{"id":6695,"date":"2020-03-06T15:16:32","date_gmt":"2020-03-06T15:16:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/jolt\/?p=6695"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:22","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:22","slug":"quarantine-and-compulsory-testing-for-communicable-diseases-if-the-screening-technology-exists-can-the-government-force-individuals-to-use-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/quarantine-and-compulsory-testing-for-communicable-diseases-if-the-screening-technology-exists-can-the-government-force-individuals-to-use-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Quarantine and Compulsory Testing for Communicable Diseases: If the screening technology exists, can the government force individuals to use it?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The spread of COVID-19 will almost certainly have negative impacts on the United States and world economy<\/a>. It will likely also test the bounds of state and federal quarantine and inspection laws, and the government\u2019s authority to respond to public health disasters. What do we know about the government\u2019s authority to respond to epidemics and threats to public health? How does that authority coincide with due process? And under what circumstances can the government force an individual to be isolated or screened for a communicable disease?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Authority to Act <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government\u2019s jurisdiction over individual human bodies is hotly contested. One area, where Congress and courts appear to draw a clearer line for the government\u2019s jurisdiction and authority to act is when communicable diseases pose a threat to public health. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most authority to act or response to public health threats lines with the states, as a part of their police powers<\/a>. Public health and quarantine laws vary from state to state, however, the Supreme Court of the United States made clear over 100 years ago, that \u201cthe power of the states to enact and enforce quarantine laws for the safety and the protection of the health of their inhabitants . . . is beyond question.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the States\u2019 authority, Congress gave federal authorities the right to take action to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Congress gave the Surgeon General the\u00a0authority to promulgate regulation<\/a> providing for the \u201capprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease.\u201d Such regulations define \u201ccommunicable diseases<\/a>\u201d as \u201cillnesses due to infectious agents or their toxic products, which may be transmitted from a reservoir to a susceptible host either directly as from an infected person or animal or indirectly through the agency of an intermediate plant or animal host, vector, or the inanimate environment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (\u201cCDC<\/a>\u201d) can act to protect the entry of communicable disease into the United States through ports of entry, or prevent the spread of communicable disease from state to state. The CDC has limited authority to act to prevent the intrastate spread of communicable disease. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cQuarantinable Communicable Disease\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once a disease is designated as a \u201cquarantinable communicable disease<\/a>,\u201d regulations give CDC sweeping authority to act, and quarantine potentially infected individuals to prevent the spread of the disease from state to state. The\u00a0Code of Federal Regulation<\/a> provides that:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Director [of the CDC] may authorize the apprehension<\/em>, medical examination<\/em>, quarantine<\/em>, isolation<\/em>, or conditional release of any individual for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of quarantinable communicable disease<\/em>, as specified by Executive Order, based upon a finding that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n