My Jotwell Review of Lindsay Wiley and Steve Vladeck's "Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts"

They argue that courts should engage in "normal," not specially deferential judicial review of coronavirus emergency measures.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

My latest contribution to the Jotwell website constitutional law section (which reviews important recent legal scholarship) focuses on Lindsay Wiley and Steve Vladeck's excellent forthcoming article, "Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: The Case Against 'Suspending' Judicial Review," which will soon be out from the Harvard Law Review Forum. Here is an excerpt from my review:

The coronavirus epidemic has raised urgent questions of constitutional rights and judicial review. In response to the pandemic, which has taken over 100,000 lives in the US and many more abroad, governments at all levels have enacted a host of policies that potentially threaten constitutional rights or butt against structural limits on government power. Numerous cases have been filed challenging some of these policies, arguing that they violate the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech clauses of First Amendment, the Second Amendment, constitutional protection for abortion rights, the Takings Clause, separation of powers principles, and other provisions of federal and state constitutions.How should we treat these claims? In particular, how should courts treat them?

In light of these questions, it's hard to imagine a more timely and relevant constitutional law article than Lindsey Wiley and Steve Vladeck's forthcoming article. In it, Wiley and Vladeck ask whether normal judicial review should be "suspended" during the ongoing pandemic.

In reviewing such challenges, should courts opt for "normal," relatively non-deferential judicial review? Or should they give the government broad deference, so long as there is a minimally plausible emergency rationale for the challenged policy? Wiley and Vladeck call the latter approach the "suspension model," and offer three powerful considerations that count against it.

I previously discussed these issues—and an earlier version of Wiley and Vladeck's article—in this post, from which part of the Jotwell piece is excerpted.

NEXT: Supreme Court Won't Stop Pending Federal Executions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. At what point does it become legally relevant that there are real mortality and morbidity costs to the governments actions.

    Elective surgeries are not unnecessary, and we haven’t cured cancer & heart disease, we’ve just stopped treating it.

    What if the policies cost more lives than they save?

  2. Yeah Professor Somin…I re-read my comment from your April 15th post. Here we are nearly three months later. We still have problems with suspended civil rights. I have changed my mind. The Suspension Model has to go. I know the Judicial branch is a reactive branch, and deliberately slow. But they are not helping us restore our rights at this time….and that has to change.

  3. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family&relative by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65o to $7oo a month. Read More.

Please to post comments