supreme court decisions

Summary

Summary: Decisions made by the United States Supreme Court.

Top Publications

  1. Steinberg L. The influence of neuroscience on US Supreme Court decisions about adolescents' criminal culpability. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:513-8 pubmed publisher
    ..I conclude that the neuroscientific evidence was probably persuasive to the Court not because it revealed something new about the nature of adolescence but precisely because it aligned with common sense and behavioural science. ..
  2. Appelbaum P. Law & psychiatry: mental retardation and the death penalty: after Atkins. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60:1295-7 pubmed publisher
    ..This column reviews the Atkins case and considers the challenges associated with a clinical determination that can have life-or-death consequences for capital defendants. ..
  3. Giordano Coltart J, Calkins C. Recent Supreme Court decisions and licensing power. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:183-5 pubmed publisher
    ..The recently decided eBay and MedImmune cases interject both reassurance and uncertainty into the present patent licensing landscape, affecting the strategic decisions to be considered during negotiations. ..
  4. Gagnon M, Stuart M. Manufacturing disability: HIV, women and the construction of difference. Nurs Philos. 2009;10:42-52 pubmed publisher
    ..By doing so, it addresses the identification of women living with HIV/AIDS as disabled and the self-differentiation process that they must go through in order to live as normally as possible. ..
  5. Price C, Eibner C. For states that opt out of Medicaid expansion: 3.6 million fewer insured and $8.4 billion less in federal payments. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:1030-6 pubmed publisher
    ..These effects were only partially mitigated by alternative options we considered. We conclude that in terms of coverage, cost, and federal payments, states would do best to expand Medicaid. ..
  6. Curfman G, Morrissey S, Drazen J. Why doctors should worry about preemption. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1-3 pubmed publisher
  7. Okie S. Physician-assisted suicide--Oregon and beyond. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1627-30 pubmed
  8. Fried C. The June surprises: balls, strikes, and the fog of war. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:225-41 pubmed publisher
    ..This essay ponders and tries to unravel some of these puzzles. ..
  9. Lindsay R. Gonzales v. Oregon and the politics of medicine. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2006;16:99-104 pubmed

