Law Commons^™

Comparative Limitations On Abortions: The United States Supreme Court V. The European Court Of Human Rights, Sunaya Padmanabhan

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

This Note compares the balancing tests implemented by the United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights to determine the legal status of abortion within their jurisdictions. This Note will argue that the Supreme Court’s balancing test better protects a woman’s legal path to an abortion because it A) limits states’ restrictions to specific categories and B) regulates the extent to which states can restrict a woman’s pre-viability abortion.

This Note will also examine the ways in which each court’s abortion jurisprudence substantively restricts a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion, even where legal avenues to the …

Association For Molecular Pathology V. Myriad Genetics: A Critical Reassessment, Jorge L. Contreras

Michigan Technology Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics is an essential piece of the Court’s recent quartet of patent eligibility decisions, which also includes Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo v. Prometheus, and Alice v. CLS Bank. Each of these decisions has significantly shaped the contours of patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act in ways that have been both applauded and criticized. The Myriad case, however, was significant beyond its impact on Section 101 jurisprudence. It was seen, and litigated, as a case impacting patient rights, access to healthcare, scientific freedom, …

Abortion Rights In The Supreme Court: A Tale Of Three Wedges, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

No abstract provided.

Reproductive Health Care Exceptionalism And The Pandemic, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Renovations Needed: The Fda's Floor/Ceiling Framework, Preemption, And The Opioid Epidemic, Michael R. Abrams

Michigan Law Review

The FDA’s regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals uses a “floor/ceiling” model: administrative rules set a “floor” of minimum safety, while state tort liability sets a “ceiling” of maximum protection. This model emphasizes premarket scrutiny but largely relies on the state common law “ceiling” to police the postapproval drug market. As the Supreme Court increasingly holds state tort law preempted by federal administrative standards, the FDA’s framework becomes increasingly imbalanced. In the face of a historic prescription medication overdose crisis, the Opioid Epidemic, this imbalance allows the pharmaceutical industry to avoid internalizing the public health costs of their opioid products. This Note …

Unduly Burdening Women’S Health: How Lower Courts Are Undermining Whole Woman’S Health V. Hellerstedt, Leah M. Litman

Michigan Law Review Online

At the end of the Supreme Court’s 2016 Term, the Court issued its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. One of the more closely watched cases of that Term, Hellerstedt asked whether the Supreme Court would adhere to its prior decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed that women have a constitutionally protected right to decide to end a pregnancy.

The state of Texas had not formally requested that the Court revisit Casey or the earlier decision Casey had affirmed, Roe v. Wade, in Hellerstedt. But that was what Texas was, in effect, asking …

North Carolina State Board Of Dental Examiners V. Ftc: Aligning Antitrust Law With Commerce Clause Jurisprudence Through A Natural Shift Of State-Federal Balance Of Power, Marie Forney

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s holding in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (NC Dental)1 in February 2015 demonstrates a natural shift in the balance of power from the states to the national government. As the country’s interstate and international economy has become more integrated, federal authority has likewise expanded.2 And although the federalism dichotomy has undergone periodic back-and-forth “swings” since the nation’s founding, the end result has been a net increase in federal power. NC Dental exemplifies this trend toward increasing national au-thority through the organic development of interstate commerce.

Predicting The Fallout From King V. Burwell - Exchanges And The Aca, Nicholas Bagley, David K. Jones, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Timothy S. Jost

The U.S. Supreme Court's surprise announcement on November 7 that it would hear King v. Burwell struck fear in the hearts of supporters of the Affordable Cara Act (ACA). At stake is the legality of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule extending tax credits to the 4.5 million people who bought their health plans in the 34 states that declined to establish their own health insurance exchanges under the ACA. The case hinges on enigmatic statutory language that seems to link the amount of tax credits to a health plan purchased "through an Exchange established by the State." According to …

No Good Options: Picking Up The Pieces After King V. Burwell, Nicholas Bagley, David K. Jones

Articles

If the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, insurance subsidies available under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will evaporate in the thirty-four states that have refused to establish their own health-care exchanges. The pain could be felt within weeks. Without subsidies, an estimated eight or nine million people stand to lose their health coverage. Because sicker people will retain coverage at a much higher rate than healthier people, insurance premiums in the individual market will surge by as much as fifty percent. Policymakers will come under intense pressure to mitigate the fallout from a government loss …

Predicting The Fallout From King V. Burwell - Exchanges And The Aca, Nicholas Bagley, David K. Jones, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court's surprise announcement on November 7 that it would hear King v. Burwell struck fear in the hearts of supporters of the Affordable Cara Act (ACA). At stake is the legality of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule extending tax credits to the 4.5 million people who bought their health plans in the 34 states that declined to establish their own health insurance exchanges under the ACA. The case hinges on enigmatic statutory language that seems to link the amount of tax credits to a health plan purchased "through an Exchange established by the State." According to …

Gradually Exploded: Confrontation Vs. The Former Testimony Rule., Tim Donaldson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Observing live court testimony allows a jury to determine witness credibility. This is called demeanor evidence. Allowing the introduction of transcripts of prior testimony by a witness offends a defendant's right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Loss of demeanor evidence can heighten sensitivity surrounding the constitutional demands of unavailability and an opportunity for cross-examination. But the loss of this evidence is discounted when dealing with the admissibility of prior testimony as long as a defendant was formerly afforded an opportunity to cross-examine. Demeanor evidence, however, is still treated as a non-essential component of …

Section 2: Affordable Care Act, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Defining Fetal Life: An Establishment Clause Analysis Of Religiously Motivated Informed Consent Provisions, Justin R. Olson

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Abortion And Informed Consent: How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Violations Of Medical Ethics, Ian Vandewalker

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

If we slightly change the facts of the story about the discouraging doctor, it becomes a story that happens every day. Abortion patients face attempts to discourage them from terminating their pregnancies like those the imaginary doctor used, as well as others-and state laws mandate these attempts. While the law of every state requires health care professionals to secure the informed consent of the patient before any medical intervention, over half of the states place additional requirements on legally effective informed consent for abortion. These laws sometimes include features that have ethical problems, such as giving patients deceptive information. Unique …

What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley

St. Mary's Law Journal

Crawford v. Washington and its progeny demonstrate the difficulty of delineating both the core and the perimeter of the Confrontation Clause. Crawford abrogated Ohio v. Roberts, forcing trial lawyers to re-evaluate the use of various types of hearsay formerly admitted upon a finding of adequate “indicia of reliability.” Later the Court issued two decisions further altering the contours of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Michigan v. Bryant and Bullcoming v. New Mexico. With these options, the old Roberts “indicia of reliability” test transformed into the new “primary purpose” test to identify certain testimonial statements. By significantly altering the contours of Confrontation Clause …

Danger Or Resort To Underwear: The Safford Unified School District No. 1 V. Redding Standard For Strip Searching Public School Students., Joseph O. Oluwole

St. Mary's Law Journal

Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding (Redding III) represents a pivotal decision in school search and seizure jurisprudence, specifically regarding strip searches of students. Redding III establishes constraints specific to strip searches on the search and seizure authority of school officials. Redding III is intended to provide a uniform test for the judiciary and school officials when evaluating the reasonableness of strip searches of students. The Court explicitly interposed a “reliable knowledge” element requiring: (1) the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct; (2) the specificity of the information received; and (3) the reliability of its source. …

Reviving Employee Rights - Recent And Upcoming Employment Discrimination Legislation: Proceedings Of The 2010 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Scott A. Moss, Sandra Sperino, Robin R. Runge, Charles A. Sullivan

Publications

No abstract provided.

Judge William Wayne Justice: A Life Of Human Dignity And Refractory Mules Tribute., Albert H. Kauffman

St. Mary's Law Journal

Judge Wayne Justice had a deep impact on the lives of many people and was an unyielding advocate who protected the rights of all U.S. citizens. Many of the Judge’s orders and consent decrees forced Texas to comply with more stringent federal requirements in education and health care and had a far reaching effect across the nation. Judge Justice presided over Doe v. Plyler that ensured the benefit of public education for the children of undocumented immigrants. In United States v. Texas, Judge Justice required that the Texas Education Agency monitor school district actions and policies to assure that they …

A Meaningless Relationship: The Fifth Circuit's Use Of Dismissed And Uncharged Conduct Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines Recent Development., Erin A. Higginbotham

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Fifth Circuit’s failure to require the uncharged conduct to have a meaningful relationship with the conduct of conviction is flawed. An amendment of section 5K2.21 specifically approved the consideration of uncharged or dismissed offenses to serve as a basis for an upward departure to reflect the actual seriousness of the offense. Confusion amongst federal circuit courts of appeal arose as to whether such conduct included uncharged or dismissed criminal offenses. Interpreting the amendment’s language has caused a circuit split. The Fifth Circuit erroneously interpreted section 5K2.21 as to require nothing more than a “remote connection” between the uncharged crime …

Drugged, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Oregon, like its decision last year in Gonzales v. Raich (the "medical marijuana" case), again raises questions about the bioethical consequences of the Controlled Substances Act. When, in 1970, Congress passed that act, it placed problematic drugs in one of five "schedules," and it authorized the U.S. attorney general to add or subtract drugs from the schedules. Drugs in schedule II have both a medical use and a high potential for abuse. Doctors may prescribe such drugs if they "obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the …

Decriminalizing Sexual Conduct: The Supreme Court Ruling In Lawrence V. Texas., Jessica A. Gonzalez

