Law Commons^™

Material Lives: Amending The False Claims Act To Restore Qui Tam Medicaid Enforcement And Protect Our Most Vulnerable Communities, C. Deen

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In 2016, the Supreme Court granted cert. in Universal Health Services, Inc. v United States ex rel. Escobar to resolve a circuit split on implied certification under the False Claims Act. The Court’s opinion also addressed the issue of materiality under the False Claims Act. The “rigorous standard” expounded by the Court raised the standard of materiality beyond simple contractual or regulatory noncompliance. This heightened standard represents a significant departure from previous jurisprudence. Moreover, the heightened standard frustrates the repeatedly expressed will of Congress to empower qui tam whistleblowers to prosecute fraud perpetrated on the government. The primary focus of …

Enforcement Of The Americans With Disabilities Act: Remedying “Abusive” Litigation While Strengthening Disability Rights, Evelyn Clark

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note explores the Americans with Disabilities Act and the private litigation used to enforce compliance. While the ADA was designed to be enforced by private citizens, many have called for reform to limit what they see as “abusive” litigants. This Note focuses on (1) the perceived problem of vexatious litigants abusing the ADA and its state counterparts to benefit monetarily, (2) the attempted solutions on both a state and federal level, and (3) recommended solutions that focus on protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities while limiting abusive litigation meant to extort businesses.

Artificial Entities With Natural Rights: Pursuing Profits At The Expense Of Human Capital, Loren M. Findlay

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note explores the legal and constitutional rights granted to corporations and highlights how these corporate benefits are often at the expense of individuals. Over the past century, the corporation has evolved, taking on human-like characteristics. While many statutes and the Constitution use the word “person,” courts have inconsistently interpreted the definition of “person” in determining when it expands to corporations. In courts’ ad hoc analysis and interpretation, individuals get the metaphorical short-end of the stick.

The First Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to afford the right of free speech to corporations in the …