Search

The article "Situating Braidwood in Broader Conversations About Health Policy and Administrative Law" published in the American Journal of Law & Medicine discusses the case of Braidwood v. Becerra, which challenges the preventive care provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The case raises important issues related to health policy, the philosophy underlying the ACA, and debates about the regulatory state and deference to scientific expertise. The preventive services mandate of the ACA requires health plans to provide close to 200 preventive services at no cost to patients, which has had a significant impact on health equity. The article also highlights the broader significance of the case in terms of religious freedom, administrative expertise, and the Supreme Court's role in shaping health care policy. [Extracted from the article]

The federal government is funding a sea change in health care by investing in interventions targeting social determinants of health, which are significant contributors to illness and health inequity. This funding power has encouraged states, professional and accreditation organizations, health care entities, and providers to focus heavily on social determinants. We examine how this shift in focus affects clinical practice in the fields of oncology and emergency medicine, and highlight potential areas of reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative care and medical-legal partnership are complementary disciplines dedicated to integrating care to treat the whole patient and intervening before a legal or medical issue is at a crisis point. In this paper, we discuss the founding and operations of the Yale Palliative Medical Legal Partnership, give examples of typical cases, explain special considerations in this area of law, and propose areas for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Justice Scalia, in the end, was no interpretive formalist. He would not he pleased to hear this claim, but the fact is that formalism has not succeeded in statutory [...]

The article focuses on the concept of "plaintiffs process" within the field of civil procedure. It discusses how civil procedure doctrine has traditionally been defendant-centric, focusing on the rights and protections of defendants in legal cases. It examines the role of multidistrict litigation (MDL) in this context and how it impacts plaintiffs rights and access to the courts.

This Viewpoint examines the US Supreme Court's opinion on Harrington v Purdue Pharma and the implications it could have on public health, individuals affected by opioid misuse, and bankruptcy law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Justice Ginsburg was not usually a doctrinal revolutionary when it came to the fields of administrative law and civil procedure. Her adherence to precedent and careful attention to the proper division of labor among the branches restrained the Justice when confronted with modern doctrines of administrative deference and the creative use of class actions to address nationwide injuries. She also loved black-letter procedure: the strong confines of the Federal Rules, the domains in Congress's control, and the benefits derived from wellhoned, careful doctrinal moves. But sometimes, she met the moment, and took a leap. Whether it was providing regulatory beneficiaries access to the courts or striving to modernize the Court's personal jurisdiction doctrine, a Justice loyal to doctrinal orthodoxies was, every once in a while, someone we might call "the unorthodox RBG.". In administrative law, she was not an early adherent to agency deference in statutory interpretation: The Supreme Court unanimously reversed then-Judge Ginsburg in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Even as Justice Ginsburg came to align herself with Chevron's proponents, she saw an active role for the courts in safeguarding Congress's power over agencies. Her deference typically paired a belief in the expertise of agencies with a real-world understanding of hard policy problems that she viewed agencies were better able than courts to address. She did not, however, hesitate to question "bureaucratic arrogance" on substance or procedure when agency action hurt groups she cared deeply about. In civil procedure, Justice Ginsburg marked a huge path in the field of personal jurisdiction, where she clarified and redefined the law of general jurisdiction and helped frame a more modern approach to specific jurisdiction. She also loomed large in class actions, always aware of the special power of collective litigation. What links Justice Ginsburg's work in these two areas--class action and jurisdiction--is her effort to confront the challenges the modern national economy poses for the modern procedural landscape. Her juris-diction jurisprudence rose to meet that challenge. Her orthodoxy in the class action context may have proved too strict, however. Her unbending reading of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's class action requirements helped give rise to today's highly unorthodox forms of aggregate litigation, including multidistrict litigation, with the very pathologies she had hoped; to avoid by adhering to the Rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

D. Many Federal Courts Do Not View Statutory Interpretation Methodology as a "Rule of Decision" Subject to Erie Perhaps the most compelling proof of the current jurisprudential perspective may be [...]

Federa Uudges resolved more than eighty-seven percent Of appeals through unpublished opinions ouer the past five years. 7hese dispositions are non-precedential and typically contain abbreviated reasoning. Such high rates of nonpublica tion may be difficult to reconcile with the core values of the federal judiciary-values grounded in precedent, reason-giving, and equal treatment. Atter intense attention to the prevalence of unpublished opinions some Been years ago, far less attention has been paid to the phenomenon in recent years. But a new debate is beginning to emerge. This Article makes three contributions to the ongoing conversation. First, it brings hard data to the debate. Drawing on a dataset Of over 400,000 appeals *om the Federal Judicial Center and a sample of more than 1,400 unpublished opinions randomly selected Ji-om six-federal circuits, this Article examines nonpublication rates across several dimensions, inctuding case type, party type, and outcomes. For example, from 2008 to 2018, pro se, or as we will refer to them, self-represented, appellants were twelve times less Wcely to receive a published opinion than appellants represented by counsel. Appeals initiated by incarcerated people and immigrants also had publication rates signvicantly below the baseline for all appeals. In contrast, when the United States is the underlying plaint(ff, opinions are published at a signiticantly higher-thanusual rate. These findings reveal a pattern Of dtfferential treatment that merits attention. Second, we introduce an expanded theoretical*amework for evaluating unpublished opinions. Rather thanfocusing on a single feature of these opinions (e.g., their nonprecedential status) we utilize a framework that highlights the dynamic tradeoffs involved in any system of publication and reveals that precedent, reason-giving, citation, and public dissemination- the primary features of judicial opinions implicated by nonpublication-combine to q#ect the legal system's core ualues in complex, context-dependent, and sometimes Ofsetting ways. Finally, an important takeaway from our piece relates to the serious transparency problems that peruade current nonpublication practices. Our work uncovered significant barriers to accessing and studying unpublished opinions on a large scale. These barriers make it difficult for scholars, the public, and even some judges to find these opinions, much less to study them and understand the effects Of nonpublication on the judicial system and those who participate in it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]