Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2015
Publication Title
Temple Law Review
Abstract
The outbreak of Ebola in Africa and its recent emergence in America has brought to light that the ambit of state sovereignty in the face of federal policy is unsettled in the public health field. Quarantine laws have historically been recognized as an exercise of state police powers and, absent discriminatory uses, courts have afforded much deference to states when the federal government is dormant. This article explores federalism implications when federal and state sovereigns contest the purview of regulating Ebola, other epidemics, and quarantine. This article examines how the federal government can assert supremacy to regulate treatment of epidemics and quarantine through preemption and evaluates the value of federal and state sovereignty over such matters. It argues that the anti-preemption clause in the Public Health Service Act, which governs federal authority over quarantine and communicable diseases, and the Supreme Court’s general presumption against from preemption will not save state quarantine regulations from preemption. It concludes that preemption doctrines, particularly obstacle and field preemption, can override state quarantine regulations because state law threatens national security by frustrating federal efforts to contain Ebola in West Africa and impeding the executive’s exercise of foreign affairs power.
Volume
88
First Page
1
Recommended Citation
Eang L. Ngov, Under Containment: Preempting State Ebola Quarantine Regulations, 88 Temp. L. Rev. 1 (Fall 2015).
Included in
Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons