Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Due Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves amendment creating 72‑hour appeal for quarantine and isolation orders
Summary
The Committee on House Health and Human Services amended and passed substitute for Senate Bill 29 to add a 72‑hour judicial review and a strict‑scrutiny standard for isolation, quarantine or similar exclusion orders; the substitute also removes local authority to prohibit public gatherings under certain infectious‑disease statutes.
The Committee on House Health and Human Services approved a substitute for Senate Bill 29, adopting an amendment that adds a 72‑hour judicial review and due‑process protections for isolation, quarantine or exclusion orders issued under state public health statutes.
Carly, the committee staff member, said the substitute removes authorization for a county or joint board of health or a local health officer to prohibit public gatherings when necessary for control of infectious or contagious diseases. Representative Droge offered an amendment to add a “72‑hour review by a body, to see a judge after they’ve been called for isolation,” and to require minimal process documentation and an appeal right for those subjected to exclusion, isolation or quarantine.
Jenna Moyer, an advisor in the reviser’s/statutes office, told the committee the language added in subsection d is taken from KSA 65‑129(c) and currently applies to isolation and quarantine orders; the amendment would expand that due‑process procedure to other orders issued under KSA 65‑101 through KSA 65‑129F. Moyer said the 72‑hour appeal procedure already exists for isolation and quarantine orders and the amendment would make the language consistent across related statutes.
Farah Ahmed, state epidemiologist at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, explained: “Anyone can appeal an isolation or quarantine order within 72 hours.” The committee’s reviser then noted the amendment adds a sentence modeled on prior amendments (cited from KSA 48‑925) that directs courts to grant relief unless the state shows the order is narrowly tailored and uses the least‑restrictive means — a strict‑scrutiny‑style test.
Committee members debated the balance between individual liberty and public health. Representative Reese and others expressed concerns about limiting health officials’ ability to act quickly; supporters said the amendment provides accountability without removing core public health tools. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment and then passed the substitute for Senate Bill 29 as amended. Five members asked to have “no” votes recorded on the final motion: Representative McDonald, Representative O'Pesa, Representative Reeves, Representative Meyer and Representative Weichel.
The substitute will proceed to the next legislative steps. The committee record does not include specific implementation procedures or an immediate change in how local health departments operate; KDHE representatives said the amendment aligns statutory procedures so that the same appeal timeframe applies to all covered orders.
