During the time of COVID-19, restrictions on municipal revenues forced cities and counties to cut services, lay off and furlough employees, and mothball capital projects, which had consequences for local employment, business contracts, and overall investment in the economy and community. Read more from Haddow, K, Carr, D, Winig, BD, Adler, S. Preemption, Public Health, and Equity in the Time of COVID-19. August 2020. https://www.publichealthlawwatch.org/covid19-policy-playbook.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, many state legislatures imposed limits on public health authority. One study found that such limits were associated with higher death rates. The study concluded that the motivation behind limiting public health authority was more related to politicization and political competition rather than to pushback against specific COVID-19 public health actions. It also showed that states with unified Republican control (i.e. both legislature and governorship under Republican control) were the most likely to limit public health emergency authority.
Read more from:
Haddow K, Carr D, Winig BD, Adler S. Preemption, public health, and equity in the time of COVID-19. In: S Burris, S Guia, L Gable, DE Levin, WE Parmet, NP Terry, eds. Assessing Legal Responses to COVID-19. Boston: Public Health Law Watch; 2020.
Xue Zhang, Mildred E. Warner & Gen Meredith, Factors Limiting U.S. Public Health Emergency Authority During COVID-19, 20 Int'l J. Env't Res. & Pub. Health 12554 (2023).
Research shows that preemption of indoor dining closure laws dining may have increased the spread of COVID-19 as cities with indoor dining closure laws saw COVID-19 case rates decrease by 55% over 6 weeks when compared to cities that were preempted from passing such laws. Read more from Mahl-Schnake, A, O’Leary, G, Mullachery, P, Vaidya, V, Connor, G, Rollins, H, Kolker, K, Diez, R, Ana, V, Bilal, U. The Impact of Keeping Indoor Dining Closed on COVID-19 Rates Among Large US Cities. Epidemiology. March 2022;33(2):200-208. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001444. https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2022/03000/The_Impact_of_Keeping_Indoor_Dining_Closed_on.7.aspx.
A series of case studies examining how state preemption of local housing policies has affected crisis response and recovery efforts during COVID-19 found that:
Local governments failed to consider adopting local policies that would conflict with existing state preemption laws even if such policies could help stabilize housing for at-risk renters.
Local policies that were not directly preempted were nonetheless “chilled” and not pursued due to concerns that acting would spark legal challenges or new preemption efforts at the state level.
Read more from Greene S, Ramakrishnan K, Morales-Burnett J. State Preemption of Local Housing Protections: Lessons from a Pandemic. Urban Institute. September 2020. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/state-preemption-local-housing-protections.
A research brief found that in states with more preemption laws, both local and state governments were substantially less likely to adopt innovative policy responses to COVID-19. Read more from Treskon M, Docter B. Preemption and Its Impact on Policy Responses to COVID-19. Urban Institute. September 2020. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/preemption-and-its-impact-policy-responses-covid-19.
Widespread misuse of state preemption has chilled local policymaking, forced localities to start from behind when responding to the pandemic, and prevented effective, timely responses to rapidly evolving public health and economic threats. Read more from Haddow, K, Carr, D, Winig, BD, Adler, S. Preemption, Public Health, and Equity in the Time of COVID-19. August 2020. https://www.publichealthlawwatch.org/covid19-policy-playbook.