Your constitutional rights in the time of COVID-19. 

During the time of COVID-19, governments across the country have sought to restrict the behavior of private citizens and groups in ways that many citizens could not have imagined even a year ago. These regulations have caused many Americans to ask: are these restrictions constitutional? Does the government actually have authority to make these ruled? How much regulation is too much? Can we do anything to prevent these restrictions?

Freedom of religion - 1st Amendment of the Constitution

During the pandemic, many states and localities have passed laws restricting religious gatherings. In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the Supreme Court held that some of these restrictions violate freedom of religion.

Freedom of Assembly.  The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In DeJonge v. Oregon, the Supreme Court held that states and localities could not prohibit freedom of assembly either. The COVID restrictions on public gatherings, may well violate this provision.

Stay-at-home orders, lockdown, quarantine, and restraints on liberty.
The Fifth Amendment says that, “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” The Fourteenth Amendment states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Several courts have held that stay-at-home orders, lockdowns, and quarantine, unconstitutionally restrict liberty. In County of Butler v. Wolf, a federal court held that Pennsylvania’s stay-at-home order violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Property rights and closure of businesses.
In County of Butler v. Wolf, the court held that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protected the right to run a business and pursue an occupation, and that, therefore, the closure of businesses was unconstitutional.

The Fifth Amendment further states that, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In Lingle v. Chevron USA, the Supreme Court held that “government regulation of private property may, in some instances, be so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster — and that such ‘regulatory takings’ may be compensable under the Fifth Amendment.” In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the Supreme Court held that if a regulation “denies all economically beneficial or productive use” of property, then the regulation is a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Because many of the COVID lockdowns are particularly onerous, and some lockdowns have deprived business owners of all beneficial or productive use of their property, the regulations may well be takings, under the Fifth Amendment.

Contact tracing and reporting of personal information

Many governments have employed “contact tracing” in which the government gathers information about a person’s movements and contacts. In Carpenter v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government could not search a person’s cell phone records without a warrant. The Court held:

“when an individual ‘seeks to preserve something as private,’ and his expectation of privacy is ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,’ official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause”

This could invite the conclusion that a government does not have blanket power to trace a person’s contacts, and obtain a person’s medical information, without a warrant supported by probable cause.

Right to refuse medical treatment

In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the Supreme Court held that persons had a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Some of the forced measures to prevent the spread of COVID, may infringe on this right.

Resource - https://www.persaudlawoffice.com/post/your-constitutional-rights-in-the-time-of-covid-19