Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 708

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 624 (1998)

663

Opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.

.

that “[i]n assessing the reasonableness of petitioner’s actions,
. are of special
the views of public health authorities .
weight and authority.” Ante, at 650. Those views are, of
course, entitled to a presumption of validity when the actions
of those authorities themselves are challenged in court, and
even in disputes between private parties where Congress
has committed that dispute to adjudication by a public health
authority. But in litigation between private parties origi-
nating in the federal courts, I am aware of no provision of
law or judicial practice that would require or permit courts
to give some scientiﬁc views more credence than others sim-
ply because they have been endorsed by a politically ap-
pointed public health authority (such as the Surgeon Gen-
eral).
In litigation of this latter sort, which is what we face
here, the credentials of the scientists employed by the public
health authority, and the soundness of their studies, must
stand on their own. The Court cites no authority for its
limitation upon the courts’ truth-ﬁnding function, except the
statement in School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline, 480 U. S.,
at 288, that in making ﬁndings regarding the risk of conta-
gion under the Rehabilitation Act, “courts normally should
defer to the reasonable medical judgments of public health
ofﬁcials.” But there is appended to that dictum the follow-
ing footnote, which makes it very clear that the Court was
urging respect for medical judgment, and not necessarily
respect for “ofﬁcial” medical judgment over “private” medi-
cal judgment: “This case does not present, and we do not
address, the question whether courts should also defer to the
reasonable medical judgments of private physicians on which
an employer has relied.”

Id., at 288, n. 18.

Applying these principles here, it is clear to me that peti-
tioner has presented more than enough evidence to avoid
summary judgment on the “direct threat” question.
In June
1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pub-
lished a study identifying seven instances of possible trans-
mission of HIV from patients to dental workers. See ante,