The Public Good on the Docket — The Supreme Court’s Evolving Approach to Public Health

This Perspective critiques the evolving jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court and its growing resistance to public health authority. The authors highlight how recent rulings on Covid-19, firearm safety, reproductive rights, and environmental regulation have undermined decades of deference to scientific expertise and government responsibility for public health. Key examples include the Court’s rejection of pandemic era restrictions (e.g., South Bay United Pentecostal Church), reversal of Roe v. Wade, and embrace of the "major questions doctrine" to limit federal regulatory agencies. The authors warn that upcoming decisions (e.g., FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Relentless v. Department of Commerce) may further erode the ability of Congress and agencies to protect population health.

This Perspective critiques the evolving jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court and its growing resistance to public health authority. The authors highlight how recent rulings on Covid-19, firearm safety, reproductive rights, and environmental regulation have undermined decades of deference to scientific expertise and government responsibility for public health. Key examples include the Court’s rejection of pandemic era restrictions (e.g., South Bay United Pentecostal Church), reversal of Roe v. Wade, and embrace of the "major questions doctrine" to limit federal regulatory agencies. The authors warn that upcoming decisions (e.g., FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Relentless v. Department of Commerce) may further erode the ability of Congress and agencies to protect population health.