By Joseph Jang ’18:

The mandatory quarantine of Kaci Hickox, a nurse who had returned to the United States after treating Ebola patients in West Africa, raises issues of the constitutional legality of the federal and state governments' power to coercively isolate individuals. When Hickox arrived in New Jersey, several states had instituted quarantine policies stating that any individual who had contact with Ebola victims in Africa would be quarantined for 21 days (which is the duration of the incubation of the Ebola virus). Hickox argued that such quarantine was unnecessary because the Ebola virus is only contagious when the victim starts to show symptoms. In fact, Hickox tested negative for Ebola in the two days she was quarantined and showed absolutely no signs when she was quarantined. According to the Maine Health and Service Commissioners, however, the federal government’s screening of travelers provides minimal assurance as a New York doctor had developed symptoms several days after returning home. An in-house quarantine would prevent the victim from causing any harm to the public until the incubation period is over.

In a recent interview with CNN, Hickox claimed that “her basic human rights [had] been violated.” But in general, the local and state governments do have the prerogative to quarantine and isolate anyone in the name of public health. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has the complete legal power to isolate any individual with the potential of carrying a dangerous infectious virus. In the seminal case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recognized that “[every person is necessarily subject to] manifold restraints…for the common good.” According to current laws, mandatory quarantines are completely legal. But should government officials have the unregulated authority to isolate individuals without due process? Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) does not believe so, demanding that Chris Christie, a proponent of mandatory quarantines, defend and support his decision with medical science.

Warren and Christie, consequentially, were both criticized for playing politics in such a delicate situation. Some accused Christie of boosting his political image, trying to appear a bipartisan leader in a time of crisis. To that, Christie responded, “my first responsibility is to protect the public health and safety of the people of New Jersey, and I will not submit to any political excuse in doing anything less than I believe is necessary.” But is it necessary? The CDC says that the mandatory quarantine of those without symptoms produces more harm than good. Quarantines could discourage health workers from going to West Africa to fight the epidemic as well as induce unnecessary panic. As of now, the state governments will continue to exercise complete autonomy in issuing mandatory quarantines, as no judge would want to be blamed for an epidemic if one were to occur. Furthermore, on Monday, the CDC, in light of these quarantines, unveiled a new set of federal guidelines for the state and local governments. Hopefully, such guidelines will pass the torch from partisan politicians to those with actual medical experience.

Sources:http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/opinion/cevallos-ebola-quarantine/http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/10/elizabeth-warren-slams-chris-christie-politicizing-ebola-unscientific-quaratinehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ebola-quarantines-can-states-do-that/2014/10/30/91b5a44c-6072-11e4-827b-2d813561bdfd_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pophttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/28/are-mandatory-ebola-quarantines-legal.html