Health Law and Policy Commons^™

Of Mosquitoes And "Moral Convictions" In The Age Of Zika: How The Trump Administration's Gutting Of The Affordable Care Act's Contraceptive Mandate Jeopardizes Women's And Children's Health, Linda C. Fentiman

Health Matrix: The Journal of Law-Medicine

The Trump Administration’s efforts to undo the contraceptive mandate, a key component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), threaten a major public health emergency, as well as the rule of law and separation of powers. The Trump Administration’s Rules greatly expand the grounds for exemption from the contraceptive mandate: they allow even publicly traded corporations to assert religious beliefs as a ground for exemption and exempt all employers except publicly traded corporations from compliance with the contraceptive mandate if they hold “moral convictions” in opposition to contraception. By denying women access to effective, affordable contraception, these Rules increase the odds …

The Global Person: Pig-Human Embryos, Personhood, And Precision Medicine, Yvonne Cripps

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Chimeras, in the form of pig-human embryos engineered by CRISPR-Cas9 and other biotechnologies, have been created as potential sources of organs for transplantation. Against that background, and in an era of "precision medicine," this Article examines the concept of the global genetically modified person and asks whether humanness and personhood are being eroded, or finding new boundaries in intellectual property and constitutional law.

Reconsidering Constitutional Protection For Health Information Privacy, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

What kinds of health information should be reported to government for civil purposes? Several competing trends encourage efforts to reassess the scope of constitutional protection for health information: the social and commercial value of health information; the amount of data held by third parties, from health care providers to internet servers; critiques of the third party doctrine exception to Fourth Amendment protection; and concerns about the loss of privacy. This article describes a variety of civil purposes for which health information is collected today. A close analysis of cases applying the third party doctrine, administrative search principles, and the special …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Consumers Union Of United States, Inc. V. New York, Daphne Vlcek

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Extraterritorial Application Of The Fifth Amendment: A Need For Expanded Constitutional Protections., Guinevere E. Moore, Robert T. Moore

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since 2010, there have been forty-three cases—and ten deaths—involving the use of deadly force by United States agents against Mexican nationals along the border. Currently, the official policy is that officers may still use deadly force where they “reasonably believe”—based upon the totality of the circumstances—that they are in “imminent danger” of death or serious injury. Officers were found reasonable in using deadly force in situations as mundane as young boys throwing rocks. In light of these actions, the Mexican government has raised serious concerns about the disproportionate use of force by United States agents. The question now raised is …

Appellate Division, Fourth Department - In Re Heckl, Michael Prisco

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Right To No Meaningful Review: The Aftermath Of Shalala V. Illinois Council On Long Term Care, Inc., Ruqaiijah Ayanna Yearby

ExpressO

A RIGHT TO NO MEANINGFUL REVIEW: THE AFTERMATH OF SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG TERM CARE, INC. Ruqaiijah A. Yearby

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been perverted in the federal administrative system. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), regularly deprive individuals of liberty and property with little to no review. In its regulation of the health care industry through the Medicare program, HHS often turns a blind eye to procedural Due Process protections, such as providing individuals an opportunity to challenge the deprivation of property at a hearing, …

Mind The Gap: Expansion Of Texas Governmental Immunity Between Takings And Tort., Jadd F. Masso

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Jennings v. City of Dallas, the city’s wastewater collection division was dispatched to unstop a clogged sewer main but instead caused sewage to spew into the Jennings’ home with dramatic force, causing extensive damage. The Jennings subsequently filed suit against the city, alleging its actions constituted an unconstitutional taking, damaging, or destruction of their property for public use without adequate compensation in violation of Article I, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. The issue presented from the case was whether an individual citizen should be liable for such losses when the damage—as an incident to governmental action—in effect benefits …

Kelo V. City Of New London, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District V. United States, And Washoe County V. United States: A Fifth Amendment Takings Primer., Christopher L. Harris, Daniel J. Lowenberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a remedy available to citizens for the government's undue interference with private property rights. It operates similarly to an affirmative defense as it entitles citizens to “just compensation” when the government “takes” private property for “public use.” The Takings Clause thus embodies the idea that society values the protection of private property. The Supreme Court of the United States stated the purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing citizens from bearing public burdens which, in all fairness, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Kelo v. …

Securing One's Fourth Amendment Rights Through Issue Preclusion: Assessing Texas's Application Of Collateral Estoppel To Multiple Suppression Motions Filed In Separate Courts., Garrett T. Reece

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment will assess the split in Texas courts over the issue of collateral estoppel’s application in different motion to suppress hearings. By placing collateral estoppel within the confines of the Double Jeopardy Clause, federal law essentially extinguished one form of collateral estoppel and invented another form of the doctrine. Remnants of both forms are still alive, however, and Texas is one state in which both forms of collateral estoppel may be invoked in a criminal proceeding. Part II provides a historical analysis of the exclusionary rule, Double Jeopardy Clause, and collateral estoppel’s rise in criminal court. Part III addresses …

