Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Information

14 William Mitchell Law Review 503 (1988)


This article examines in detail an example of legislation that redefines the scope of permissible public health intervention and provides procedural protections compatible with modern precedent—the Minnesota Health Threat Procedures Act. This Act is an appropriate subject for close study because it is intended to be responsive to the general concerns raised by the commentators: the narrowing redefinition of the scope of coercive public health intervention and the addition of suitable procedural protections. Coercive public health legislation merits close attention because it inevitably invokes a clash of three important values. The purpose of the legislation is the protection of the public's health. This end, when implemented through coercive means, conflicts necessarily with the liberty and autonomy of individuals. As a by-product, the legislation may produce injustice in the form of discrimination against and stigmatization of individuals who are infected with HIV or afflicted with AIDS.