let people know that you may have covid like symptoms. so that they can prepare and not accept others in the hospital setting. covid can spread quite rapidly in these kinds of congested settings. we have seen it in nursing homes, cruise ships, and absolutely in hospitals. host: lawrence gostin, you need to stay well. we will have you back here in a couple of weeks, i'm sure. with the o'neill institute for national and global health law, thanks for being here this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will continue the calls with you. if you are a medical is james. us we spoke earlier about the role of the federal law. what sorts of authorities to the states have in terms of responding to the virus?

>> it is important we distinguish between federal and state roles but the state is is at.he action they are the possessors of the broadest public health powers that you can actually have in the united states. some states delegate those two locals. they have got the sovereign authority to respond in real powers thaterent you are seeing put into effect as we speak. they use those the extensively in an emergency like this. >> we have seen states act across the country, thinking of new york state, maryland, california, obviously. of note soou seen far? >> it is important to observe one thing we have never seen before in u.s. history to my knowledge. every single state, all u.s. territories, simultaneous declared state of emergency. we have never seen that. this is that serious.

we have unleashed public health powers -- traditional things we might do -- we are now using those on expedited basis. everything in relation to testing, screening, social distancing, measures pursuant to quarantine, isolation, very aggressive measures out of san francisco and other regions, all thanks to those emergency declarations and what they authorize. host: what about civil rights when social distancing policies are implemented by states/localities? guest: great question. a lot of americans are concerned about constitutional protections. they did not go away. they are being recalibrated as we speak. the government, at any level, cannot waive fundamental constitutional rights but we are assessing the compelling state interest involved against the backdrop of being expeditious in regards to response effort. social distancing powers

especially, without question, infringe on basic civil liberties. that rebalance is occurring but we are not dispensing with those liberties. there are fundamental protections regarding due process, equal protection, first amendment rights, etc. they are being recalibrated because of the backdrop. host: you used the term, compelling state interest. what does that mean legally and for your average citizen? guest: legally, when we assess interventions that do infringe on individual interest and rights, what we look at from a constitutional perspective is -- does government have a compelling state interest? is there something so compelling from public health perspective that would justify these types of infringements?

courts will be looking at that at every level, if issues are challenged, i daresay they will be in jurisdictions, so that is the standard. is there a compelling governmental interest at stake? covid-19 is compelling. i don't think any court will debate that. how do you balance that against norms/protections we enjoy when we are not in these situations? that is what courts have to balance. the arguments will be there, laid out neatly before the public but the truth is, if we do not systematically, in an organized way, engage in social distancing at levels we have not seen before in modern history, if we don't do that, covid-19 threatens the health of everyone in the country, no question. host: james hodge, university of arizona state -- error-prone state university, director -- arizona state university, joining us to talk about localities and state response. we welcome your calls and comments. (202)-748-8000, eastern and central time zones. mountain, pacific time zones, (202)-748-8001. what about quarantine

situations? how much leeway does a governor have to impose quarantine on a city/locality within that state? guest: really clear, legal terms. quarantine is just about separating persons who may have been exposed to covid-19. we don't know if they are infected. you may be quarantined at home. you may have been exposed. that is legitimate. we do that in non-emergency's all the time. quarantines, legal perspective, just about those persons who may be suspected of potential infection down the road.

what we are talking about and seeing, at federal and state level, california, new york have been suggesting this, there is an issue using curfew laws in new jersey to do this, what we are talking about in relation to self protection or sheltering in place initiatives, these are not quarantine, they have not all been exposed to covid-19 yet but these are different dynamic from a social distancing perspective. they raise additional concerns about how far government can go. that is an open book question. if it were a federal issue, we would have severe problems implementing some sort of national sheltering type of initiative. state powers are more extensive. whether or not they may infringe on specific liberties in a way that would be problematic, we will see here real soon. host: our guest has been on the faculty of georgetown law university center, also the bloomberg school of public health in baltimore.

