코로나19 위기대응과 미국의 행정판례동향

With the rapid spread of COVID-19, the U.S. government has issued various executive orders restricting citizens’ rights to deal with the crisis. In response, various subjects, such as citizens and companies claiming infringement of rights, and the state government that objected to the federal administrative order, became plaintiffs and applied for injunctions or filed a lawsuit. In the case of the United States, there are various cases on the COVID-19 crisis situation, so examining the U.S. administrative cases can be a reference in Korean cases. In this regard, the cases can be divided into vaccination obligations, religious freedom, right to vote, and abortion. Although there are differences depending on the cases, the U.S. judiciary tended to refrain from making political judgments and respect government’s discretion. In the cases of Korea, a quarantine pass has been implemented since November 2021, and a full-fledged COVID-19 related lawsuit has been filed. Recently, the Seoul Administrative Court cited an application for suspension of execution of quarantine passes on January 4 and 14, 2022. Issues regarding restrictions on voting rights are also expected to emerge ahead of future presidential elections. However, the U.S. administrative cases brought in the early stages of the spread of COVID-19, and there is a difference in the urgency, the fatality rate of dominant strains from the time of Korea’s recent decision to suspend execution. The court’s examination criteria and intensity may also be different in the case of suspension of execution and the case on the merits, which have a temporary nature. Considering these differences, the recent decision to suspend execution is meaningful in that it provided the government with standards for quarantine passes, as it comprehensively considered the spread of COVID-19, vaccination rate, and the fatality rate of dominant variant Omicron. As of January 2022, when the decision to suspend execution was made, COVID-19 has entered an end phase, and Omicron’s fatality rate is relatively low, so there is a lack of justification for the government to take urgent measures even though it seriously violates individual rights. Therefore, it is not necessary to accept the passive attitude of the U.S. judiciary, which mainly deals with the early COVID-19 situation. Rather, it is possible to find comparative legal significance in the process of examining administrative cases in the United States, examining the factors considered by the court in the sentence of interest, and deriving the criteria.