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.

Cost-Free Preventive Care Under the ACA Faces Legal Challenge.

This Viewpoint examines the recent decision by a federal district court that undercuts the Affordable Care Act's mandate for cost-free coverage of preventive services, including contraception, some vaccinations, many screenings, and preexposure prophylaxis for HIV, among others.

The Global Health Architecture: Governance and International Institutions to Advance Population Health Worldwide.

Policy Points Global health institutions and instruments should be reformed to fully incorporate the principles of good health governance: the right to health, equity, inclusive participation, transparency, accountability, and global solidarity. New legal instruments, like International Health Regulations amendments and the pandemic treaty, should be grounded in these principles of sound governance. Equity should be embedded into the prevention of, preparedness for, response to, and recovery from catastrophic health threats, within and across nations and sectors. This includes the extant model of charitable contributions for access to medical resources giving way to a new model that empowers low- and middle-income countries to create and produce their own diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics-such as through regional messenger RNA vaccine manufacturing hubs. Robust and sustainable funding of key institutions, national health systems, and civil society will ensure more effective and just responses to health emergencies, including the daily toll of avoidable death and disease disproportionately experienced by poorer and more marginalized populations.

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.

The WHO's 75th anniversary: WHO at a pivotal moment in history.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) was inaugurated in 1948 to bring the world together to ensure the highest attainable standard of health for all. Establishing health governance under the United Nations (UN), WHO was seen as the preeminent leader in public health, promoting a healthier world following the destruction of World War II and ensuring global solidarity to prevent disease and promote health. Its constitutional function would be 'to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work'. Yet today, as the world commemorates WHO's 75th anniversary, it faces a historic global health crisis, with governments presenting challenges to its institutional legitimacy and authority amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. WHO governance in the coming years will define the future of the Organisation and, crucially, the health and well-being of billions of people across the globe. At this pivotal moment, WHO must learn critical lessons from its past and make fundamental reforms to become the Organisation it was meant to be. We propose reforms in WHO financing, governance, norms, human rights and equity that will lay a foundation for the next generation of global governance for health.

Fix the backlash against public health.

Societies generally have reacted to deadly epidemics by strengthening health systems, including laws. Under American federalism (the constitutional division of power between states and the federal government), individual states hold primary public health powers. State legislatures have historically granted health officials wide-ranging authority. After the anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supported the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, which granted public health officials even more expansive powers to declare a health emergency and respond swiftly. But all that ended with COVID-19, as state legislatures and courts gutted this authority. The next pandemic could be far deadlier than COVID-19, but when the public looks to federal and state governments to protect them, they may find that health officials have their hands tied behind their backs.

Public Health Law Modernization 2.0: Rebalancing Public Health Powers And Individual Liberty In The Age Of COVID-19.

Public health emergency powers laws in the US underwent a profound stress test during the COVID-19 pandemic. Designed with bioterrorism in mind, they struggled to meet the challenges of a multiyear pandemic. Public health legal powers in the US are both too limited, in that they don't clearly permit officials to implement measures necessary to combat epidemics, and too broad, in that their accountability mechanisms fall short of public expectations. Recently, some courts and state legislatures have cut deeply into emergency powers, jeopardizing future emergency response. Instead of this curtailment of essential powers, the states and Congress should modernize emergency powers laws to balance powers and individual rights in more productive ways. In this analysis we propose reforms including meaningful legislative checks on executive power, stronger substantive standards for executive orders, mechanisms for public and legislative input, and clearer authority to issue orders affecting groups of people.

Human rights and the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective and prospective analysis.

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, the failure of many states to live up to their human rights obligations should be a central narrative. The pandemic began with Wuhan officials in China suppressing information, silencing whistleblowers, and violating the freedom of expression and the right to health. Since then, COVID-19's effects have been profoundly unequal, both nationally and globally. These inequalities have emphatically highlighted how far countries are from meeting the supreme human rights command of non-discrimination, from achieving the highest attainable standard of health that is equally the right of all people everywhere, and from taking the human rights obligation of international assistance and cooperation seriously. We propose embedding human rights and equity within a transformed global health architecture as the necessary response to COVID-19's rights violations. This means vastly more funding from high-income countries to support low-income and middle-income countries in rights-based recoveries, plus implementing measures to ensure equitable distribution of COVID-19 medical technologies. We also emphasise structured approaches to funding and equitable distribution going forward, which includes embedding human rights into a new pandemic treaty. Above all, new legal instruments and mechanisms, from a right to health treaty to a fund for civil society right to health advocacy, are required so that the narratives of future health emergencies-and people's daily lives-are ones of equality and human rights.

A survey of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 23 countries in 2022.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continued to mutate and spread in 2022 despite the introduction of safe, effective vaccines and medications. Vaccine hesitancy remains substantial, fueled in part by misinformation. Our third study of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among 23,000 respondents in 23 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States), surveyed from 29 June to 10 July 2022, found willingness to accept vaccination at 79.1%, up 5.2% from June 2021. Hesitancy increased in eight countries, however, ranging from 1.0% (United Kingdom) to 21.1% (South Africa). Almost one in eight (12.1%) vaccinated respondents are hesitant about booster doses. Overall support for vaccinating children under 18 years of age increased slightly but declined among parents who were personally hesitant. Almost two in five (38.6%) respondents reported paying less attention to new COVID-19 information than previously, and support for vaccination mandates decreased. Almost a quarter (24%) of those who became ill reported taking medications to combat COVID-19 symptoms. Vaccination remains a cornerstone of the COVID-19 pandemic response, but broad public support remains elusive. These data can be used by health system decisionmakers, practitioners, advocates and researchers to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy more effectively.

A Global Health Law Trilogy: Transformational Reforms to Strengthen Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response.

This is a pivotal moment in the global governance response to pandemic threats, with crucial global health law reforms being undertaken simultaneously in the coming years: the revision of the International Health Regulations, the implementation of the GHSA Legal Preparedness Action Package, and the negotiation of a new Pandemic Treaty. Rather than looking at these reforms in isolation, it will be necessary to examine how they fit together, considering: how these reforms can complement each other to support pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response; what financing mechanisms are necessary to ensure sustainable health governance; and why vital norms of equity, social justice, and human rights must underpin this new global health system.

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic^1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches¹, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach² that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities³ in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.