Skip to main content

Can Government Force You to Close Your Business?


1889 Institute takes no position on whether any or all of these measures are warranted or necessary, or whether their economic fallout would inflict more human suffering than they prevent. We are simply evaluating whether they are legal. 

With the unprecedented (in the last 100 years at least) reaction surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, questions that few living legal scholars have considered are suddenly relevant. 

    • Can a quarantine be ordered? 
    • Can a mass quarantine, lockdown, or “cordon sanitaire” be ordered?
    • Can businesses be ordered to change their behavior? 
    • Can businesses be ordered to close?
    • Can state governments order these measures?
    • Can local governments order these measures?

My legal brief addresses these issues from a statutory point of view; it is clear that state law gives the governor and mayors broad authority in a state of emergency. They must, of course, do so in a neutral way that they reasonably believe will help prevent the spread of infection. They cannot order quarantine of registered voters from the opposite political party while their own supporters remain free to go about their lives as usual. Nor could they nationalize the auto industry and force them to build tanks when the emergency is a microscopic virus. The less certain question is whether there is constitutional authority for extreme measures like quarantines. 

Those familiar with the 1889 Institute and our goal of limited, responsible government may be surprised to hear that we answer most of these questions with a “yes.” There really is not much to debate about whether someone in government has the powers listed. Quarantine powers have been part of the general police power since before Christopher Columbus’s famous voyage. America’s founders would not be surprised that the quarantine power was being invoked today, but rather at how sparingly the power has been used in the last century.  

When evaluating whether government actors may take an action, both statutory and constitutional authority must be considered. Statutory authority is fairly clear. State and federal statutes give broad quarantine powers to federal, state, and local officials. 

Constitutional Authority

While nothing in the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants these powers to the federal government, that does not necessarily mean they are unavailable. There are two possible legal bases for such an authority: the commerce clause, bolstered by the necessary and proper clause, could be (and has been) read to imbue the federal government with authority to wield great power to combat a pandemic crisis. In practice, this power has been used primarily to restrict those entering the country from abroad. 

The expansive view of the commerce clause - essentially that all aspects of economic life, and even public health and safety, eventually impact the stream of interstate commerce, and therefore falls to the federal government to regulate - has been criticized by originalists and small government advocates alike. If the founders had intended to give congress such sweeping powers, they would not have gone through the dog and pony show of the constitution and its federal model. There would be no reason to pretend that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, unless the intent was to deceive the ratifiers, in which case their consent was based on a fraud, and was not freely given. No, it must be the case that wheat stored for personal use is not interstate commerce. Thus, the much of the new deal illegitimately seized power for the national government. 

So then, what is the basis for a domestic quarantine power? I mentioned two possible legal bases for the quarantine power: the second, and proper location is in the inherent police power of state and local government. The founders would have agreed that state and local authorities could properly force the sick to avoid infecting the healthy. They would agree that, under dire enough circumstances, people could be forced to shelter in their homes in order to keep those who were contagious, but not yet showing symptoms, from spreading sickness. This power was in the standard definition of a quarantine power, at least by the 1800’s. In case after case, dating to well before the national government expanded beyond the wildest dreams of the founding generation, the Supreme Court affirms that states have an inherent and expansive power to order quarantine. 

The recent lockdowns and forced closures are undoubtedly disruptive. They are undoubtedly disheartening. They are undoubted harming the economy, to a degree we don’t yet know. But they are also, undoubtedly, legal. 
Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org. 


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Eat Your Vegetables: City Council Considers A Well-Disguised Sin Tax

The Oklahoma City Council is considering a well-disguised sin tax. They call it a Healthy Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, but the effect is the same. It limits new dollar stores in the specified neighborhood. The ostensible goal is to create a welcoming environment for grocery stores selling fresh meat and produce. But it accomplishes this goal by giving existing dollar stores a monopoly, which will raise prices, and punish residents for shopping at the purveyors of (allegedly nothing but) junk food, instead of subsisting on fresh, organic kale smoothies like good little citizens. Why would the Council intentionally restrict the supply of stores where many of their residents buy basic household goods and food? Several possibilities present themselves, though none are sound.   A fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of supply and demand. Economists call the current state of the neighborhood a contestable market: dollar stores choose low prices because the mere p...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...
Read more

Why Oklahoma's Method for Selecting Judges Is a Bad Idea

The state of Oklahoma selects supreme court justices using a system known as the Missouri Plan, which is a form of merit selection. Advocates paint a rosy picture of the plan, claiming that it is a more sophisticated system than the federal model or the election model and that it strikes the perfect balance between the other two systems. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Here is how the plan works: the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a board of individuals who review candidates for vacancies on the supreme court, selects three candidates to present to the governor. The governor must select one of these candidates. If he does not, after 60 days, the Chief Justice selects one of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Once on the court, justices face an uncontested “retention election” every six years; however, not one justice has been voted off the court in the half century that this system has been in place. On its face this system might seem like a good idea, but...
Read more