Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Mobile Methadone Clinics: A Necessary Step In Fighting The Opioid Epidemic, Laurel E. Via

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I of this Article will discuss the rise in opioid use disorder, the need for effective treatment, and the utility of methadone maintenance treatment options, as well as the history of the ban on mobile clinics. Part II will discuss the NPRM issued by the DEA on February 26, 2020, and explain the likely impact of the rule. Part III will provide an overview of the NPRM in its current form, explain its likely impact as written and show that mobile clinics are effective treatment options, and then argue that while a great start, the NPRM should be amended …

Civil Disobedience In The Face Of Texas’S Abortion Ban, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett

Scholarly Articles

This Article uses Texas’s abortion ban to demonstrate why civil disobedience is the best strategy against such private-enforcement schemes. It proceeds in three parts. Part I demonstrates that Texas’s private enforcement scheme in fact directly implicates state court officials and potentially state police forces. It then explains why bringing about the involvement of state courts and police through civil disobedience will put SB8 on constitutionally weaker ground. Part II details potential arguments against civil disobedience as a means of challenging private enforcement schemes. This Part also explains why relying on the federal government to challenge such laws will be insufficient. …

Big Pharma, Big Problems: Covid-19 Heightens Patent-Antitrust Tension Caused By Reverse Payments, Hannah M. Lasting

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of COVID-19, pharmaceutical companies rushed to produce vaccinations and continue to work on developing treatments, while the tension caused by reverse payments intensifies between patent and antitrust law. Lawmakers must address this tension, and the current pandemic should serve as a catalyst to prompt reform at the legislative level. By amending the Hatch-Waxman Act, lawmakers can ease the increasing strain between patent and antitrust policy concerns. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to resolve this tension in its landmark decision, F.T.C. v. Actavis, but the tension remains as lower courts struggle to produce a uniform standard …

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, …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

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

Publications

No abstract provided.

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.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

2001 Supreme Court Redux, Mary Stevens

Sustainable Development Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

Olmstead V. L.C.: The Supreme Court Case, Samuel R. Bagenstos, Irv Gornstein, Michael Gottesman, Jennifer Mathis

Articles

You have an incredible luxury here at Georgetown Law. You have faculty who are engaged in the world like two of my colleagues on this panel. To my immediate left is Professor Michael Gottesman (Georgetown University Law Center) who argued the case on behalf of Lois and Elaine, and to my next far left, Professor Irv Gornstein (Georgetown University Law Center) who argued the case on behalf of the United States. Between them is Jennifer Mathis (The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law) who has spent, I think, most of her career at the Bazelon Center litigating, and organizing, and …

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

A Recent Renaissance In Privacy Law, Margot Kaminski

Publications

Considering the recent increased attention to privacy law issues amid the typically slow pace of legal change.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Covid-19 And The Law: Elections, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

With one Supreme Court decision, lower federal and state court decisions, pending litigation, and proposals around the country for major changes in how elections are conducted, COVID-19 has already had and likely will continue to have a significant impact on election law.

The discussion that follows proceeds in two parts. The first addresses the initial consequences of COVID-19 as an electoral emergency. Voters were due to go to the polls in states around the country just as the pandemic was gathering force and governors and mayors were calling on people to stay at home and avoid large gatherings – which, …

Reproductive Health Care Exceptionalism And The Pandemic, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Narrowly Tailoring The Covid-19 Response, Craig Konnoth

Publications

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Abortion Restrictions And The New Supreme Court: Women’S Access To Reproductive Health Services, Rebecca Reingold, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The US Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v Wade established a privacy right to choose abortion. In 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey reaffirmed Roe with the Supreme Court calling reproductive decisions “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make…central to personal dignity.” Casey allows abortion regulations, but states cannot impose an “undue burden,” where the law’s “purpose or effect” places a substantial obstacle in a woman’s path in accessing an abortion previability.

State abortion restrictions—meaning laws that restrict whether, when, and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion—increased in the aftermath …

Keep Your Friends Close And Your Medical Records Closer: Defining The Extent To Which A Constitutional Right To Informational Privacy Protects Medical Records, Lauren Newman

Journal of Law and Health

The following Article discusses the extent to which the constitutional right to informational privacy protects medical data from improper acquisition or dissemination by state agents. Part I provides background on Whalen v. Roe, the Supreme Court case that has been understood to establish the right to informational privacy. Part I also discusses the variations across the circuit courts as to what medical information is afforded protection by the right. Part II analyzes the well-established approaches adopted by the Second and Third Circuits as they present opposing interpretations of Whalen, one wholly protecting medical information and the other protecting …

Access Before Evidence And The Price Of The Fda’S New Drug Authorities, Erika Lietzan

University of Richmond Law Review

Sometimes drug innovation seems to happen in reverse. Patients enjoy a treatment for years even though the treatment has not been approved by the FDA or proven safe and effective to the FDA’s standards. (Sometimes this happens because the FDA has declined to take enforcement action.) The agency encourages companies to perform the work necessary to satisfy the United States “gold standard” for new drug approval, however, by promising exclusivity in the marketplace. When a company does this work, at considerable expense, the results are predictable. The new drug is expensive, and patients and payers (and sometimes policymakers) are outraged. …

