Rule of Law vs. Rule of Experts in Public Health Emergencies

My thesis in this paper is that liberals should adopt a very strong presumption in favor of the rule of law during a public health emergency and should only turn to rule by experts under very narrow, and extremely rare, conditions. In addition to defending this thesis, this paper offers a general framework for when liberals should permit violations of the rule of law in favor of rule of experts during public health emergencies. The paper proceeds as follows. In section I, I define some thorny theoretical issues about the rule of law that will clarify what, precisely, I mean by rule of law and rule of experts in public health. In section II, I advance several arguments in favor of the rule of law in public health. These arguments will be the following: (1) the democracy argument, (2) the autonomy argument, (3) the respect for rational planning argument, and (4) the precedent argument. These arguments are intended to establish the claim that liberals should endorse a very strong presumption in favor of not violating the rule of law during a public health emergency. In section III, I ask when this very strong presumption in favor of the rule of law may be overridden in favor of rule by experts. I outline a narrow set of conditions that must obtain for this to be the case. My own view is that these conditions very rarely, if ever, obtain in the real world. But, if the reader disagrees with me on this point, the general framework is still useful.