In the 19th and early 20th centuries the US suffered epidemics of cholera, typhus, yellow fever, bubonic plague, and probably others. Forced quarantines and lock downs were imposed, litigated, and found acceptable, at least when imposed by states or cities.

Generally, the fall under the state's police powers and the 10th Amendment. They have to be targeted at serving a legitimate state interest (stopping the spread of disease certainly qualifies), not be arbitrary, not have some equally effective alternative that doesn't burden civil rights, etc.

A state of emergency does weird things to executive power. Last time habeus corpus was suspended, Lincoln did it during the Civil War via executive order in April and it wasn't struck down by a Court until June. Everyone preceded to ignore the ruling anyway, until Congress could pass the bill that made the suspension legal two years later (due to partisan bickering, surprise!). By then, Lincoln had arrested a Congressman and a significant fraction of Maryland's state legislature.

The legitimacy of the courts really took some big hits in the last few decades. Will the judicial branch even have the power to stop the other branches before this is all over? Only time will tell.

"Freedom of movement" in the constitutional sense refers to the ability to enter and leave the individual States as a citizen of the United States.

As for the shelter-in-place order, see:

California Health and Safety Code Sec. 120130

(d) The health officer may require strict or modified isolation, or quarantine, for any case of contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, when this action is necessary for the protection of the public health.

California Health and Safety Code Sec. 120295

Any person who violates Section 120130 or any section in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 120175, but excluding Section 120195), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, or by both. He or she is guilty of a separate offense for each day that the violation continued.

This is for Washington state, but will give you a pretty good breakdown:

https://medium.com/center-for-an-informed-public-at-uw/law-i...

Great article, thanks for sharing. I needed someone to calm my minds thoughts concerning this. These powers to limit organizing in groups seems extremely dangerous and my conspiratorial mind is running circles with this current situation, I needed a little bit for the other part of mind to chew on calm down the train.

The short answer is yes. Police powers[1] are not absolute, but extend pretty far. The more extreme applications have been few-and-far between, so they're not tested much.

[1] This is not about cops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co...

Legal issues haven't stopped mandatory curfews in the event of other emergencies. I've been under them in the past after really bad hurricanes. As long as it doesn't specifically target a subset of people and is applied only in relation to an emergency it appears to be legal. We're currently in an official national state of emergency so it seems like it's possible

I was surprised, but apparently in the US, there ARE legal instruments in place to enforce isolation & quarantine.

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

Why would you be surprised? Massive surges in disease aren't new -- my grandmother told me stories about being quarantined in Philly in the 1930s.

And that's back when things like Polio was raving populations, and could cripple you for life even if you made it through.

Point is, we've had to deal with this before... just not much recently.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but...

I intend to break any sort of mandatory lockdown/curfew, without putting myself or anyone else at risk (e.x. going for a walk in a non-crowded outdoor area). I'm not comfortable with the government telling me when and where I can be on such a broad and open-ended basis.

To be clear, I'm not being reckless like people still going on vacations or eating at crowded Red Robins or whatever (https://brobible.com/culture/article/miss-nevada-katie-willi...). I've already been social distancing for a week and am now in full self-imposed lockdown (excluding mentioned outdoor walks and picking up essential supplies)

>I intend to break any sort of mandatory lockdown/curfew, without putting myself or anyone else at risk (e.x. going for a walk in a non-crowded outdoor area)

Going for a walk in a non-crowded area is permitted under the order. See https://sf.gov/stay-home-except-essential-needs :

>It is OK to go outside for walks if you are not in a group.

I think that going out for a run or bike ride BY YOURSELF and keeping away from anyone else doesn't seem unreasonable and I don't think is reckless. Going to the bar or a friends house for a get-together DOES seem unreasonable.

I just hope that whatever lockdown happens if it happens is sensible and reasonable as much as it can be.

The behavior you describe is allowed under the order.

There's a lot of interesting questions here. Constitutionally speaking (at the Federal level), there is an express right given to the Executive branch: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This situation would certainly fall under the latter condition.

Reread that, it's not public safety in general, but public safety due to invasion or rebellion.

Reread that, this is a limitation on Congress's power to limit habeus corpus, not the executive's power.

On the other hand, habeas corpus itself isn't so directly tied to freedom of movement, since it's a procedure that applies after you get detained. Also, the outcome of the procedure could be that a judge upholds the legality of your detention!

If police stop people on the street and tell them to turn around and go home, habeas corpus might not be a particularly relevant remedy.

I don't think we dealing with either Rebellion or Invasion

Pretty sure we're being invaded by a trillion trillion invisible soldiers.

or just practically speaking, if they catch you out and about, how do they know you're not on your way to the grocery store?

Asking where your home is and which grocery store you're going to would be an effective way to find out.

I guess that would catch the casual scofflaw who hadn't thought things through, but it's not like it's terribly difficult to just lookup a couple stores in the vicinity of where you actually want to go. combine that with the fact that you're apparently allowed to visit friends/family who "need assistance" as well as walk around for exercise, a halfway clever individual could have an excuse to go pretty much wherever they want. of course, there aren't many places other than the grocery store that are actually open.

also, how does the conversation begin in the first place? do they pull you over under suspicion that you're not on your way to a grocery store, gas station, or friend/relative's house?

I have to think that the government/police have very little interest in harsh and perfect enforcement. As long as most people mostly follow the order -- and likely most will, because they're not all engineers who like looking for loopholes in everything ;) -- it will help. Better is better, but pretty good is better than nothing.

The order also allows going for walks as long as you're not with someone you aren't housed with, so the misdemeanor part is likely to be about gathering, not travelling.

Or it’s a test to see how far they can abuse your civil liberties, like detaining you indefinitely.

The equivalent of hall passes issued by employers with exemptions. Hopefully my employer is granted one so I don't get laid off.