james hodge, joining us from phoenix. jenny, lincoln's and, north carolina. caller: hey. first of all, being in north carolina, there is 33 people here with a virus. people are doing a great job in north carolina. i hope people continue to stay away. let's get rid of this may be in the next month. things would be better if everyone did their part. people are talking about trump and the border and everything. tell the people what would happen if trump did not close the border. this morning on the radio, they had said this virus has been around in china since like 2002 and the government was told between 2008-2013, this is spreading every year and getting worse and worse. we really should have prepared for this before trump got in. trump, he had nothing when he got started. closing the border was the best thing he did. it slowed everything down.

it gave us a chance as people started spreading it, it gave us a chance to prepare for more tests. this is new ground for us. i don't want people to blame trump when the previous administration had warnings and was told, this virus is getting worse and it will get here eventually and spread. guest: thank you. great observations in regards to what might have been perceived threats to the nation's health with prior incidents. covid-19 has derivations in sars and other coronavirus is. one of the important things to observe at the national level through president trump, on the local level, north carolina health authorities, doing a great job, state of emergency through the governors -- these initiatives, honestly, to work, have to be grounded in key principles. the science of what we know about covid-19 and the potential

spread. we are learning that real-time. any lawyer will tell you if you want to be effective in legal interventions, listen to what epidemiologists are telling us about the spread. the second thing is the rule of law, constitutional principles, the same principles that make sure we get through this emergency with dignity and respect for civil liberties but also acknowledging we are in unparalleled times. this is unprecedented. closing borders, initiating specific travel restrictions. we will run up against a lot of constitutional interest at stake.

if they are grounded in best practices, science and what we can do real-time social distancing, that is yet to be determined. great point. thank you. host: patrick, st. petersburg, florida. caller: yes. my question might not be for your guest. i am just wondering. the numbers are not adding up. isn't it under 10,000 deaths globally at this point? guest: patrick, one of the things i deferred to, as i was mentioning, what epidemiologists are telling us. here is the message you're hearing from our nationally, supremely talented epidemiologists.

from what we can confirm, the numbers, are important to her knowledge. yes, in excess of several thousand deaths. you saying this does not appear to be the biggest issue and how we respond so profoundly to something that might not prove to be problematic as the numbers suggest.

the experts will tell you the projections were in the first wave of what could be a two or three wave epidemic. we have so many unknown cases globally because we cannot get testing done fast enough. we are working on that in the united states. significant calls from states demanding a lot more help from the cdc and others were those interests. what i don't want to do in the nation's -- and the nation needs to be consciences -- clumsy engines of -- conscientious of, the fact that we have preventable deaths that we can actually manage and do well against if we take these initiatives now. that is what we are up against in regards to conditions. we know it kills, it kills quickly and there won't be a vaccine for sun time -- for some time. that is why we are using what we are using against that backdrop. host: for all of our other viewers, we showed you a moment ago the tracker from johns hopkins, you can google that. it is called the johns hopkins dashboard of the daily numbers in the u.s., the number of cases in the u.s.. 61 deaths -- 85 deaths confirmed. we will go to california. glenn, good morning. caller: god bless donald trump and god bless america. here is one thing we are not talking about. we have talked about the coronavirus for about a month now, right after impeachment was ended. he put a travel ban and he was called a racist just like me of deplorable -- a deplorable who voted for our greatest president we have ever had who is working hard for the american citizens. what is our congress representatives done? host: we will go to ronnie in oceanside,

california. caller: thank you. first of all, i would like to say thank you to our speaker. my husband and my daughter and my future family, they all work in the medical field. my husband is a therapist, they are at the frontlines. they are heroes in this situation. people that work in the medical field. we have to remember, they are at the frontlines. the original frontline was trump keeping the department that would handle something like a pandemic.

everyone whining and crying about trump being picked on about this, he is our president, our leader. for him to eliminate the department that protects the american people, the buck stops there. host: go ahead. guest: i did not mean to interrupt. thank you for those comments. i will focus on the ones that are most serious, frontline health care practitioners are definitely national heroes at this point. we are calling on them to take risks that are excessive. we are doing so against a backdrop knowing we are going to be implement in crisis standards of care. we are shifting to triage and local jurisdictions. what is important to remember about that is that these emergency declarations that our network of public health departments tracks, provides signet -- specific opportunities for legal protections for their health care -- for those health care workers.

