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.

In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, many states and countries have adopted public health restrictions on activities previously considered commonplace: crossing state borders, eating indoors, gathering together, and even leaving one’s home. These policies often focus on specific activities or groups, rather than imposing the same limits across the board. In this Article, I consider the law and ethics of these policies, which I call tailored policies.

In Part II, I identify two types of tailored policies: activity-based and group-based. Activity-based restrictions respond to differences in the risks and benefits of specific activities, such as walking outdoors and dining indoors. Group-based restrictions consider differences between groups with respect to risk and benefit. Examples are policies that treat children or senior citizens differently, policies that require travelers to quarantine when traveling to a new destination, and policies that treat individuals differently based on whether they have COVID-19 symptoms, have tested positive for COVID-19, have previous COVID-19 infection, or have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

In Part III, I consider the public health law grounding of tailored policies in the principles of “least restrictive means” and “well-targeting.” I also examine how courts have analyzed tailored policies that have been challenged on fundamental rights or equal protection grounds. I argue that fundamental rights analyses typically favor tailored policies and that equal protection does not preclude the use of tailored policies even when imperfectly crafted.

In Part IV, I consider three critiques of tailored policies, centering on the claims that they produce inequity, cause harm, or unacceptably limit liberty. I argue that we must evaluate restrictions comparatively: the question is not whether tailored policies are perfectly equitable, wholly prevent harm, or completely protect liberty, but whether they are better than untailored ones at realizing these goals in a pandemic. I also argue that evaluation must consider indirect harms and benefits as well as direct and apparent ones.

This Article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the contribution of behavioral science to the legal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the descriptive level, the Article shows how different psychological phenomena such as loss aversion and cultural cognition influenced the way policymakers and the public perceived the pandemic, and how such phenomena affected the design of laws and regulations responding to COVID-19. At the normative level, the Article compares nudges (i.e., choice-preserving, behaviorally informed tools that encourage people to behave as desired) and mandates (i.e., obligations backed by sanctions that dictate to people how they must behave). The Article argues that mandates rather than nudges should serve in most cases as the primary legal tool used to regulate behavior during a pandemic. Nonetheless, this Article highlights ways in which nudges can complement mandates.

The posture of American regulation of medicine is negative—we assume that a new drug is unsafe and ineffective until it is proven safe and effective.1 This regulatory posture is a heuristic normative principle, a specific instance of the so-called precautionary principle in public health law.2 It is defensible, if debatable, in many ordinary circumstances.3 But like many normative heuristics, this negative posture may compel suboptimal decision-making in emergencies, where context-specific decisions must be made and a range of unique values may apply.

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various “triage protocols” to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of “fairness” under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources “should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is “fair” unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients’s legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve.

“[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people.” 2

“Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal.” — Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3

The FDA already subjects most medical devices to much less stringent approval requirements than drugs and biologics, and attempts to speed up rollout during the COVID crisis have been problematic. Agency decisions, including to allow antibody test marketing without emergency use authorization or review, and the back-and-forth guidance on laboratory-developed tests, have met harsh criticism and unreliable results. Though the long-term results of these decisions are unclear, the FDA’s credibility, reliability, and commitment to safety are threatened by even further lessening medical device regulatory oversight during the coronavirus pandemic. The relaxed and fix-it-later approach to many of the FDA’s public health emergency decisions regarding medical devices reflect the ongoing criticisms of medical device regulation in general, specifically the 510(k) process and laboratory developed test regulation, offering a point of reflection towards reform. Adaptive legislation and a risk-based and evidentiary approach to premarket and postmarket review can begin to address these issues both generally and in an emergency context.