Equity First: Conceptualizing a Normative Framework to Assess the Role of Preemption in Public Health

Abstract

Preemption is a legal doctrine whereby a higher level of government may limit or even eliminate the power of a lower level of government to regulate a certain issue. Some state legislatures are using preemption with increasing regularity to thwart local policies that have the potential to reduce health inequities. Despite recent trends, preemption is not inherently adversarial to public health, equity, or good governance but rather reflects its wielder's goals and values. Existing frameworks for assessing preemption fail to reconcile its potential to both advance and hinder health equity. An equity‐first preemption framework can facilitate case‐by‐case assessments of whether preemption is likely to worsen inequities or whether it is an appropriate response to address existing inequities. Robust empirical evidence is needed to develop and operationalize such a framework. Context Due to the inequitable distribution of various social determinants of health, disparities in health and well‐being are tied to where an individual lives. In the United States, a zip code often better predicts a person's health than their genetic code. As communities seek to redress these inequities, many find that, due to state preemption, their zip code also dictates their ability to pursue more equitable laws through local government action. Preemption is a legal doctrine whereby a higher level of government may limit or even eliminate the power of a lower level of government to regulate a certain issue. Methods We conducted a literature review to survey existing scholarship about the effects of preemption on public health and health equity using online databases such as PubMed, WestLaw, and Google Scholar. We also cohosted a series of cross‐sector, interdisciplinary research convenings with preemption, public health, and equity experts. Based on our findings, this article reviews the role of law and policy in the genesis of health inequities and highlights how preemption has both created and alleviated such inequities. We demonstrate how a normative framework rooted in redressing health inequities can advance a more just approach to preemption and outline a research agenda to support future action. Findings Law and policy have been central to creating health inequities, and while those same tools can promote health equity, some state legislatures are using preemption with increasing regularity to thwart local policies that may improve health and equity. Nevertheless, preemption is not inherently adversarial to public health, equity, or good governance. Preemptive federal civil rights laws, for example, have countered government‐sanctioned discrimination. However, existing frameworks for assessing preemption fail to reconcile its potential to both advance and hinder health equity. Conclusions Shortcomings in existing preemption frameworks demonstrate the need for new approaches to elevate equity as a central consideration in assessing preemption. We propose the development of an equity‐first preemption framework to establish evidence‐b...

US State Policies, Politics, and Life Expectancy

“…23 Second, the more recent surge of state preemption laws has greatly curtailed local authority. 24 Many states now prohibit localities from enacting laws such as smoke-free ordinances, nutrition labeling in restaurants, paid sick days, and raising the minimum wage. 25 For example, in 2000, only two states (Louisiana, Colorado) preempted their localities from raising the minimum wage, and no state preempted localities from mandating paid leave.…”

Trends in U.S. Population Health: The Central Role of Policies, Politics, and Profits

“…We encourage medical sociologists who study health trends to collaborate with historians, legal scholars, political scientists, and others who can provide fresh perspectives on the myriad forces driving the trends. Although relatively rare, such collaborations over the past decade helped shed light on how the U.S. political economy has shaped life-expectancy trends (Beckfield and Bambra 2016), how trends in tax policy affected population health (Newman and O’Brien 2011), and how the rise of state preemption laws may have exacerbated racial-ethnic health disparities (Carr et al 2020).…”

Indoor Dining and In-Person Learning: A Comparison of 30 US Cities

“…In some states (e.g., Texas and Arizona), state governments employed government pre-emption ceilings, a legislative doctrine whereby a higher level of government prohibits a lower level, such as city governments, from enacting a program or policy that puts in place stricter restriction requirements than the state [25]. Pre-pandemic, states pre-empted local governments on laws including minimum wage and anti-gun legislation [25] and during the pandemic, governors employed ceiling pre-emptions in various ways, including to warn cities such as Austin to rescind local emergency orders that imposed stricter COVID-19 restrictions [26]. For example, by the end of December, of the 15 cities where indoor dining was permitted, 7 cities were pre-empted by the state from keeping indoor dining closed.…”