “Federalist No. 17,” in Hamilton, A. Madison, J. Jay, J., The Federalist Papers (New York: Bantum Books, 1982): At 80–83.Google Scholar
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 203 (1824).Google Scholar
Parmet, W.E., “Health Care and the Constitution: Public Health and the Role of the State in the Framing Era,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 20 (1993): 267–335.Google Scholar
See text accompanying notes 36–37 infra.Google Scholar
Tribe, L.H.,American Constitutional Law (New York: Foundation Press, 2000): at 1068 et seq.Google Scholar
Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283 (1849).Google Scholar
For an analysis of these cases in the context of public health, see Outterson, K., “Health Care, Technology and Federalism,” West Virginia Law Review, 103 (2001): 503–39.Google Scholar
See, e.g., H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Selig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935); California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U.S. 306 (1905).Google Scholar
E.g., Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 (1891).Google Scholar
Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources, 504 U.S. 353, 366 (1992).Google Scholar
Morris v. City of Columbus, 30 S.E. 850 (Ga. 1898).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seavey v. Preble, 64 Me. 120 (1874). See also Segregation of Lepers, 5 Haw. 162, 166 (1884) (“‘Salus populi suprema est lex.’ The State has the authority inherent in itself to enact laws to secure the health, welfare and safety of the individual….”).Google Scholar
Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 62 (1872). For a more detailed discussion of the Court's incorporation of the idea of the police power and its relationship to public health into Fourteenth Amendment law, see Parmet, W.E., “From Slaughter-House to Lochner, The Rise and Fall of the Constitutionalization of Public Health,” American Journal of Legal History, 40 (1996): 476–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25 33 (1877).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
acobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E.g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 58 (1905).Google Scholar
Morgan's Louisiana & T.R. & S.S. Co. v. Board of Health of Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455, 464 (1886).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).Google Scholar
Medtronic v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996).Google Scholar
For more developed discussions of the federal role in public health, see Morgenstern, M.S., “The Role of the Federal Government in Protecting Citizens from Communicable Diseases,” University of Cincinnati Law Review, 537 (1978): 537–71.Google Scholar
An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, ch. 77, 1 Stat. 605 (1798).Google Scholar
Hodge, J.G., “Implementing Modern Public Health Goals Through Government: An Examination of New Federalism and Public Health,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 14 (1997): 93–126.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T., Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1992): at 102–51.Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O., Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000): at 41.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Hodge, , supra note 35, at 106.Google Scholar
Gostin, , supra note 37, at 46.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 291 et seq. (1994).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq. (1994 & Supp. V 2000);Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 1395 et seq. (1994 & Supp. V 2000).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370 (1994 & Supp. V 2000).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq. (1994 & Supp. V 2000).Google Scholar
E.g., U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895) (Sherman Act cannot be applied to manufacturing of sugar, as sugar manufacturing is not commerce).Google Scholar
South Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437 (1905).Google Scholar
Roots, R., “Other Rising Legal Issues: A Muckraker's Aftermath: The Jungle of Meat-Packing Regulation After a Century,” William Mitchell Law Review, 27 (2001): 2413–33.Google Scholar
See Kolata, G., Flu: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus That Caused It (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1999): at 121–86.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T., Boomerang: Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1996): at 133–50.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 1397aa et seq. (1994 & Supp. V 2000).Google Scholar
Shilts, R., And The Band Played On (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987): passim.Google Scholar
Gostin, L., “A Decade of A Maturing Epidemic: An Assessment and Directions for Future Public Policy,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 16 (1990): 1–32.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 300ff-11 et seq. (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).Google Scholar
