Law Commons^™

Abortion In America After Roe: An Examination Of The Impact Of Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health Organization On Women’S Reproductive Health Access, Natalie Maria Caffrey

Senior Theses and Projects

This thesis will examine the limitations in access to abortion and other necessary reproductive healthcare in states that are hostile to abortion rights, as well as discuss the ongoing litigation within those states between pro-choice and pro-life advocates. After analyzing the legal landscape and the different abortion laws within these states, this thesis will focus on the practical consequences of Dobbs on women’s lives, with particular attention to its impact on women of color and poor women in states with the most restrictive laws. The effect of these restrictive laws on poor women will be felt disproportionately due to their …

Dobbs In A Technologized World: Implications For Us Data Privacy, Jheel Gosain, Jason D. Keune, Michael S. Sinha

All Faculty Scholarship

In June of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning 50 years of precedent by eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion care established by the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. The Dobbs decision leaves the decision about abortion services in the hands of the states, which created an immediately variegated checkerboard of access to women’s healthcare across the country. This in turn laid bare a profusion of privacy issues that emanate from our technologized world. We review these privacy issues, including healthcare data, financial data, website tracking and …

The Aoc In The Age Of Covid—Pandemic Preparedness Planning In The Federal Courts, Zoe Niesel

St. Mary's Law Journal

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis for American society—and the federal courts were not exempt. Court facilities came to a grinding halt, cases were postponed, and judiciary employees adopted work-from-home practices. Having court operations impacted by a pandemic was not a new phenomenon, but the size, scope, and technological lift of the COVID-19 pandemic was certainly unique.

Against this background, this Article examines the history and future of pandemic preparedness planning in the federal court system and seeks to capture some of the lessons learned from initial federal court transitions to pandemic operations in 2020. The Article begins by …

Supreme Court Ruling On The Texas Abortion Law: Beginning To Unravel Roe V Wade, I. Glenn Cohen, Rebecca Reingold, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 2021, Texas enacted an abortion statute, SB8, stating “a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child.” SB8’s prohibition applies broadly against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” The law’s design is unprecedented, enforced solely by private lawsuits, providing damages of $10,000 or more for each abortion. SB8 prohibits government enforcement, with the explicit intent of preventing federal judicial review. SB8 clearly violates current Supreme Court precedent creating a constitutional right to …

The Us Supreme Court’S Rulings On Large Business And Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandates: Ramifications For The Covid-19 Response And The Future Of Federal Public Health Protection, Lawrence O. Gostin, Wendy E. Parmet, Sara Rosenbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court issued 2 landmark rulings on the federal government’s power to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations. The Court curtailed the government’s ability to respond to the pandemic and may have also severely limited the authority of federal agencies to issue health and safety regulations.

In National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, the Court blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring vaccination, subject to religious or disability accommodations, or weekly testing and masking in businesses with 100 or more employees. In Biden v Missouri, the Court …

Access To Court Cases From The Supreme Court’S 2020–2021 Term: The New Majority’S Debut, Sarah Somers, Jane Perkins, Abigail Coursolle, Sarah Grusin

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Throughout the Supreme Court’s first term without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court issued only a few major opinions with respect to access to the Court for civil litigants, and it issued none that discarded major precedents. Yet, in several areas, the Court demonstrated an increasingly conservative bent and began to lay the groundwork for major changes. In this Article, we discuss selected opinions from the Court’s 2020–2021 term that may have an impact on access to the courts for individuals seeking to vindicate civil and constitutional rights. In particular, it focuses on cases that may affect access for low-income …

How Covid-19 Put The Spotlight On The Emtala, Ikra Kafayat

Touro Law Review

There was a time when those that were unable to afford medical care risked being denied treatment in emergency situations. Before Congress passed Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), patients were being transferred to different hospitals, without being screened, because they did not have insurance and could not afford the treatment. Hospitals are no longer allowed to transport patients without properly screening and stabilizing them. Patients can bring a suit against a hospital if they believe the hospital violated EMTALA, however, in certain circuits the patient will need to prove that hospital had an “improper motive” for failing to …

Health Policy In The Supreme Court And A New Conservative Majority, Lawrence O. Gostin, Wendy E. Parmet, Sara Rosenbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Viewpoint looks at the range of medical and public health issues that could be adversely affected by appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court, including weakening or elimination of the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid work requirements that could reduce eligibility, and reduced reproductive rights and governmental public health emergency powers.