they are putting themselves in great risk. guest: it creates surge stateking with local and practitioners have the best possible opportunity to respond. theow healthy are most of systems? states likethier california and what you'll see

player.t it is an equal what and how that plays out will hours and itional is what we are seeing with the best evidence will stop you will up that willve make key differences. however you have had better health systems in place. asa final comment, i'm not orcerned about what skills boots on the ground factor. concerned about the influx -- influx of all

patients nationally. that is it to be seen. >> the headline, americans wondering what the headline was due. write that piece, they that the president whacked a angst. of obtainingn work on their own. the president was asked to explain that. >> go through a supply chain that they may have. gethey are able to ventilators, certain things without having to go through the

longer process of federal government, we have tremendous maskss of respirators and and they are coming. it will always be faster if they can get them directly and i have given them authorization. hear in terms of the states responsibility and access to those necessary items? president was saying for what we had in place, it is nationale strategic stockpile. the stockpiles will be drained in those resources are available.

i think the president is intimating that is what the feds will be distributing. while president trump is right that states have red tape to waves that so lot we can get them in hand. deep pockets are at the federal level and we have multiple if thes of dollars and feds can get it faster, i suggest they do so. however, if a governor can , here ishe resources the ugly. att you really don't want this point against the national outbreak that affects every

statesyou don't want competing with states that don't have as much while trying to picture things as viable as ventilators, that is not a level playing field. the feds would be a great place .o have that distributed >> can anyone explain how west virginia remains an outlier? >> it is a great state and the commonwealth certainly looks to be unscathed from covid-19.

i'm not going to say why you are not seeing the reported case. if you think there are cases, .hat would be a mistake >> people here from new hampshire next. >> i am listening to mr. hodge and there was a previous color that mention something about the coronavirus being around for some time. -- the history has been there a long time and it has existed, but the truth is we have had leaders in washington

a damey have not done thing about it. people are freaking out over this coronavirus. it is a flu virus that will run its course. need -- when i need my local vice, i will not call a lawyer. thisat is your take on coronavirus? >> here's what they will tell , this is is serious significantly more dangerous

than what we have seen before. more dangerous than sars or mers. they don't spread like that. and in a waykly that will greatly strapped the health care system of the united states will stop wanting the scientists have showed is this is not coronavirus from the last 20 years, this is the new strain . new strains of viruses develop over time. one of the most important observations, with no nationally , wefrom a legal perspective

americans atlot of this point in time. national leaders like president trump trump, local leaders, we are asking a lot of americans. we are doing so to save lives, honestly. if we can accomplish that, that is what we call an act of her -- an act of heroism across the united states. we can accomplish that if we actually do the right things and legally balance with what we have constitutional rights to. >> our next caller is out of oregon. laura, there we go. ok. i want to mention a couple things. i am pretty much a -- speaker. -- pretty circular speaker.

i have pretty intense add but it keeps me busy. i would probably never have made it to a university education if i hadn't ended up divorced at 58 but there i was at oregon state university and one of the classes i took was bio weapons. the education is out there and it is really healthy for all of us to challenge ourselves. i would not have done it. there is in moral ethics and biological ethics to learn about utility and autonomy. the individual in the group. if you're in a raft in the middle of the ocean, three

people one candy bar, these types of situations. also, knowing about liberty, positive rights versus negative rights. i have heard many people somewhat clumsily -- >> how do you apply your question to the coronavirus crisis? >> i am wondering if you could talk about the ethics, the morals, the self responsibility that is involved in autonomy and also involved in this crisis when the utility viewpoint. >> thank you. great to hear from you.

you have tripped on a very important area, one of which lawyers work closely. let me tell you what exactly happens legally when we declare emergencies across all 50 states and now president trump. we invoked a different ethics we invoked what was built into crisis standard of care plans at hospitals. this is not about public health ethics which is a different field.