Although the Court's constitutional cases are apt to have the most profound and long-lasting impact on federal/state relations regarding public health, the Court also plays an important role when it construes the preemptive effect of federal law. In its. preemption cases, however, the Supreme Court has spoken with far less clarity than it has in the cases that focus more directly on the constitutional boundaries of federal authority. At times, the Supreme Court has indicated that the preemptive reach of federal statutes should be determined by considering the “historic police powers of the state.’” New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 655 (1995) (citing Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). At other times, the Court has noted the growing federal role in public health regulation to support preemption of state health laws. See Medtronic, 518 U.S.zzz at 470. See also Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 541–50 (2001) (noting that the historic police powers of a state are not to be superseded unless congressional intent is manifest, but then finding that federal law preempts state attempts to regulate tobacco advertising).Google Scholar
E.g., Brown, J.O. Enrich, ED., “Nostalgic Federalism,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 28 (2001): 1–66;. Calabresi, S.G., “Federalism and the Rehnquist Court: A Normative Defense,” The Annals of the American Academy of Politics and Social Science, 574 (2001): 24–36;. Schwartz, H., “The Supreme Court's Federalism: Fig Leaf for Conservatives,” The Annals of the American Academy of Politics and Social Science, 574 (2001): 119–31.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.Google Scholar
E.g., Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (upholding Congress's power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (upholding Congress's power to enact the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933).Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).Google Scholar
Id. at 567.Google Scholar
Gibbons, 22 U.S. at 203.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 263a (1991).Google Scholar
But see U.S. v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105 (4th Cir. 1995) (upholding federal drug laws despite Lopez-based challenge); U.S. v. Weslin, 156 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 1998) (upholding Lopez-based challenge to Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act); Minnesota ex rel. Hatch v. United States, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Minn. 2000) (upholding Lopez-based challenge to Medicaid managed care formula).Google Scholar
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).Google Scholar
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).Google Scholar
Id. at 939, 940 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Interim Smallpox Response Plan & Guidelines” (January 23, 2002), available at <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/DocumentsApp/Smallpox/RPG/index.asp>..>Google Scholar
New York, 505 U.S. at 167.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.Google Scholar
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).Google Scholar
Kawachi, I., “Income Inequality and Health,” in Berkman, L. Kawachi, I., eds., Social Epidemiology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000): 76–94.Google Scholar
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (finding 42 U.S.C. § 13981 unconstitutional).Google Scholar
Brown, Parmet, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).Google Scholar
Id. at 54.Google Scholar
Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 59, citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976) (Congress could abrogate sovereign immunity for claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as those claims are authorized by § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment).Google Scholar
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). (finding 29 U.S.C. § 626 unconstitutional to the extent it subjects states to suit in federal court).Google Scholar
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (finding 42 U.S.C. § 12202 unconstitutional as applied to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act).Google Scholar
Indeed, in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy lauds the munificent goals of the ADA. However, he concludes that these goals should not lead the Court to permit suits against non-consenting states unless there is clear documentation of unconstitutional action on the part of the states. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 374, 375–76 (Kennedy, J., concurring).Google Scholar
E.g., Thompson v. State of Colorado, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21625 (10th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. (1994).Google Scholar
Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).Google Scholar
Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (Title II of the ADA applies to prisons); Onishea v. Hopper, 171 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Title II of the ADA to prison policy regarding HIV-positive inmates).Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O., “The Resurgent Tuberculosis Epidemic in the Era of AIDS: Reflections on Public Health, Law, and Society,” Maryland Law Review, 54 (1995): 1–131.Google Scholar
Gostin, L.O., “The Americans with Disabilities Act and the U.S. Health Care System,” Health Affairs, 11 (Fall 1992): 248–57.Google Scholar
Brown, Parmet, , supra note at 12.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. art. I.Google Scholar
The Supreme Court's current doctrine is set forth by South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