Iolta In The Balance: The Battle Of Legality And Morality Between Robin Hood And The Miser Recent Development., Katherine L. Smith

St. Mary's Law Journal

Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) programs recently survived a constitutional challenge. IOLTA programs require interest earned from trust accounts deposited with client money to fund legal services for the poor. Many states, including Texas, maintain a mandatory IOLTA program, requiring all lawyers who handle client funds to participate. Proponents of IOLTA argue it benefits civil justice. Opponents argue it is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held IOLTA accounts to be an unconstitutional taking of client property. The Ninth Circuit, however, found IOLTA accounts constitutional, holding that IOLTA accounts are not a taking …

In Re V.L.K. V. Troxel: Is The Best Interest Standard In A Motion To Modify The Sole Managing Conservator Subject To A Due Process Or Course Challenge., David F. Johnson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas Family Code section 156.101 is unconstitutional. In In re V.L.K, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Legislature removed the injurious retention element from section 156.101 and no longer required a finding that the natural parent be injurious to the welfare of the child. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling is contradictory to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Troxel v. Granville. In Troxel, the Supreme Court struck down a state statute that effectively permitted any third party to file a motion to challenge custody. Under Texas law, any affected party, not limited to parties named in the …

Dead Man Talking: Competing Narratives And Effective Representation In Capital Cases Essay., Jeffrey J. Pokorak

St. Mary's Law Journal

As Karl Hammond’s case indicates, to serve justice, balance between the Kill Story and Human Story is necessary in a capital trial. This Essay seeks, through deconstruction of Karl Hammond’s case, to identify and illustrate the values of telling these combating stories. Part III describes the Kill Story and the Human Story in Karl’s case from the record of his trial, appeals, and petitions. Part III also demonstrates how the failure to tell one side of the story in either the guilt-innocence phase or the punishment phase can have a prejudicial effect on the jury’s decision. Part IV then discusses …

The Presumption Of Innocence: Patching The Tattered Cloak After Maryland V. Craig., Ralph H. Kohlmann

St. Mary's Law Journal

Over one hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of the presumption of innocence in a criminal justice system which is based on due process. The Court declared the presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic, and elementary, and its enforcements lies at the foundation … of our criminal law.” The Court’s changing view of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the most recent contribution to the reduction in the practical value of the presumption of innocence. In Maryland v. Craig, the Court decided that while face-to-face confrontation forms the core of values furthered in …

The Supreme Court Takes A Weapon From The Drug War Arsenal: New Defenses To Civil Drug Forfeiture., Scott Alexander Nelson

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Comment discusses the history and development of forfeiture law—emphasizing the misnomer of “guilty property”—and addresses the lack of constitutional safeguards in the civil forfeiture statutes. It outlines prospective constitutional defenses announced by the United States Supreme Court, emphasizing the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and the “innocent owner” defense. The federal statute authorizing civil forfeiture, 21 U.S.C. § 881 (Forfeiture Statute), was initially enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 amended the statute to impose forfeiture on real property …

Peremptory Jury Strike In Texas After Batson And Edmondson., Alan B. Rich

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court overruled that portion of Swain v. Alabama, which had imposed a “crippling burden of proof” upon a person who wished to vindicate his right of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in the face of a racially motivated peremptory challenge. Under Batson, a defendant can raise an inference of discrimination and prove it using only evidence adduced at his own trial. Two fundamental questions needing resolution prior to involving the Batson procedures are: (A) who has standing to bring a Batson challenge; and (B) who must be challenged before the Batson …

Dangerousness And Expertise, Christopher Slobogin

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The defendant-first approach advocated in this Article is more difficult to implement than either the current policy admitting any proffered expert testimony or the exclusionary reform advanced by many commentators. It requires some mechanism for apprising the state when the defense intends to use clinical prediction testimony. When no such intent is registered, it demands that any other clinical testimony, whether offered by the state or the defense, be carefully monitored to insure that the dangerousness issue is not raised; it may require revamping other procedures as well.2 " But the defendant-first approach also presents the factfinder with the most …

State Action, State Law, And The Private Hospital, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

On March 2, 1964, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition to review by certiorari the decision in Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. By declining to review the case the Supreme Court left unaffected the holding of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that two private hospitals which had participated in the Hill-Burton program of federal hospital assistance were sufficiently involved with governmental action, both state and federal, to bring their conduct within the fifth and fourteenth amendment prohibitions against racial discrimination. This decision will probably affect all of the 3,346 private, non-profit hospitals in …