it is about public health emergency ethics. what that means, just to be sure is it is not that we threw aside autonomy and other specific interests, we had to to engage medical triage, shift to a different form of ethics that we largely mapped out already. these public health emergency ethics codes exist and that is what we are following in the near future. it does prioritize things and balance things a little differently. the need is grounded in a very core principle. we are going to do from a utilitarian perspective, everything possible within the

science and best practices, within the law to make morally sound choices and save the most lives possible. it does not put individual autonomy at the forefront but it does take that into consideration against the backdrop of those positions. what is compelling about your observation is this, we can help legally solve all of these issues. we can't know what directions covid will go. we are going to make it through because those principles are counterbalanced with individual group interests at stake. >> less than 15 minutes with our guest, james hodge, the director of the center or public health law and policy at every student -- arizona state university joining us from phoenix. we welcome your calls and comments. we want to remind you about the next briefing coming up from the white house, the task force, vice president pence will leave that briefing at 11:30 eastern on c-span, also on c-span radio. president trump is tweeting this morning. he says this, talking about states and governors, failing michigan governor must work harder and be much more proactive. we are pushing her to get the job done. i stand with michigan. he also says the federal government is working well with governments -- with governors and state officials, good things will happen. do you think the federal government is working well with state governors?

>> i think there are a number of governors including in michigan were i've got family as we speak, that would not agree with that particular statement. one of the things i have tried to avoid is politicizing and i know democratic candidates for presidential -- for president happel's -- have politicize this at the last debate. -- politicized this at the last debate. if you want to make ground quickly in regards of battling this uniform and consistent incident, you work hand in hand with these governors, you work with local officials, you work to closely align with how you can think on these issues at every level. to the degree to which there is uniform messages, people are going to be responsible for responding in kind to that.

pitching battles against governors is not smart because they are front liners, they have controls over things and powers that even the president does not possess in regards to specific measures that can be done. i would say just as a moment of guidance, nationally, this is about a uniform threat. it is about consistent responses as you see governor cuomo in new york asking the white house, give us the guidance you think will work best. governors in little states like -- appealing to the federal government, give us some guidance you think will work well debate -- based on the national trends you are observing. against that backdrop, politicize asian -- politicization is not good at this point. in bellevue,athy washington. >> i had one quick comment before my question. i want all americans to stop blaming everybody and just unify. my question is, where i am at

there are three cases with the governor and local -- we are closing bars and restaurants, they can do take only. other businesses are closing. i just wonder what is the next steps at state and local. i am not clear what the next action is. >> a great point. the governor in your state has been out front because seattle was hit and what you are seeing at that level with the seattle-based leaders, we know they are doing really heroic work to be honest. they are also taking some of the most aggressive measures you are seeing nationally because they see what is on the forecast. how far can we go? the professor who preceded me on c-span, how far can states go?

here is where the line is going to get drawn at some point or another. first of all we can create new public-health powers involving social distancing that includes everything from closures to quarantines to isolation to specific issues like curfews. we've got these powers and they are counterbalanced against individual rights. those public-health powers coupled together creates what i call a public health safety zone. it is about saying can we make zones of safety so the disease does not spread within? that is legit, that has happened nationally and we are doing it

at the state and local level. take it to one other level and you might run into some constitutional issues and that level might be what we are seeing in china, and italy as we speak. france has proposed it. it is what a lot of media call lockdown and it is about basically saying no coming or going, no leaving your house for any legitimate reasons but sit -- beyond the most exceptional for a good period of time. that is close to what you are seeing emanating out of many in california -- communities in california. why is that different? it feels like a lot down because in many ways it tells people do not go out, do not travel, did not ingress or egress without -- within your community. i can be problematic. issues related to your rights to travel rise. there were due process concerns. you will see some significant challenges to it, whether it is about scrutiny solely for the basis that that more aggressive measure, just to be clear, if it is is proven to be most effective, it might survive scrutiny but it does take us

