Despite recognition of the health threat posed at the human-animal-environment interface long ago, One Health has yet to be meaningfully integrated into global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. With the negotiation of the forthcoming pandemic instrument under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) — which is inherently restricted by its own constitutional mandate of human health — One Health risks being sidelined once again. Genuine integration of a One Health approach into this treaty will require the institutionalization of formal One Health coordination mechanisms.

This article aims to show how the changes to NEPA by the Trump Administration are an act of environmental racism, defined as “[i]ntentional or unintentional racial discrimination in environmental policy‐making, enforcement of regulations and laws, and targeting of communities for the disposal of toxic waste and siting of polluting industries.”

This article examines the right to commercial speech that has been read into the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Restrictions on this right are only permitted if they come within the ambit of the exhaustive list of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), under which public health is notably absent. Nevertheless, through the doctrine of harmonious construction, the Indian judiciary have adopted a purposive interpretation to circumvent the omission of public health by carving up freedom of commercial speech into two parts: protected speech which furthers public interest and unprotected speech which is purely commercial. Moreover, the Indian courts have construed these provisions in light of the right to life under Article 21 and the health-related Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution. This article concludes that judicial creativity in India has consistently been used in favor of protecting public health.

The proposed national PrEP program would serve people who are uninsured as well as those enrolled in Medicaid. In this article, the authors propose a set of recommendations for the proposed program’s implementers as well as state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care organizations to ensure PrEP access for people enrolled in Medicaid, addressing gaps without undermining the important role of the Medicaid program in covering and promoting PrEP.

Over twenty years have passed since JLME published “The Girl Who Cried Pain: A Bias Against Women in the Treatment of Pain.” This article revisits the conclusions drawn in that piece and explores what we have learned in the last two decades regarding the experience of men and women who have chronic pain and whether women continue to be treated less aggressively for their pain than men.

Racially disparate policing, prosecution, and punishment harm individuals, families, and communities. These practices must be understood within the context of the development of the criminal legal system as a means of racialized social control. This context permits a critical examination of the way criminalization has been and is still deployed to subject poor and racialized communities to systemic injustices. This commentary frames a call for interventions to integrate a health justice approach to ensure that they advance racial and health equity to promote the well-being of individuals, families, and communities.

This article looks to the past to consider how government officials, health professionals, and legal authorities have historically framed racial disparities in birth and the lasting impact these explanations have had on Black birthing experiences and outcomes.

COVID-related racial disparities represent a spectrum of injustices and inequalities. Focusing on food oppression, this essay argues that racism infuses food law and policy in ways that contribute to racially disparate COVID deaths and severe illnesses. USDA nutrition program participants were at a nutritional disadvantage when COVID hit. Yet, government responses focused on food insecurity, not nutritional quality. Racism against a predominantly Black and brown labor force of essential food workers — from fields to meat plants to grocery stores — created tolerance for the administration’s failure to protect or compensate some of the country’s most vulnerable workers. When COVID-driven supply issues threatened to narrow white people’s activities and choices, the favored response was to keep their options open by sacrificing Black and brown workers. A food oppression lens — understanding how corporate interests drive food policy — is necessary to achieve food equality in this pandemic and beyond.

As countries around the world work to restrict unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children, the U.S. remains reliant on industry-self regulation. The First Amendment’s protection for commercial speech and previous gutting of the Federal Trade Commission’s authority pose barriers to restricting food marketing to children. However, false, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices remain subject to regulation and provide an avenue to address marketing to young children, modern practices that have evaded regulation, and gaps in the food and beverage industry’s self-regulatory approach.

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.

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.

This Article aims to show how the food industry has instrumentalized the right to freedom of expression to oppose innovative laws in Chile aimed at creating healthier food environments.

When applied in the health sector, AI-based applications raise not only ethical but legal and safety concerns, where algorithms trained on data from majority populations can generate less accurate or reliable results for minorities and other disadvantaged groups.

Circumvention tourism is a form of medical tourism that occurs when individuals travel abroad to receive treatments that are a prohibited in their home county but permitted in a destination country. This paper explores this question: Should individuals be punished by their home countries for engaging in circumvention tourism? Guido Pennings, Richard Huxtable, and I. Glenn Cohen have all argued for what I call “formalist accounts” of circumvention tourism. That is, they try to show that certain types of circumvention tourism should or should not be punished in principle. Against them, I show that questions about circumvention tourism’s punishability cannot be answered in the abstract. Whether individuals should be punished depends too much on the prima facie morality of the treatments being performed and the prohibitions being circumvented.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the challenges of complying with public health guidance to isolate or quarantine without access to adequate income, housing, food, and other resources. When people cannot safely isolate or quarantine during an outbreak of infectious disease, a critical public health strategy fails. This article proposes integrating sociolegal needs screening and services into contact tracing as a way to mitigate public health harms and pandemic-related health inequities.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations prohibit federally-funded educational institutions and healthcare centers from engaging in disparate impact discrimination “on the ground of race, color, or national origin” in all of their operations.