More Information

Publications62

  1. Blumenthal P, Winikoff B. The supreme court and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care. MedGenMed. 2007;9:52 pubmed
  2. Pevsner W. The Supreme Court and the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: a political procedure replaces woman-centered care. MedGenMed. 2007;9:41; author reply 41 pubmed
  3. Blesch G. Peer review puzzle. Supreme Court sidesteps appeal to keep records closed. Mod Healthc. 2008;38:17 pubmed
  4. Newman W, Scott C. Brown v. Plata: prison overcrowding in California. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2012;40:547-52 pubmed
    ..These large-scale adjustments to California's penal system create potential opportunities to study the long-term effects on affected inmates. ..
  5. Fried M. Reproductive rights activism in the post-Roe era. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:10-4 pubmed publisher
    ..This article describes the major activist trends in this period, focusing primarily on those that have been less visible. Documenting activist history allows us to draw inspiration and important lessons for the future. ..
  6. Hagen J. Rights talk and its remedies: the jurisprudence of Mary Ann Glendon. America (NY). 2006;194:14-6 pubmed
  7. Baron C. Not DEA'd yet: Gonzales v. Oregon. Hastings Cent Rep. 2006;36:8 pubmed
  8. Gostin L. Abortion politics: clinical freedom, trust in the judiciary, and the autonomy of women. JAMA. 2007;298:1562-4 pubmed
  9. Glantz L, Annas G. Impossible? Outlawing state safety laws for generic drugs. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:681-3 pubmed publisher
  10. Coleman C. Assisted reproductive technologies and the Constitution. Fordham Urban Law J. 2002;30:57-70 pubmed
  11. Felthous A. Competence to stand trial should require rational understanding. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39:19-30 pubmed
    ..The time is ripe for recognition of a uniform standard of CST that requires rationality. ..
  12. Busalacchi S. All options on table in wake of Supreme Court decision. WMJ. 2005;104:7-8 pubmed
  13. Melnick R. A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation. Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S30-4 pubmed
    ..This could lead to the unfair exclusion of valid scientific evidence, particularly that which is essential to a plaintiff's case in toxic tort litigation. ..
  14. Goldberg J. The Commerce Clause and federal abortion law: why progressives might be tempted to embrace federalism. Fordham Law Rev. 2006;75:301-54 pubmed
  15. Cochrane R, Herbel B, Reardon M, Lloyd K. The Sell effect: involuntary medication treatment is a "clear and convincing" success. Law Hum Behav. 2013;37:107-16 pubmed publisher
    ..High rates of treatment responsiveness were found across all diagnoses. ..
  16. Jaffé S. US Supreme Court makes historic health ruling. Lancet. 2012;380:14 pubmed
  17. Givelber D, Strickler L. Junking good science: undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow through cross-examination and argument. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:33-7 pubmed
    ..Despite judicial efforts to eliminate "junk science" from lawsuits, a well-financed defendant may succeed in persuading jurors of the epidemiological equivalent of the proposition that the earth is flat. ..
  18. Roden G. Unborn children as constitutional persons. Issues Law Med. 2010;25:185-273 pubmed
    ..Moreover, as a matter of procedure, according to the due process standards recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade should be held null and void as to the rights and interests of unborn persons. ..
  19. Moncrieff A. Understanding the failure of health-care exceptionalism in the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision. Chest. 2012;142:559-562 pubmed publisher
  20. Rosenbaum S, Teitelbaum J, Scott J. Raising the bar on achieving racial diversity in higher education: the United States Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v University of Texas. Acad Med. 2013;88:1792-4 pubmed publisher
    ..In this commentary, the authors review the background and history of the Supreme Court's decisions on race as a factor in university admissions decisions and examine the potential effects of Fisher on medical education specifically. ..
  21. Tushnet M. Interpreting the right to bear arms--gun regulation and constitutional law. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1424-6 pubmed publisher
  22. Linton P. The legal status of abortion in the states if Roe v. Wade is overruled. Issues Law Med. 2007;23:3-43 pubmed
    ..Although the long-term impact of reversing Roe could be quite dramatic, the author concludes that the immediate impact of such a decision would be very limited. This article is current through May 1st, 2007. ..
  23. Krisberg K. Court decision on medical marijuana use worries patient advocates. Nations Health. 2005;35:1,14 pubmed
  24. Eisenberg R. Biotech patents: looking backward while moving forward. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:317-9 pubmed
  25. Burroughs A. The medical examination in United States immigration applications: the potential use of genetic testing leads to heightened privacy concerns. J Biolaw Bus. 2005;8:22-32 pubmed
  26. Ruel M. Using race in clinical research to develop tailored medications. Is the FDA encouraging discrimination or eliminating traditional disparities in health care for African Americans?. J Leg Med. 2006;27:225-41 pubmed
  27. Gillon R. Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic. J Med Ethics. 2016;42:376-82 pubmed publisher
    ..I urge that these legal requirements are modified to make them consistent with the Supreme Court's judgement in Aintree v James. ..
  28. Klein R, Mahoney M. LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories: The Supreme Court listens, but declines to speak. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36:141-9, 4 pubmed publisher