Stretching Armstrong: How The Eighth Circuit Incorrectly Applied Supreme Court Precedent In Does V. Gillespie, Lauren E. Pair

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Medicaid serves as an important source of health insurance for millions of Americans. One of the Act’s core tenants is the patient’s freedom to choose from any qualified and willing provider. This “freedom of choice” provision was eventually codified, and subsequent protections were put in place to protect a patient’s choice regarding family planning services. However, as states attempt to limit access to family planning services by severing their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood, patients must rely on § 1983 to pursue relief in federal courts. Section 1983 provides a right of action for the violation of any federal right …

Newsroom: Is Wall Between Church And State Crumbling? 10-10-2017, Diana Hassel

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Diana Hassel's Blog: Is The Wall Between Church And State Crumbling? 10-07-2017, Diana Hassel

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: The Path To Commencement: Maria Viveiros '17 05-08-2017, Michael Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell surprised many people, not because of its outcome but because, even as the Court ultimately agreed with the IRS’s interpretation of the statute, the Court expressly denied the IRS Chevron deference. As regards that result, this Essay makes three points. First, the Chevron discussion in King was not incidental, but the IRS and taxes were not foremost on the Court’s mind. Rather, King reflects a careful effort by Chief Justice Roberts to accomplish, through alternative framing, a broader curtailment of Chevron’s scope that he advocated unsuccessfully two terms earlier in City of …

Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker

Pepperdine Law Review

In our contribution to this symposium on King v. Burwell, we explore two aspects of the Chief Justice’s opinion where it is hard to ignore the fingerprints of a tax lawyer. First, in the Chief’s approach to statutory interpretation one sees a tax lawyer as interpreter with an approach that tracks tax law’s substance-over-form doctrine. Second, as to King’s sweeping administrative law holding, the Chief crafts a new major questions doctrine that could significantly cut back on federal agency lawmaking authority. Yet he seems to develop this doctrine against the backdrop of tax exceptionalism, and thus this development may have …

The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson

Pepperdine Law Review

Chevron is receding in tax, not because of any resurgence of tax exceptionalism but because it is receding everywhere. The case will continue to be cited by courts and masticated by commentators, but the unresolved – indeed worsening — conceptual, definitional, and practical incongruities of its doctrine rob it of operational force. King, which the Supreme Court conspicuously chose to resolve without “help” from Chevron, is another mile-marker on Chevron’s downward road. This article maps that road.

King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill

Pepperdine Law Review

In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court did not rely on Chevron to hold valid tax regulations allowing tax credits for taxpayers who enroll in an insurance plan through a federal rather than a state exchange. It instead concluded, relying in good measure on Brown and Williamson, that Congress had not delegated the question at issue to the IRS. It thus introduced a so-called Chevron Step 0. This essay reviews the Tax Court’s use of Chevron and Brown & Williamson to conclude that the Tax Court may well make use of King v. Burwell to review and reject tax regulations …

Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage

Pepperdine Law Review

As an introduction to the Symposium, this invited response essay reviews the pieces submitted for the Pepperdine Law Review symposium on the King v. Burwell case. The thrust of this essay’s response commentary is to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. Ultimately, this essay suggests that what may have motivated the Supreme Court to develop and apply its new “deep economic and political significance” test in this this case …

King V. Burwell: The Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity To Cure What Ails Chevron, Vanessa L. Johnson, Marisa Finley, J. James Rohack

Journal of Legislation

The article outlines the construct of the ACA’s premium assistance tax credits, explores the legal controversies surrounding these subsidies, uses the tax subsidies cases to demonstrate the flaws in the Chevron framework, and argues that the Supreme Court should have framed its King v. Burwell analysis in a way that would have cured, rather than ignored, the ails of Chevron.

