Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Amici Briefs
This amicus brief, submitted to the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States, argues that Moyle, and the impending circuit split surrounding it, is a symptom of a larger workability problem with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization framework. Dobbs is already proving, in its brief existence, to be unworkable, and must be overturned. In short order, the Dobbs ruling has ushered in an era of unprecedented legal and doctrinal chaos, precipitating a fury of disorienting legal battles across the country. The Dobbs framework has created destabilizing conflicts between federal and state authorities, as in the current …
Legal Constraint In Emergencies: Reflections On Carl Schmitt, The Covid-19 Pandemic And Singapore | Symposium On Covid-19 & Public Law, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng
Legal Constraint In Emergencies: Reflections On Carl Schmitt, The Covid-19 Pandemic And Singapore | Symposium On Covid-19 & Public Law, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
The controversial legal theorist Carl Schmitt’s challenge to the possibility of meaningful legal constraint on executive power in emergencies could not be more relevant in a world struggling to deal with Covid-19. Scrambling against time, governments around the world have declared states of emergency and exercised a swathe of broad executive powers in an effort to manage this highly infectious disease. In times like these, if Schmitt is indeed right that emergencies cannot be governed by law, we are on the cusp of (or perhaps have already entered) a post-law world – where the business of government is characterised by …
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …
Money, Sex, And Religion--The Supreme Court's Aca Sequel, George J. Annas, Theodore Ruger, Jennifer Prah Ruger
Money, Sex, And Religion--The Supreme Court's Aca Sequel, George J. Annas, Theodore Ruger, Jennifer Prah Ruger
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case is in many ways a sequel to the Court's 2012 decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, is a setback for both the ACA's foundational goal of access to universal health care and for women's health care specifically. The Court's ruling can be viewed as a direct consequence of our fragmented health care system, in which fundamental duties are incrementally delegated and imposed on a range of public and private actors. Our incremental, fragmented, and incomplete health insurance system means …
Public Assistance, Drug Testing, And The Law: The Limits Of Population-Based Legal Analysis, Candice T. Player
Public Assistance, Drug Testing, And The Law: The Limits Of Population-Based Legal Analysis, Candice T. Player
All Faculty Scholarship
In Populations, Public Health and the Law, legal scholar Wendy Parmet urges courts to embrace population-based legal analysis, a public health inspired approach to legal reasoning. Parmet contends that population-based legal analysis offers a way to analyze legal issues—not unlike law and economics—as well as a set of values from which to critique contemporary legal discourse. Population-based analysis has been warmly embraced by the health law community as a bold new way of analyzing legal issues. Still, population-based analysis is not without its problems. At times, Parmet claims too much territory for the population perspective. Moreover, Parmet urges courts …
The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent And Abortion Decision-Making, Maya Manian
The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent And Abortion Decision-Making, Maya Manian
Maya Manian
In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on a type of second-trimester abortion that many physicians believe is safer for their patients. Carhart presented a watershed moment in abortion law, because it marks the Supreme Court’s first use of the anti-abortion movement’s “woman-protective” rationale to uphold a ban on abortion and the first time since Roe v. Wade that the Court denied women a health exception to an abortion restriction. The woman-protective rationale asserts that banning abortion promotes women’s mental health. According to Carhart, the State should make the final decisions about pregnant women’s healthcare, because …
Public Health And Constitutional Law: Recognizing The Relationship, Wendy E. Parmet
Public Health And Constitutional Law: Recognizing The Relationship, Wendy E. Parmet
Journal of Health Care Law and Policy
No abstract provided.
The Road Not Taken: State Constitutions As An Alternative Source Of Protection For Reproductive Rights, Kevin F. O'Neill
The Road Not Taken: State Constitutions As An Alternative Source Of Protection For Reproductive Rights, Kevin F. O'Neill
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
Lawyers seeking constitutional protection for reproductive rights have relied almost exclusively on a liberty/privacy theory under the Federal Constitution. In the wake of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, this theory may be seen as providing a floor of minimum protection-preventing states from banning abortion outright. But it is not strong enough to prevent states from enacting restrictions on the availability of abortion. Thus, the battle over reproductive rights may be seen as shifting from one phase ("Can abortion be banned?") to another ("How far can states go in restricting access to abortion'?"). If proponents of reproductive freedom are …
Can Mental Health Professionals Predict Judicial Decisionmaking? Constitutional And Tort Liability Aspects Of The Right Of The Institutionalized Mentally Disabled To Refuse Treatment: On The Cutting Edge, Michael L. Perlin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.