E.g., id. at 211. See also College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666, 685 (1999);. Meltzer, D.J., “Symposium: Shifting the Balance of Power? The Supreme Court, Federalism and Sovereign Immunity: Overcoming Immunity: The Case of Federal Regulation of Intellectual Property,” Stanford Law Review, 53 (2001): 1331–92;. Squire, R.C., “Effectuating Principles of Federalism: Reevaluating the Federal Spending Power as the Great Tenth Amendment Loophole,” Note, Pepperdine Law Review, 25 (1998): 869–937.Google Scholar
Jim C. v. United States, 235 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2591 (2001).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).Google Scholar
Bradley v. Arkansas Dep't of Education, 189 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 1999), rev'd en banc sub nom. Jim C. v. United States, 235 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2591 (2001).Google Scholar
Jim, C., 235 F.3d at 1082 (Bowman, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 133 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Mich. 2001), rev'd, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9159 (6th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Brown, Parmet, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Westside Mothers, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 560–63.Google Scholar
See text accompanying notes 22–30 supra.Google Scholar
That may have been the very idea behind the new federalism. See Rich, R.F. White, WD., “Federalism and Health Care Policy,” University of Illinois Law Review (1998): 861–84 (suggesting that the advocates for devolution hoped it would result in less government intervention in health).Google Scholar
Parmet, W.E., “Health Care and the Constitution: Public Health and the Role of the State in the Framing Era,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 20 (1993): 267–335.Google Scholar
Higgs, R., Crisis and Leviathan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Daynard, R.A., “Regulating Tobacco: The Need for a Public Health Judicial Decision-Making Canon,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30 (2002): 281–89, at 287–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menand, L., The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2001): at 351–58.Google Scholar
Parmet, , supra note 101, at 312–19.Google Scholar
Peter, R. Jr., The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: A Social Compact (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1978): at 103.Google Scholar
E.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991).Google Scholar
E.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).Google Scholar
Mann, J., “Medicine and Public Health, Ethics and Human Rights,” Hastings Center Report, 27 (May–June 1997): 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Parmet, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
E.g., Center for Law and the Public's Health, Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (draft) (December 21, 2001), available at <http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA2.pdf>. For a critique of an earlier version of the Model Bill, see Parmet, W.E. Mariner, W.K., “A Health Act that Jeopardizes Public Health,” Boston Globe, December 1, 2001, at A15;. Richards, E.P. Rathbun, K.C., “Review of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act,” at <http://biotech.law.umkc.edu/blaw/bt/MSEHPA_review.htm> (last visited January 29, 2002).. For a critique of an earlier version of the Model Bill, see Parmet, W.E. Mariner, W.K., “A Health Act that Jeopardizes Public Health,” Boston Globe, December 1, 2001, at A15;. Richards, E.P. Rathbun, K.C., “Review of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act,” at (last visited January 29, 2002).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=E.g.,+Center+for+Law+and+the+Public's+Health,+Model+State+Emergency+Health+Powers+Act+(draft)+(December+21,+2001),+available+at+.+For+a+critique+of+an+earlier+version+of+the+Model+Bill,+see+Parmet,+W.E.+Mariner,+W.K.,+“A+Health+Act+that+Jeopardizes+Public+Health,”+Boston+Globe,+December+1,+2001,+at+A15;.+Richards,+E.P.+Rathbun,+K.C.,+“Review+of+the+Model+State+Emergency+Health+Powers+Act,”+at++(last+visited+January+29,+2002).>Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 106-505, 114 Stat. 2314 (Nov. 13, 2000).Google Scholar
U.S.A. Patriot Act, 107 Pub. L. No. 56, § 1013, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).Google Scholar
Stolberg, S.G., “A Nation Challenged: States' Preparedness; U.S. Will Give States $1 Billion to Improve Bioterrorism Defense,” New York Times, January 25, 2002, at A11.Google Scholar
Parmet, , supra note 101, at 285.Google Scholar
“Achievements in Public Health, 1900–1999: Decline in Deaths from Heart Disease and Stroke — United States, 1900–1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48 (1999): 644–56.Google Scholar
Parmet, W.E., “The Impart of Law on Coronary Heart Disease: Some Preliminary Observations and Questions About the Relationship of Law to ‘Normalized’ Conditions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Health, Law and Human Rights: Exploring the Connections, Philadelphia, September 29, 2001.Google Scholar
“Smoking-Attributable Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost — United States,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46 (1997): 441–51.Google Scholar
E.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (finding federal law prohibits state regulation of cigarette marketing).Google Scholar