    ..S. patent law. ..
  29. Jasanoff S. Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings. Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S49-58 pubmed
    ..The important question for the law is not how judges can best do justice to science, but rather how courts can better render justice under conditions of uncertainty and ignorance. ..
  30. Jacobs L, Callaghan T. Why states expand Medicaid: party, resources, and history. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:1023-50 pubmed publisher
  31. Offit K, Bradbury A, Storm C, Merz J, Noonan K, Spence R. Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2743-8 pubmed publisher
    ..Whatever the outcome of this important case, it is important that judicial and legislative actions in this area maximize genomic discovery while also ensuring patients' access to personalized cancer care. ..
  32. Tedesco L. Post-affirmative action Supreme Court decision: new challenges for academic institutions. J Dent Educ. 2005;69:1212-21 pubmed
    ..It provides a number of resources that are useful in shaping the rationale and institutional practices and policies for admissions and the recruitment and retention of diverse classes of students for the health professions. ..
  33. Roche J. After Bragdon v. Abbott: why legislation is still needed to mandate infertility insurance. Boston Univ Public Interest Law J. 2002;11:215-28 pubmed
  34. Raskin J. The paradox of judicial bypass proceedings. Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law. 2002;10:281-5 pubmed
  35. Forde C. Must we really make the case for abortion rights all over again?. Conscience. 2005;26:22-3 pubmed
  36. Feldman R. Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law. Stanford Law Rev. 2011;63:1377-402 pubmed
  37. Bouchard R. KSR v. Teleflex. Part 2: Impact of U.S Supreme Court Patent Law on Canadian and global systems-based innovation ecologies. Health Law J. 2007;15:247-94 pubmed
  38. Schweitzer S. Trying times at the FDA--the challenge of ensuring the safety of imported pharmaceuticals. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1773-7 pubmed publisher
  39. DoBias M. Whistle-blower law tightened. Ruling demands first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. Mod Healthc. 2007;37:8-9 pubmed
  40. Rosenbaum S. When public health meets market forces: Rapanos v U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Public Health Rep. 2006;121:769-72 pubmed
  41. Wiist W. Citizens United, public health, and democracy: the Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposed action. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:1172-9 pubmed publisher
    ..The public health field needs to apply its expertise, in collaboration with others, to work to reduce the disproportionate influence of corporate political speech on health policy and democracy. ..
  42. Wortzel H, Arciniegas D. Combat veterans and the death penalty: a forensic neuropsychiatric perspective. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010;38:407-14 pubmed
  43. Manninen B. Rethinking Roe v. Wade: defending the abortion right in the face of contemporary opposition. Am J Bioeth. 2010;10:33-46 pubmed publisher
    ..Her argument is especially strong when one considers that her central thesis-that one person's right to life does not entail the right to use another's person's body for continued sustenance-is pervasive in legal policies in the U.S.A. ..
  44. Fitzpatrick J. Multilevel ambivalence... providers, systems, and now the courts. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2006;20:53-4 pubmed
  45. MOMPER S. Implications of American Indian gambling for social work research and practice. Soc Work. 2010;55:139-46 pubmed
    ..Reports and data are presented on the effects of gambling on the socioeconomic development of tribal communities. The implications of American Indian gaming for social work research and practice are discussed. ..
  46. Bellinger M. The constitutional right to therapeutic cloning. J Med Law. 2002;7:37-53 pubmed
  47. Cantor N. Deja vu all over again: the false dichotomy between sanctity of life and quality of life. Stetson Law Rev. 2005;35:81-100 pubmed
  48. Keane M. The ethical "elephant" in the death penalty "room". Am J Bioeth. 2008;8:45-50 pubmed publisher
    ..Thus, physician opposition to capital punishment may be contributing to significant harm. In this context, the ethics of physician involvement in lethal injection is complex. ..
  49. Appelbaum P. Privilege in the Federal Courts: should there be a "dangerous patient exception"?. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59:714-6 pubmed publisher
  50. Voas R, Fell J. Strengthening impaired-driving enforcement in the United States. Traffic Inj Prev. 2013;14:661-70 pubmed publisher
    ..An examination of relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions and current legal practices indicates that the requirements for use of breath test technology to ..
  51. Hinneschiedt C. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: no obvious changes for the biotechnology market. Yale J Biol Med. 2007;80:153-7 pubmed
    ..By examining how the obviousness standard has changed, the article illuminates how legal definitions that seem wholly unrelated to biology or medicine could still potentially have enormous effects on these fields. ..
  52. Young G. Causality in criminal forensic and in civil disability cases: Legal and psychological comparison. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015;42-43:114-20 pubmed publisher
    ..The advent of neurolaw has led to use of neuroscience in court, but it risks reducing the complexity of criminal cases to unifactorial, biological models. ..
  53. Press E. Abortion and our culture: an interview with Eyal Press. Free Inq. 2006;26:8 pubmed