Volume 12, Issue 1

While states normally controlling public health emergencies, this article discusses the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regulations to determine whether the federal agency has the authority to stop ill U.S. citizens from traveling abroad in the event of a public health emergency. The article compares state, federal, and international laws. It also provides an in-depth history of federal quarantine and health recommendations and compares that prior history with the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Under United States patent law, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty established the patentability of human-made life forms, except for those encompassing a human organism. The America Invents Act of 2011, and decisions from lower courts such as Moore v. Regents of University of California , reaffirm the unpatentability of human organisms and limit an individual’s rights to their own genetic material. Prior to Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc , which struck down the patentability of human genes as well, the decision in Diamond led to the proliferation of gene patents and the growth of the global biotechnology market. While the debate over the patenting of human genetic material, and individual rights, rages on, DNA-gathering companies such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com routinely utilize their customer’s genetic material for multi-million dollar pharmaceutical research. This research not only raises ethical concerns, but can also pose a potentially dangerous biosecurity threat based on the many ways this genetic material can be used to target individuals, groups, and nations.

The anti-vaccination trend is growing in the United States and with this trend comes risk. Although there are a limited number of people who cannot receive vaccinations for medical reasons, many people who choose not to vaccinate their children use a vaccination exemption to ensure their child(ren) are able to attend school. I will be focusing on the risk associated with school-aged children who are not vaccinated. This risk is primarily focused on public health and biosecurity, which deals specifically with the national health issues and possible bioterrorism threats originating in schools. This risk is only enhanced by the fact that exemptions differ from state to state, and states have broad exemptions. In my analysis of the anti-vaccination trend with school-age children and the risk associated with it, I will be looking at the case of M.A. et al v. Rockland County Health Department out of the Southern District Court of New York and connecting the facts of that case to the countrywide risk. M.A. et al. v. Rockland Cty. Dep’t of Health, No. 7:19-cv-02066 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 06, 2019). My analysis will begin by looking at the specifics of that case and the constitutional implications that came along with it. I will then use that case and the outbreak in Rockland County to present the possible biosecurity and public health implications that come with children not being vaccinated. Finally, I will present my recommendation on vaccination exemptions as it pertains to limiting these implications in the future.

The Judicial System is by and large a backward-looking, rather than a forward-looking system. The rapid advancement of technology is creating a greater strain on our legal framework. The current legal system considers whether the Technology is in common use to determine the expectation of privacy, however, this legal standard will, and arguably already does, lack the flexibility to make timely and efficient determinations on the constitutionality of using certain technology for governmental searches and seizures. The solution is a proactive approach through a combination of Legislative and Judicial action that will ensure individual privacy is protected in an ever-advancing technological world.

With the global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about the pandemic spread prolifically on social media. False or harmful information about the coronavirus pandemic spread on social media included hate-speech, vaccine misinformation, and misinformation about public health and safety measures. In the midst of a serious public health crisis, where public cooperation for mandated health and safety measures hinges on trust in government and facts, false information rapidly spread through social media becomes a biosecurity threat. This article explores whether false or harmful information can be regulated during a serious public health emergency.

The Federal Government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the biosecurity threat posed by foreign entrants. Similarly, American citizens have a constitutional right to be protected. This article identifies the specific public health threats posed by foreign entrants, analyzes the relevant law, and then proposes specific solutions to ameliorate the problem.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world grappled with how to protect their citizens from disease. Governments had to carefully balance the tension between individual rights and public health measures, while also considering which level of government was best situated to act. This paper, focusing on the response to COVID-19 in Texas, discusses the constitutionality of quarantines by balancing individual rights and public health. This paper also discusses how quarantine authority is shared among local, state, and federal levels of government in Texas. Finally, this paper analyzes some of the early actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mitigating the proliferation of biological weapons remains uniquely challenging, even 48 years after the ratification of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Suspected development of advanced biological weapons by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), despite its status as a party to both the BWC and other nonproliferation agreements, has emphasized the need for international efforts to keep biological weapons out of the hands of rogue nations and terrorist networks. Among the numerous weaponized cultures believed to be in development by the North Korean military are anthrax, botulism, cholera, plague and smallpox. With a steady decrease in resources and attention devoted to preparedness for biological attacks or outbreaks since 2001, the United States and its allies remain vulnerable to biological weapons in development by North Korea. An ongoing example of this danger is demonstrated by the international community’s struggle to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. With United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540’s expiration in 2021, this paper aims to assess its effectiveness in preventing the proliferation of biological weapons by analyzing the legal requirements UNSCR 1540 imposes on UN member nations. Using North Korea’s biological weapons program as a case study, this paper will evaluate the successes and failures of UNSCR 1540’s legal mechanisms in controlling biological weapons development in North Korea in its penultimate year of validity. This paper will also examine the overlapping roles served by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and UNSCR 1540, and how their administrative frameworks identify and respond to natural disease outbreaks and biological attacks. Finally, this paper will recommend actions the United Nations Security Council may take to more effectively pursue its mission of nonproliferation.

The United States Federal government faces significant difficulties when implementing federal quarantine. States have the jurisdiction to enforce quarantine within their states, and the federal government cannot infringe on this right. The issue therein lies in the places and modality in which the federal government may enforce quarantine. This Article aims to outline the places and methods by which quarantine is enforced by the federal government, the problems that arise from this limited jurisdiction, and solutions that ensure federal quarantine is meaningful.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a resurgence of questions regarding individual freedoms and the anti-vaccination movement. In this article, I address those questions and what specific rights individuals have during a global pandemic.