As the United States emerges from the worst public health threat it has ever experienced, the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider constitutional principles from bygone eras. Judicial proposals to roll back rights under a federalism infrastructure grounded in states’ interests threaten the nation’s legal fabric at a precarious time. This column explores judicial shifts in 3 key public health contexts — reproductive rights, vaccinations, and national security — and their repercussions.

The Supreme Court of Canada has established that commercial speech is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that commercial speech exists along a continuum of utility and value, which is balanced against objectives such as public health. This article examines jurisprudence to determine when infringements on commercial speech are acceptable, analyzing considerations of evidence, rational connections between policies and outcomes, proportionality, and minimal impairment.

When adopted in 1991, the French Loi Evin was pioneering as one of the first in the world to regulate alcohol marketing as extensively. This short contribution assesses whether it remains fit for purpose over 30 years later. To this effect, it assesses its main provisions, considers the legislative amendments that have ensued as well as the extensive interpretation French courts have given of its scope, before concluding that the prospects for its revisions are limited in the near future.

In Brazil, the normative landscape around advertising is complex, not the least because of limitations inherent to dispute resolution mechanisms. Focusing on unhealthy food and beverages, this case study identifies some challenges and opportunities around advertising restrictions, including in relation to freedom of speech.

The complexity and inefficiency of the U.S. health care system complicates the distribution of life-saving medical technologies. When the public health is at stake, however, there are alternatives. The proposal for a national PrEP program published in this issue of the Journal applies some of the lessons of the national COVID vaccine campaign to HIV prevention. In doing so, it draws on other examples of public health approaches to the financing of medical technology, from vaccines for children to hepatitis C treatment.

U.S. immigration law has excluded noncitizens likely to become a “public charge” since 1882. When the Trump administration proposed a new Rule expanding the interpretation of that exclusion in 2018, over 55,000 people wrote public comments. These comments, overwhelmingly opposed to the change, are the subject of Rachel Fabi and Lauren Zahn’s insightful article in this issue of The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. The themes they identify resonate with the history of the public charge exclusion, which has always reflected a tension between two aims of American governance — to provide for those in need of assistance, and to shape the nation’s citizenry according to ideals of self-sufficiency.

This article introduces a symposium that aims to identify and critically assess the legal strategies of the tobacco, alcohol, and food and beverage industries which rest on freedom of expression arguments.

This article argues that the decision by the Columbian high court to totally ban the advertising and promotion of tobacco products is sound and could indeed be applied to other types of harmful products.

The paper identifies common barriers and challenges to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and offers considerations for state and local public health departments to address barriers and retool infrastructure to increase access to PrEP to new users. Authors identify synergistic opportunities with federal agencies and funders to advance PrEP-related HIV prevention efforts, that prioritize strategies and investments to provide PrEP to people who could benefit from the intervention but are unaware of PrEP or struggle to access it. Barriers discussed and examined include financing strategies to reduce financial burden of PrEP medication, expanding PrEP access and outreach beyond clinical settings, and increasing the network and reach of the provider community to serve people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial and socioeconomic inferiority.

Written in response to what he recognizes as the problematic philosophical underpinnings of “orthodox research ethics,” Alex John London’s For the Common Good reimagines what is called for in any effort to create a better system of oversight and regulation in biomedical research. London weaves a common thread — justice — through this historical and critical account of the practice of research ethics and its organization of stakeholders, institutions and regulations. By introducing the idea of “a common good” London reframes the narrative and responsibilities of the research ethics field to demonstrate that scientific research and regard for the rights and welfare of individuals are not mutually exclusive. This impressive monograph encourages its readers to push past the limitations of traditional research ethics to consider the context in which the discipline is embedded. That is, rather than settling for analysis at the level of researchers and research participants alone, London encourages us to expand our inquiry to encompass a wider array of stakeholders who co-labor in the social undertaking of biomedical knowledge production. London accomplishes the difficult task of upstream analysis — turning his attention to the conditions and assumptions which create ethical dilemmas rather than applying a retrospective ethical salve to injuries near-guaranteed by a broken system. As opposed to the limited domain of orthodox research ethics (researchers, participants, and the institutional bodies which regulate interaction between the two) London also considers the role and contributions of affected communities, pharmaceutical firms, philanthropic organizations, and journal editors among others.

The COVID-19 Law Lab platform enables quantitative representation of epidemic law and policies in a given country for multiple years, enabling governments and researchers to compare countries, and learn about the impacts and drivers of policy choices. The Law Lab initiative is designed to address the urgent need for quality legal information to support the study of how law and policy can be used to effectively manage this, and future, pandemic(s).

Prior to the recent introduction of generic TDF/FTC in the U.S., access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV was greatly limited due to the downstream effects of the high cost of the medication. This article argues that despite drug copay cards and patient assistance programs, the promise of drastically reduced HIV diagnoses has never been fully realized, and more policy reforms on drug pricing are needed to make ending the HIV epidemic a reality.

This chapter explores the tension between public health protection and the freedom of commercial expression from a Commonwealth Caribbean perspective, using Barbados and Jamaica as case studies. First, it assesses the scope of the right to freedom of expression. Second, it discusses the extent to which public health protection may be invoked to restrict the right. The authors conclude that Commonwealth Caribbean states can justifiably restrict commercial speech about tobacco products and unhealthy food and beverages.

Gene therapies to treat sickle cell disease are in development and are expected to have high costs. The large eligible population size — by far, the largest for a gene therapy — poses daunting budget challenges and threatens to exacerbate health disparities for Black patients, who make up the vast majority of American sickle cell patients.

Inequities in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use persist in the United States. Although scientific advancement in delivery options and social acceptance of PrEP has occurred in the past decade, gaps remain in ensuring that this sexual health program is available to all. Components of what a national PrEP program for all would look like are discussed.

Marketing restrictions to promote public health invoke competing rights, including the right to free commercial speech which for-profit entities use to protect their freedom to market products without undue regulation. The right to free commercial speech in South Africa has been developed through case law since the adoption of the first democratic constitution in South Africa in 1996. This article examines the impact of this recent judgment and the lessons for policy makers to ensure effective regulation of marketing practices in South Africa.

In most countries, the alcohol industry enjoys considerable freedom to market its products. Where government regulation is proposed or enacted, the alcohol industry has often deployed legal arguments and used legal forums to challenge regulation. Governments considering marketing regulation must be cognizant of relevant legal constraints and be prepared to defend their policies against industry legal challenges.