St. Mary's Law Journal

Throughout America, homosexual men and women have fought for the protection of their constitutional rights; gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual persons have petitioned the government for marital rights, adoption privileges, and recognition in the armed forces. While American culture has changed to include homosexuals in its daily life, the judicial branch has been hesitant in accepting gay culture within the legal system. While American courts remained reluctant to invalidate anti-sodomy statutes, Lawrence v. Texas pushed homosexual issues to the forefront. Gay activists demanded that the courts recognize homosexual individuals as persons deserving of constitutional protections. In doing so, Lawrence …

Border Patrol, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

Recently, the Supreme Court has encountered cases that concern perhaps our weightiest bioethical issue-how medical care is to be rationed. But this does not mean that the Court must therefore assess the justice of rationing, as many people incited by many journalists now fondly and firmly believe. In explaining why, we begin with a story about how Learned Hand remembered saying one day to Justice Holmes, "Well, sir, goodbye. Do justice!" Holmes turned quite sharply and said: "That is not my job. My job is to play the game according to the rules." If the Court doesn't do justice, what …

Going To Pot, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

In several earlier columns, I suggested that judges are usually poorly placed to make good biomedical policy, not least because the law so rarely offers them direct and cogent guidance. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proffered a new example of this old problem. In 1996, California's voters approved Proposition 215. Its "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" provided -that a patient "who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician" committed no crime.

Doctrine Of Equivalents: Is Festo The Right Decision For The Biomedical Industry., Faith S. Fillman

St. Mary's Law Journal

The doctrine of equivalents, which Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. threatens to overturn, is an equitable doctrine and should therefore provide patentees and competitors equal and fair protection. Prior to Festo, the Federal Circuit used two approaches: the complete bar rule and the flexible bar rule. Under the complete bar rule, the author must completely copy the patented art for infringement to occur, this is otherwise known as literal infringement. In contrast, under the flexible bar rule, infringement can occur if the product is closely related to the prior art. Federal Circuits have officially adopted the complete …

Section 1: Ferguson V. City Of Charleston, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Making Sausage: The Ninth Circuit's Opinion, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

As I write, the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear Compassion in Dying v. Washington and Quill v. Vacco, the two cases in which United States circuit courts of appeals held that a state may not constitutionally prohibit physicians from helping a terminally ill person who wishes to commit suicide to do so. These cases have already received lavish comment and criticism, and no doubt the Supreme Court's opinion will garner even more. Reasonably enough, most of this analysis addresses the merits of physician-assisted suicide as social policy. I, here, want to talk about how setting bioethical policy …

Writing In The Margins: Brennan, Marshall, And The Inherent Weaknesses Of Liberal Judicial Decision-Making Essay., Donna F. Coltharp

St. Mary's Law Journal

From 1967, when Thurgood Marshall took his seat as Supreme Court Justice, until 1990, when William Brennan, Jr. vacated his seat, the two Justices formed one of the most consistent liberal voting blocs in the history of the Court. Both Justices were judicial activists who labored in the tradition of Legal Realism. Although both Brennan and Marshall recognized the interpretation and application of the law as purposeful exercises, they differed in their approach to the task. Marshall, for instance, appealed to social consensus stating that his views were supported by society. Furthermore, Marshall strongly believed that the Constitution is a …

A Comment On "Constitutional Rights As Public Goods", Robert F. Nagel

Publications

Discussion of T. W. Merrill, Dolan v. City of Tigard: Constitutional Rights as Public Goods, 72 Denv. U. L. Rev. 859 (1995).

Transracial Adoption In Texas: Should The Best Interests Standard Be Color-Blind., Jo Beth Eubanks

St. Mary's Law Journal

Legislative amendments must go further than limiting race from being a primary factor in adoptions; amendments must eliminate race as an acceptable factor. Diverging opinions of “race matching” in foster care and adoption exist. Administrative policies regulating adoption hold that same-race placement, between the adoptive parent and child, is a primary consideration when awarding custody in Texas. Basing child placement on the race or ethnicity of the parties involved raises serious constitutional concerns. The best interest standard is the predominant method in determining child placement, for both custody and adoption proceedings. The premise of the best interest standard is prioritization …

Paradox And Pandora's Box: The Tragedy Of Current Right-To-Die Jurisprudence, Cathaleen A. Roach

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Article examines the trilogy of recent right-to-die cases and contrasts the results of those cases with recent national opinion polls and statistical surveys of the issue. Part II examines federal and state legislative responses to the debate. It suggests that both the courts and legislatures are out of sync with an emerging national consensus on the death-with- dignity debate. In fact, the federal legislative response may only exacerbate the problem. Instead of creating new rights, it feeds individuals into the existing state network, which is a quagmire of confusing and inequitable statutory provisions. Part III examines …