The Impact Of H.B. 214: A Critical Analysis Of The Texas "Rape Insurance" Bill, Lucie Arvallo

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas House Bill 214 (H.B. 214) is subject to challenge under the Supreme Court precedent protecting a woman’s right to choose. Passed in 2017, H.B. 214 regulates Texas insurance markets by prohibiting coverage for an elective abortion unless a woman affirmatively opts into such coverage through a separate contract and pays a separate premium. Similar restrictions on insurance coverage for elective abortion in other states have been met with mixed results in the courts. What sets H.B. 214 apart from other regulations of insurance coverage for abortion is that it does not include any exceptions for abortions in cases of …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Cohesion And The Right To Public Health, Daniel G. Aaron, James G. Hodge, Haley Augur, Ashley Cheff, C. Joseph Ross Daval, Drew Hensley

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Despite years of significant legal improvements stemming from a renaissance in public health law, Americans still face major challenges and barriers in assuring their communal health. Reversals of legal reforms coupled with maligned policies and chronic underfunding contribute to diminished public health outcomes. Underlying preventable morbidity and mortality nationally is an interpretive reality of our existing constitutional infrastructure. In essence there is no general obligation of government to protect or promote the public’s health. Under principles of “constitutional cohesion,” structural facets and rights-based principles interwoven within the Constitution protect individuals and groups from governmental vices (i.e., oppression, overreaching, tyranny, and …

Pregnancy And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

Publications

Suppose that you are pregnant and seated in the waiting room of a Planned Parenthood clinic, or maybe in a facility that advertises “Pregnant? We Can Help You.” This Essay discusses the First Amendment rules that apply to the government’s control of what you are about to hear.

If the government funds your clinic’s program, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it does not violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause when it forbids your health-care provider from offering you information about available abortion services. Nor does the government violate the Free Speech Clause, the Court has held, when …

Predetermined? The Prospect Of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart V. Azar, Griffin Schoenbaum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Section 1115 of the Social Security Act allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) to waive some of Medicaid’s requirements so states can enact “demonstration projects.” A demonstration project is an experiment a state can conduct by modifying aspects of its Medicaid program. To waive Medicaid’s requirements for this purpose, the Secretary must determine that the proposed demonstration project will likely assist in promoting Medicaid’s objectives.

Using this standard, President Trump’s Secretary has approved waiver requests to enact demonstration projects that contain “community engagement” requirements. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has heard each …

On Opioids And Erisa: The Urgent Case For A Federal Ban On Discretionary Clauses, Katherine T. Vukadin

University of Richmond Law Review

The American opioid epidemic cuts across all social divisions, touching the employed and unemployed. Those with private health insurance are one of the fastest-growing affected groups, but this group struggles most to get care. Despite their insured status, the privately-insured received treatment at half the rate of those with Medicaid and at even lower rates than the uninsured. This article focuses on a significant barrier to treatment for those in employer sponsored benefit plans: the discretionary clause. A discretionary clause grants the decision maker broad latitude and ensures that any federal court review is deferential. Claims processing in such a …

Substantial Shifts In Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence, Lawrence O. Gostin, James G. Hodge

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

President Trump’s nomination of jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court presents significant, potential changes on health law and policy issues. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kavanaugh’s approaches as a federal appellate court judge and scholar could literally shift the Court’s balance on consequential health policies. Judge Kavanaugh has disavowed broad discretion for federal agency authorities, cast significant doubts on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and narrowly interpreted reproductive rights (most notably abortion services). He has supported gun rights pursuant to the Second Amendment beyond U.S. Supreme Court recent interpretations. His varying positions related to consumer …

Health Care Referrals Out Of The Shadows: Recognizing The Looming Threat Of The Texas Patient Solicitation Act And Other Illegal Remuneration Statutes, Trenton Brown

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt

Texas A&M Law Review

Since a majority of Supreme Court justices created the abortion right in 1973, a troubling pattern has emerged: The Supreme Court has come to ignore—and even nullify—longstanding precedent and legal doctrines in the name of preserving and expanding the abortion right. And with a Supreme Court majority that is blithe to manipulate any doctrine or principle—no matter how deeply rooted in U.S. legal tradition—in the name of expansive abortion rights, it should come as no surprise that lower courts are following suit. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit fired up the “ad hoc nullification machine,” but this time, its victim of …

Faith-Based Emergency Powers, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

This Article explores an expanding phenomenon that it calls Faith-Based Emergency Powers. In the twenty-first century, conservatives have come to rely heavily on Faith-Based Emergency Powers as a leading legal strategy in the Culture Wars. This strategy involves carving faith-based exceptions to rights of women and LGBT people. The concept of Faith-Based Emergency Powers is developed in this Article through an analogy to the “War on Terror.” In the War on Terror, conservatives typically have taken the position that judges, legislators, and the public must defer to the President and the executive branch in matters involving national security. This argument …