beyond the public-health safety zones and more into something that feels to americans like a lockdown which would be unconstitutional. >> rick in oregon saying bars and restaurants closed, senior centers, churches, schools closing for at least a month. the economy will suffer greatly. we go next to kansas city, kansas to hear from phyllis. >> i have a question about -- i seen that the governor cuomo of new york, he was talking about how the coronavirus was going on and that president trump wasn't doing what he was supposed to do and wasn't doing it quick enough but here is my problem. it was governor cuomo who was sending busloads of illegals from his state just about a month and a half ago to other

parts of the country. doesn't our government have a responsibility to refuse people like that? >> phyllis in kansas. >> i am not aware of what governor cuomo may or may not have done. i won't comment to that effect because i'm not aware of it. let me be honest about one thing. whatever was done in relation to mass movement of perp -- of persons even six weeks ago before we got to this point of realizing covid is here, covid is serious, that was a very different series of circumstances. everybody has the right to travel and ingress and e grace

across state borders and will continue to do so until we see more aggressive initiatives attempted by the white house or governors in specific jurisdictions. let's not worry about how people moved around six to eight weeks ago. that is all legit. >> how do you think the governor responded, the state of new york responded to the one case they had? i believe it was in new rochelle where they created, it wasn't a quarantine necessarily. tell us about that. >> that was exactly what i talked about before in public health safety zones. what governor cuomo ordered was not a lockdown. he didn't say to anybody within that one-mile radius in which they had an epicenter, he didn't say you can't leave and you can't come in. what he said was we need to do something within this pacific region that is a little exceptional compared to other parts of new york state. we are going to create more

heavy closures to help limit the spread. we are going to bring in the national guard not to maintain order or ensure the people don't leave. they were passing out supplies and assisting people. we need a lot more of that. those are legitimate public-health powers that work. they are temporary. they are meant to save lives.

they are asking american citizens to just take reasonable precautions and act from a civic responsibility perspective. you start shutting down state borders, you start seeing your counties say no ins or outs, that is when you will trip on some constitutional impediments that could be highly problematic and counterintuitive. >> let's see if we can get a couple more calls. drew in a soda in minnesota. >> good morning. i would like to ask mr. james hodge a question regarding public-health. i served as a county commissioner. as i served for nine years, i found out something that needs to be spread more widely with elected officials to local, state and federal government and that is public-health and all decision-making. think about health and all of

your planning and all the decisions that are made. we need to adequately fund our public health system and consistently the last three or four years, we have been fighting for funding both from the federal government and from state government. local governments are then burdened with deciding how big do we want our public-health staff department to be? you can talk about policymaking. >> you have a very sophisticated public health system in minnesota, regularly ranked among the top three in the country. here is the observation you make that i like a lot. first of all, health in all policies. we are responding in how the government -- we are observing how the government response to covid-19. this is not just about underfunded public health apartment alone. in this is every agency having a

role to play with emergency response efforts. we will learn from covid real quick where we see the fire outbreaks. you need the real gamut of what the government can do in terms of responding effectively. here is the reality that we don't recognize outside of that emergency. we government working towards these objectives and policies consistently, regularly. it's about housing and urban development and transportation departments. it's about labor and insurance initiatives if we are better to recognize health in all policies as a key initiative, we are making investments in the long-term. against this backdrop, you are seeing how much government has mobilized. every department, every agency. a great observation. i appreciate that because the significance of what we can learn from this event. >> james hodge has been joining us from phoenix. he is the director of the arizona state university center for public health law and policy. great to have you with us. we will talk again soon. thank you so much for having me. that will wrap it up for the program this morning. a couple reminders, a briefing coming up at 11:30. also the u.s. senate coming in

major industries have seen --inesses dry up over not and, mostrnight important of all, doctors, nurses and other professionals are gearing up for what seems to

be the most significant challenge they have faced in generations. this new challenge is testing institutions. yesterday, kentucky had the death.oronavirus related i spoke to the governor yesterday and we continue to stay in close touch. we are heating the sober warning of dr. fauci. things will get worse before they get better. cannotlear our nation afford partisan politics as usual. we passed billions