As week one of coronavirus-induced “self-quarantine” comes to a close with at least two weeks to go, the question is mounting: Should the government really make everyone stay at home for months and cause the economy nearly to grind to a halt? And would such an effort even be constitutional?
On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wondered how to combat the estimated economic cost of a continued home quarantine that keeps businesses closed and people shuttered in:
The editorial concluded that a lockdown is not a sufficient strategy if it causes the economy to tank:
Many conservatives are starting to worry about this:
Americans need to know date certain when this will end. The uncertainty for businesses, parents and kids is just not sustainable.
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 20, 2020
The coronavirus threat is real, but our response to it will have greater long-term effects on American life than the disease itself. There are millions of Americans whose livelihoods are about to disappear. They will be financially ruined. They will not recover. https://t.co/StzP6aEaRF
— John Daniel Davidson (@johnddavidson) March 20, 2020
Politicians,
Open this country up again. And soon. If someone tells you locking everyone inside is the only way, fire them and find someone else. Not a recession, but a Great Depression is coming. And it’s coming fast.
That’s all.
— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) March 20, 2020
Is it constitutional for the government to shut down businesses and quarantine people? After all, the respective governors of California and New York have essentially shut down their entire states, closed businesses, and demanded citizens self-quarantine — so this question seems more urgent than ever.
On Friday, the Federalist Society hosted a teleforum appropriately dubbed, “Executive Power v. Coronavirus.” Two experts weighed in on the topic: The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm and University of California at Berkeley School of Law professor John Yoo.
While the Federalist Society is often on the receiving end of disdain from liberals due to its influence on the judiciary, conservative presidents and institutions rely on it not only for inside information on qualified judges for the federal bench and the Supreme Court but also for its legal expertise more broadly.
The two scholars said both the coronavirus and the Trump administration’s response will have repercussions for months, even years. Yet, Malcolm said he believed that, so far, Trump and state officials seem to be making decisions that are actually within the bounds of the Constitution.
On the other hand, some libertarians and conservatives argue the government is going too far.
In response, the speakers cited a couple of times the Supreme Court has tested similar strong executive decisions and the authority of states to enact drastic measures, and the Supreme Court found they could in the compelling interest of the collective health of the country. There is precedent for state and federal exercise of authority. Examples include compulsory inoculations and the state destroying property if there’s a fire and doing so would prevent the spread.
The experts did grapple with several important questions, including this: Does this principle of executive power and federal authority go so far to affect a restaurant, for example, that is not violating a health code, or can it indefinitely keep people at home who are not sick?
Yoo said, “Can the state shut down businesses? Can the states shut down property? Just because people might go there and see other people? These questions are unresolved.” This is simply brand new territory for the executive branch, legal scholars, and the public (and economy) alike.
Yoo observed the same thing about which many others are worried, saying on the call, “There is a real immediate cost to these steps. People who live paycheck to paycheck are really going to suffer, here. I think [the Trump administration] should be more transparent in terms of how they made this decision, especially when they shut down California and New York and forced people to stay in their homes.”
It’s vital we do our part in keeping the coronavirus from spreading, but I fear a prolonged strategy of merely shutting the people in and businesses out will cripple the economy and, perhaps, even limit our rights. Let’s hope and work toward a solution that prioritizes safety, liberty, and the economy as much as possible.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
CORRECTION: This piece initially attributed the quote beginning “There is a real immediate cost to these steps …” to John Malcolm. The correct speaker was John Yoo.
