Well, even if the government already has some established right to mandate things in the interest of public health, there is still plenty of room to argue that what the government mandates must ACTUALLY be in the interest of public health. They couldn’t, for example simply claim firearms are a threat to “public health” and just ban them under such a spurious excuse. Similarly, mandating a medication that they haven’t fully tested and demonstrated will abate the threat to public health, and a medication they have openly admitted doesn’t actually stop transmission of this virus, well, that’s something one could easily argue is not in the public interest, despite what the government claims, and therefore is not within their power to mandate.
Yep. Just saying, I’m surprised they haven’t used this line of legal reasoning.