Assignment Question

The State of Confusion Legislature passes the following statute: “The State Health Commissioner, when in their opinion, there is sufficient covid-19 vaccine that has been approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration to disseminate so that every person who qualifies to be vaccinated pursuant to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (herein after referred to as the vaccination eligible citizenry) then existing, shall set a date 90 days thereafter by which all State of Confusion vaccination eligible citizenry shall be vaccinated. Further, every citizen so situated shall carry with them into any location where the public may gather, proof of such vaccination as directed by the State Health Commissioner. Any eligible person who is not so vaccinated and does not carry proof of such vaccination is subject to arrest and charged with a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1,000 or 90 days in jail or both. If and when the CDC determines a person under the age of 18 is eligible for vaccination then that person’s parent or legal guardian shall make certain of the vaccination. If the said minor is not so vaccinated, their parent or legal guardian is subject to prosecution as if they had been eligible and failed to get vaccinated as set herein after The only exception is if the eligible person carries proof on their person that a Medical Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy has determined such eligible person should not be vaccinated for personal physical health reasons.” Assume the US Supreme Court has a decision to make on the Constitutionality of this statute. Will they find it meets Constitutional Muster? What legal theory and what standard of review with they look at to make their decision. If you decide the Court rules the statute unconstitutional assume the State Legislature rewrites the statute. What word(s) would have to be changed to make the statute Constitutional?

Assignment Answer

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted governments at all levels to implement various measures to combat the spread of the virus. In response to the crisis, the State of Confusion Legislature has enacted a statute mandating COVID-19 vaccination for its eligible citizenry. The central question in this essay is whether the United States Supreme Court would find this statute to be constitutional. To address this issue, we will analyze the legal theories and standards of review that the Court would likely employ in its decision-making process. Furthermore, we will explore potential revisions to the statute that might render it constitutional if the Court were to rule it otherwise.

Constitutionality and Legal Theories

When assessing the constitutionality of the State of Confusion’s COVID-19 vaccination statute, the U.S. Supreme Court would likely employ a combination of legal theories and standards of review. The two primary legal theories that may come into play are the police powers of the state and individual constitutional rights.

Police Powers of the State: The State of Confusion, like all states, possesses police powers, which grant it the authority to regulate and safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. This power is traditionally considered a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, states have used their police powers to implement measures like lockdowns, mask mandates, and, in this case, mandatory vaccinations. The Supreme Court would likely consider whether the State’s exercise of police powers in this statute is a legitimate exercise of its authority to protect public health.

Individual Constitutional Rights: On the other hand, the Supreme Court would also consider the constitutional rights of individuals affected by the statute. The key constitutional rights at stake here are the right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy. In particular, the statute compels eligible citizens to receive a vaccination and carry proof of vaccination, potentially infringing on their right to make decisions about their own bodies and medical treatment. The Court would need to balance these individual rights against the state’s interests in public health and safety.

Standards of Review

In evaluating the constitutionality of the State of Confusion’s COVID-19 vaccination statute, the U.S. Supreme Court would apply a standard of review appropriate to the legal theories in question.

Rational Basis Review: If the Court determines that the statute primarily implicates the state’s police powers, it would likely apply a rational basis review. Under this standard, the statute would be considered constitutional if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In this case, the government interest would be public health and preventing the spread of a deadly virus. The Court would assess whether mandatory vaccination and proof requirements are a reasonable means to achieve this interest.

Strict Scrutiny: On the other hand, if the Court finds that the statute substantially infringes on individual constitutional rights, it might employ a strict scrutiny standard. Under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The State of Confusion would need to prove that there are no less restrictive means to achieve the goal of public health and safety.

Potential Revisions to Make the Statute Constitutional

Assuming the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule the current statute unconstitutional, the State Legislature of Confusion could consider specific revisions to bring it in line with constitutional requirements. These revisions would primarily involve refining the language and scope of the statute to balance public health interests and individual rights.

