•  
  •  
 

Tennessee Law Review

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Considerable legal challenges alleging infringements of constitutional rights have arisen against governments imposing social distancing or other restrictive measures to quell the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts assess these claims largely under two approaches. Consistent with constitutional re-balancing, judges weigh the application of rights against governments' compelling interests to protect public health and safety in emergencies. Alternatively, a minority of courts temporarily set aside existing rights to effectuate emergency responses. Both approaches insufficiently account for the flexible nature of rights and freedoms in exigencies pursuant to the Constitution's cohesive design. In public health emergencies, courts should engage in guided assessments focused on the execution, efficacy, and purpose of public health interventions as a constitutional prerogative rather than examining alleged rights infringements framed outside crisis contexts.

Publication Date

2021

Download

Share

COinS