Law Commons^™

Meaningless Dna: Moore’S Inadequate Protection Of Genetic Material, Natalie Alexander

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Moore v. Regents of the University of California represents the seminal case regarding the protection of genetic material. In this case, the California Supreme Court held that patients do not retain property rights in their excised genetic material; instead, informed consent laws serve as genetic material’s only protection. Many states have accepted the Moore court’s decision not to extend property rights to genetic material, and most states choose to protect genetic material through informed consent alone. Moore and informed consent do not adequately protect genetic material, creating unjust results in which “donors” of genetic material have little to no recourse …

The Neuroscience Of Qualified Immunity, Gary S. Gildin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Qualified immunity not only absolves public officials from accountability for the damages caused when they deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights; by virtue of companion doctrines shielding governmental entities from liability, conferral of immunity leaves the victim to bear the loss. Therefore, it is essential that the contours of immunity be carefully calibrated to align with its intended purposes.

The United States Supreme Court has continuously expanded immunity to protect the exercise of discretion where, albeit acting in violation of constitutional norms, the official could have reasonably believed their conduct was constitutional. This Article exposes the implicit assumptions as …

How In The World Could They Reach That Conclusion?, Hon. Carlton Reeves

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …