State and local officials have broad power to govern for public health and safety, but there are limits—for example, on the powers themselves and who exercises them. State law typically spells out what can be done, which part of the executive branch can do it, when the legislature needs to be involved, and how long any orders can last. Another limit is the government’s need to justify any restriction on basic liberties, whether to travel, to practice religion, to earn a living, or the myriad other ways people pursue their vision of the good life. In this issue of our Pandemics and Policy series, Cato scholar Ilya Shapiro explains how far government can constitutionally go in fighting COVID-19.

The brutal confirmation battles we saw over Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are symptoms of a larger problem with our third branch of government—one that began long before Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas, or even Robert Bork: the Court’s own self‐​corruption, facilitating the expansion of federal authority and thereby aggregating more power to themselves. In a new book, Ilya Shapiro takes readers inside the unknown history of fiercely partisan judicial nominations and explores reforms that could return the Supreme Court to its proper constitutional role. Only when the Court rebalances our constitutional order, curbs administrative overreach, and returns power to states and localities will the bitter war over the judiciary subside. Please join us for a discussion of these and other issues as judicial nominations emerge as a key part of the 2020 election campaign.