Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights.

Importance: Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. Objective: To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. Results: The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

The Supreme Court Is Harming Public Health and the Environment.

This Viewpoint looks back at the US Supreme Court's 2021 and 2022 terms and forward to the 2023 term and beyond with a focus on decisions that affect health care, public health and safety, environmental policy, and social equity.

Judicial Power and Influence on Population Health.

Policy Points Since its founding, the Supreme Court has played a major role in defining the parameters of governments' public health powers and the scope of individual health-related rights. Although conservative courts have been less favorable to public health objectives, federal courts have, for the most part, advanced public health interests through consensus and adherence to the rule of law. In establishing the current six-three conservative supermajority, the Trump administration and the Senate shifted the Supreme Court dramatically. A majority of Justices, led by Chief Justice Roberts, did shift the Court in a decidedly conservative direction. It did so incrementally, guided by the Chief's intuition that the Institution itself should be preserved, mindful of maintaining public trust and appearing outside the political fray. That has all changed because Roberts' voice no longer holds sway. Five members of the Court have displayed a willingness to overturn even long-held precedent and dismantle public health policy in favor of the Justices' core ideological tenants-notably the extensive reach of the First and Second Amendments and a parsimonious view of executive and administrative action. Public health is vulnerable to judicial rulings in this new conservative era. This includes classic public health powers in infectious disease control as well as reproductive rights; lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or questioning, and others (LGBTQ+) rights; firearm safety; immigration; and climate change. Congress has the power to curb the most extreme actions of the Court while still adhering to the vital ideal of a nonpolitical branch. That does not require Congress itself to overreach (such as by "packing" the Supreme Court, as Franklin Delaeno Roosevelt once proposed). Congress could, however, 1) disempower lower federal judges from issuing injunctions that apply nationwide, 2) limit the Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, 3) alter the way that presidents appoint federal judges, and 4) set reasonable term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Medicaid, the Supreme Court, and Safe Care for Nursing Home Residents.

This Viewpoint details the risk to Medicaid beneficiaries if the Supreme Court supports a decision that will allow states to deny benefits to eligible recipients and deny beneficiaries' ability to hold states accountable in federal court.

Regressive Federalism, Rights Reversals, and the Public's Health.

As the United States emerges from the worst public health threat it has ever experienced, the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider constitutional principles from bygone eras. Judicial proposals to roll back rights under a federalism infrastructure grounded in states' interests threaten the nation's legal fabric at a precarious time. This column explores judicial shifts in 3 key public health contexts - reproductive rights, vaccinations, and national security - and their repercussions.

Supreme Court Impacts in Public Health Law: 2021-2022.

In a dynamic term of the United States Supreme Court in 2021-2022 a series of critical cases raise manifold changes and impacts on individual and communal health through 10 key areas ranging from abortions to vaccinations.

Supreme Court Ends Right To Abortion.

The Court overturned Roe v. Wade and issued other health-related decisions; the Biden administration finalized new rules.

From the Shadows: The Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court's COVID-Free Exercise Cases.

This article analyzes the Supreme Court's "shadow docket" Free Exercise cases relating to COVID-19. The paper highlights the decline of deference, the impact of exemptions, and the implications of the new doctrine for vaccine and other public health laws.

Covid-19, Free Exercise, and the Changing Constitution.

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought bioethics back to five topics-justice, autonomy, expert authority, religion, and judicial decisions-that were central during its formative period but has cast a new light on each, while also tangling public health policy in the current, rather radical, reshaping of the role of organized religion in society.

Civil Disobedience and Abortion Services After Roe v Wade: Legal and Ethical Considerations.

The future of Roe v Wade is uncertain. If it is overturned, protection of reproductive rights will be determined by the acts of individual state governments, some of which have already signaled that they will ban or severely restrict access to abortion. Health care professionals working in states that maintain the laws that applied in the time before the overturn of Roe may wish to provide assistance-anything from consultation to shipping medications-to women living in more restrictive venues. However, it is important for health care professionals to be aware of the legal consequences of those acts, as well as ethical considerations, when deciding whether to adhere to or to defy laws that they believe threaten the well-being of women. It is likely that legal consequences will vary with the type of act in which a physician engages. This article will review legal considerations, to the extent that they can be known at this point, as well as the ethics of civil disobedience.