En-Gendering Economic Inequality, Michele E. Gilman

All Faculty Scholarship

We live in an era of growing economic inequality. Luminaries ranging from the President to the Pope to economist Thomas Piketty in his bestselling book Capital in the Twenty- First Century have raised alarms about the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Overlooked, however, in these important discussions is the reality that economic inequality is not a uniform experience; rather, its effects fall more harshly on women and minorities. With regard to gender, American women have higher rates of poverty and get paid less than comparable men, and their workplace participation rates are falling. Yet economic inequality is neither …

Diy Solutions To The Hobby Lobby Problem, Kristin Haule

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right-To-Die, Bruce Morton

Bruce N. Morton

No abstract provided.

King V Burwell: Subsidizing Us Health Insurance For Low- And Middle-Income Individuals, Lawrence O. Gostin, Mary C. Debartolo, Daniel Hougendobler

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court once again saved the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by upholding subsidies (tax credits) offered to low- and middle-income individuals for insurance bought on federal exchanges. A contrary opinion would have put at risk health insurance for 6.4 million Americans and threatened to destabilize insurance markets for millions more.

The ACA is supported by four interlocking reforms, each of which are necessary to realize its promise of expanding health care coverage: (1) guaranteed issue (prohibiting discrimination based on pre-existing conditions), (2) community rating (barring insurers from imposing higher premiums based on health …

A Term To Remember: The Supreme Court And The Future Of Healthcare Reform, Steven Smith

STEVEN R SMITH

No abstract provided.

How Obamacare’S Future Rests On A Single Clause, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Corporate Law After Hobby Lobby, Lyman P. Q. Johnson, David K. Millon

Lyman P. Q. Johnson

We evaluate the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the Hobby Lobby case from the perspective of state corporate law. We argue that the Court is correct in holding that corporate law does not mandate that business corporations limit themselves to pursuit of profit. Rather, state law allows incorporation for any lawful purpose. We elaborate on this important point and also explain what it means for a corporation to “exercise religion.” In addition, we address the larger implications of the Court’s analysis for an accurate understanding both of state law’s essentially agnostic stance on the question of corporate purpose and …

Corporate Law After Hobby Lobby, Lyman P. Q. Johnson, David K. Millon

David K. Millon

We evaluate the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the Hobby Lobby case from the perspective of state corporate law. We argue that the Court is correct in holding that corporate law does not mandate that business corporations limit themselves to pursuit of profit. Rather, state law allows incorporation for any lawful purpose. We elaborate on this important point and also explain what it means for a corporation to “exercise religion.” In addition, we address the larger implications of the Court’s analysis for an accurate understanding both of state law’s essentially agnostic stance on the question of corporate purpose and …

Corporate Law After Hobby Lobby, Lyman P.Q. Johnson, David K. Millon

Scholarly Articles

We evaluate the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the Hobby Lobby case from the perspective of state corporate law. We argue that the Court is correct in holding that corporate law does not mandate that business corporations limit themselves to pursuit of profit. Rather, state law allows incorporation for any lawful purpose. We elaborate on this important point and also explain what it means for a corporation to “exercise religion.” In addition, we address the larger implications of the Court’s analysis for an accurate understanding both of state law’s essentially agnostic stance on the question of corporate purpose and …

Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein

Faculty Scholarship

In October Term 2012, the Supreme Court decided two cases that are fundamentally at odds: NFIB v. Sebelius and Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California. In NFIB, the Court held that the federal government, at least under some circumstances, may not use the threat of reduced funding in cooperative federalism programs to require states to comply with federal statutory requirements. In Douglas, however, the Court indicated that private litigants should sue federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act if those agencies refuse to enforce federal statutory requirements against the states. The problem is that the withdrawal of funding …

The Argument That Wasn't' And 'King, Chevron, And The Age Of Textualism, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

In these two short essays, I examine the somewhat bizarre — and potentially harmful — ways that Chief Justice John Roberts escaped the tension between legalism and realism in King v. Burwell, the Court’s latest Obamacare case. King presented a close legalistic case but a slam-dunk realist case in favor of an IRS interpretation of Obamacare. Roberts opted for the realistic result, but he got there through a bizarre combination of legalistic maneuvers. In “The Argument that Wasn’t,” I note that Roberts refused to make the full legalistic argument in the government’s favor, ignoring an invocation of the constitutional avoidance …

Corporate Religious Liberty, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.