Controversial Quarantine Measures Under Trump Administration

Health law experts have criticized the Trump administration for implementing “authoritarian” and “unconstitutional” quarantine measures affecting at least one individual who was in contact with a hantavirus patient.

This mandatory quarantine, reinstated without supporting scientific evidence, indicates how the U.S. might handle similar cases involving diseases like Ebola moving forward, raising concerns about the detention of Americans without a clear scientific basis.

Lawrence Gostin, a health law professor at Georgetown University, stated that “detaining somebody for no good reason” is “arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.”

James Hodge, who directs the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University, warned against using “unconstitutional, ill-advised” methods to control infectious diseases. He suggested that such actions could have serious repercussions for public health, especially as the Ebola outbreak continues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

“We could see similar issues arise later this summer,” he said, noting that the CDC had set a concerning precedent with the hantavirus situation.

Angela Perryman, a passenger on the MV Hondius cruise ship, has been appealing a federal quarantine order after coming into contact with someone infected by the Andes virus, a type of hantavirus. She prefers to self-quarantine in Florida rather than a facility in North Dakota.

The CDC has asked states to conduct in-person symptom checks and ensure round-the-clock security for these passengers, which is unusual for a virus like the Andes virus, typically only transmitted occasionally between individuals.

“We don’t usually quarantine this strictly for such cases,” Hodge remarked.

Some states have complied with the requirements, and ten other passengers have returned home to self-quarantine. Florida, however, declined to implement these measures.

Michael Bell, deputy director at the CDC, concluded that Perryman could quarantine at home with daily remote monitoring. Yet, on June 15, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), overruled this recommendation and upheld the mandatory quarantine without citing scientific justification.

This decision has been described as “unprecedented” by Hodge, who believes it sets a troubling example for how Americans might be treated when returning from abroad with infectious conditions.

HHS spokesperson Courtney Spencer clarified that Kennedy considered medical advice before extending the quarantine, believing it was essential for the well-being of both Perryman and her community.

The agency did not respond to inquiries about the reasoning behind Kennedy’s decision nor whether it might establish an unconstitutional precedent for future responses to health threats.

Officials are expected to use the least restrictive methods available for managing public health threats. Hodge noted that when multiple options exist to limit the spread of disease, the approach with the least impact on civil liberties should be prioritized.

This situation is unusual for the CDC, which typically allows state and local officials to set quarantine measures, while it may provide guidance. Yet, according to Hodge, the CDC seems hesitant to relinquish control, even when states are ready to take over management of such cases.

Both Gostin and Hodge were involved in drafting the CDC’s updated quarantine rules in 2017, where they opposed allowing the HHS secretary to overturn medical reviews. Although the rules permit this, Gostin argues it remains “unconstitutional.”

He expressed disappointment over the lack of accountability, saying, “The order was issued by Secretary Kennedy, who is now reviewing it himself.” He emphasized that a person’s liberty should not depend on political considerations.

Hodge reiterated that quarantine orders need to be backed by scientific evidence, which is a constitutional expectation from Congress.

Strict measures, like mandatory quarantine for hantavirus or travel bans from regions facing outbreaks, could backfire. Such heavy-handedness might lead individuals to avoid reporting symptoms or providing details about their travels, complicating public health officials’ efforts to manage potential cases.

“The real threat lies in not knowing about actual cases out there because we’ve fostered an environment where people wouldn’t feel safe reporting,” Hodge warned.

He also expressed concern over an increasingly “authoritarian” stance from top health officials, despite their prior opposition to unspecified lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gostin noted the irony in this approach, as Kennedy has emphasized medical freedom and patient choice. “Yet here, they are imposing a compulsory deprivation of liberty,” he said.

Officials from the Trump administration, including Kennedy and Jay Bhattacharya of the National Institutes of Health, have criticized the Biden administration for its response to COVID-19, a more easily transmissible virus. “Still, their first response isn’t centered on public health, but rather on coercion,” Gostin concluded.