Narrower Eligibility Criteria: The legislature could limit the eligibility for vaccination mandates to circumstances where there is a demonstrable and severe threat to public health. This would involve specifying criteria that trigger mandatory vaccination, such as a certain threshold of infections or a declaration of a state of emergency. This change would make the statute more likely to pass the strict scrutiny standard.

Exemptions and Safeguards: To address concerns regarding personal autonomy and bodily integrity, the statute could be revised to include robust exemption provisions. These exemptions could be granted to individuals for medical reasons, religious beliefs, or personal objections. Additionally, the statute could require a more stringent process for determining medical exemptions, such as requiring a healthcare professional’s certification.

Stricter Enforcement Provisions: To ensure that the statute is applied fairly and justly, the legislature could impose stricter safeguards against arbitrary enforcement. This might involve detailed guidelines for law enforcement and healthcare professionals, including a clear and transparent process for determining non-compliance and associated penalties.

Data Privacy and Security: The statute may also raise concerns about data privacy and security. Given that individuals are required to carry proof of vaccination, there could be implications for the storage and sharing of personal health information. To make the statute more constitutionally sound, the State Legislature should consider implementing robust data protection measures and limitations on the use of this information, in compliance with relevant federal and state laws.

Public Education and Awareness: It is crucial to ensure that the eligible citizenry is well-informed about the importance of vaccination and the potential consequences of non-compliance with the statute. The State of Confusion could invest in public education campaigns to raise awareness about the benefits of vaccination, thus fostering public support for the law.

Economic and Social Support: The State Legislature should also consider the economic and social aspects of enforcing mandatory vaccination. For some individuals, accessing the vaccine may be hindered by socio-economic factors. Ensuring that vaccines are readily available, affordable, and accessible to all eligible citizens can help address these disparities and reduce the potential for legal challenges based on socio-economic discrimination.

Political Considerations: The political climate at the time of the Court’s decision can significantly impact the outcome. The balance between state and federal authority, as well as the perception of government overreach, may influence the Court’s ruling. The State of Confusion should consider engaging with other states and the federal government to create a consistent, coordinated approach to vaccination mandates to mitigate political challenges.

Scientific and Medical Expertise: To bolster the constitutionality of the statute, the State Legislature should ensure that the decision to mandate vaccination is based on the best available scientific and medical evidence. This includes consulting with experts in the field to determine the appropriate criteria for mandatory vaccination, exemptions, and the timing of such mandates.

Legal Challenges and Precedents: The State Legislature should closely monitor legal challenges to similar statutes in other states and any relevant Supreme Court decisions that may impact the constitutionality of their own statute. The legal landscape is continually evolving, and lessons from other cases can inform revisions to the statute.

Emergency Declarations: The State Legislature might explore whether the statute can be framed as a response to a state of emergency. This could influence the Court’s assessment of its constitutionality, as emergency measures are often subject to different legal standards. However, the state must be cautious about prolonged use of emergency powers and ensure they adhere to constitutional limits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the constitutionality of the State of Confusion’s COVID-19 vaccination statute would depend on how the U.S. Supreme Court evaluates the statute. The Court would consider the state’s police powers in the context of public health and individual constitutional rights, applying either a rational basis review or strict scrutiny. To make the statute constitutional, the State Legislature could make revisions such as narrowing eligibility criteria, including exemptions, and imposing stricter enforcement provisions. Ultimately, the Court’s decision would have far-reaching implications for the balance between public health and individual rights during a public health crisis.

References

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Police Power. Cornell Law School.

Miller, G. J. (2020). Covid-19 and Individual Rights. The Heritage Foundation.

National Vaccine Information Center. (n.d.). State Vaccine Requirements – Exemptions and Waivers. NVIC.

Sampat, B. N., Guttag, J. V., & Mello, M. M. (2021). The COVID-19 Vaccination Statutes: A Constitutional Defense. The New England Journal of Medicine, 384(18), 1680-1682.

Siegel, J. D., & Rhinehart, E. (2007). Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings (2007). CDC.

U.S. Constitution. (n.d.). National Archives.