Law Commons^™

7th Annual Stonewall Lecture Series - The Battle For Pride: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow 2023, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Law Library Blog (November 2023): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Blatant Discrimination Within Federal Law: A 14th Amendment Analysis Of Medicaid’S Imd Exclusion, J. Michael E. Gray, Madeline Easdale

University of Massachusetts Law Review

A discriminatory piece of Medicaid law, the institution for mental diseases (IMD) exclusion, is denying people with serious mental illness equal levels of treatment as those with only primary healthcare needs. The IMD exclusion denies the use of federal funding in psychiatric hospitals for inpatient care. This article discusses the history and collateral implications of the IMD exclusion, then examines it through the lens of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, argues that people with severe mental illness constitute a quasi-suspect class, and that application of intermediate scrutiny would render the IMD exclusion unenforceable.

Law Library Blog (April 2023): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Congressional Power, Public Rights, And Non-Article Iii Adjudication, John M. Golden, Thomas H. Lee

Notre Dame Law Review

When can Congress vest in administrative agencies or other non–Article III federal courts the power to adjudicate any of the nine types of “Cases” or “Controversies” listed in Article III of the United States Constitution? The core doctrine holds that Congress may employ non–Article III adjudicators in territorial courts, in military courts, and for decision of matters of public right. Scholars have criticized this so-called “public rights” doctrine as incoherent but have struggled to offer a more cogent answer.

This Article provides a new, overarching explanation of when and why Congress may use non–Article III federal officials to adjudicate matters …

Determining What’S Not Obvious: Should A Reasonable Expectation Of Success Invalidate Patent Applications?, Natalie Peters

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Patents are necessary to incentivize innovation because they grant owners the right to protect inventions. To be patentable, an invention must be useful, it must be novel, and it must not be obvious. But the judiciary has struggled to apply the latter requirement, non-obviousness, particularly for highly technical innovations subject to FDA regulations. For these innovations, the progression through the regulatory jungle can take ten to twenty years and millions of dollars (2.6 billion for a pharmaceutical drug). The complexities of the regulatory process can also render an innovation unprotected by patent rights because, by the end of the process, …