James G. Hodge, Jr., J.D., LL.M., is the director of the Network’s Western Region Office. He is the Peter Kiewit Foundation Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. Through scholarship, teaching, and projects, Professor Hodge delves into multiple areas of health law, public health law, global health law, ethics, and human rights. He has published more than 200 articles in journals of law, medicine, public health and bioethics; 2 books in public health law (including Public Health Law in a Nutshell (3rd ed. 2018); 25 book chapters; dozens of reports; and guest edited 4 symposium issues.
He is listed among the Top 20 Most-Cited Health Law Scholars in Web of Science (2013-2017) and is regularly ranked among the top 3% of all downloaded authors in the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). The recipient of the 2006 Henrik L. Blum Award for Excellence in Health Policy from the American Public Health Association, Professor Hodge has drafted (with others) several public health law reform initiatives including the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. His diverse, funded projects include work on (1) emergency legal preparedness; (2) health impact assessments; (3) health information privacy; and (4) vaccination laws and policies.
This FAQ addresses questions of liability for health care providers when shifting to crisis operations during emergencies like the current coronavirus pandemic.
← View All Issues of Judicial Trends…
This real-time session focused on an array of social distancing legal responses among federal, state, and local authorities, notably quarantine, isolation, school and other closures, and proposed “lockdowns.”
With the escalation of U.S. domestic cases of COVID-19 over the past week alone, including several jurisdictional declarations of emergency, this 60 minute real-time webinar examined the most current developments regarding legal preparedness and response.
This webinar provided legal, policy and practical guidance related to international and domestic public health responses to 2019 n-CoV.
This document provides active hyperlinks to key resources in Emergency Legal Preparedness developed by attorneys/staff via the Network for Public Health Law. Resources are categorized into 12 diverse topic areas listed on the first page of the document.
Since 1988 there have been 4,500 documented cases of children endangered because a parent or guardian left them unattended in a parked car. More than 36 children die annually across America each year from vehicular heatstroke. Federal law has been introduced to prevent these tragic deaths, but stronger state laws can also help protect children.
This Primer on Opioid-related Public Health Emergencies provides key information and visual snapshots of federal, state, tribal, and local emergency declarations in response to the opioid crisis across the U.S.
This primer provides key information on the 2018-2019 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including international response efforts, U.S. preparedness and response, an outline of the major legal challenges, and emergency legal preparedness resources.
A 2018 study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the U.S. burden of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias will double by 2060. Responding to this national public health crisis of the mind facing millions of Americans and their families is essential. A recently released book, Dementia Reimagined, chronicles multiple opportunities to positively intervene in the lives of patients with dementia and their caregivers, and calls for national, state and local policy reforms to address deficiencies in the care and treatment of dementia.
President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to authorize and fund the construction of a border wall along the U.S. southern border prompted an unprecedented response from Congress, which then passed a resolution to terminate the declaration. Ongoing politicization and forthcoming statutory amendments or court decisions may fundamentally change the scope of national emergencies in the future.
Recently, a federal district court in Connecticut diverged from precedent to rule for an employee whose medical cannabis use resulted in a blatant rescission of a prospective job offer. According to the court in Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., d/b/a Bride Brook Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. (Bride Brook), Connecticut’s legal protections from discrimination for employees lawfully using medical cannabis are not barred by contrary federal legal provisions. The holding differs from prior state court decisions finding that employers generally have no duty to accommodate medical cannabis patients.
