Skip to Main Content

Tag Archives: Supreme Court

03.09.20

Standing in June Medical Services v. Russo Explained

By Rebecca Reingold

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, a case involving an admitting privileges law passed by the Louisiana legislature that is identical to the Texas admitting privileges law struck down as unconstitutional in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016. Political speculation has centered around whether the Supreme […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas: Health & Human Rights

10.20.17

Unconstitutional and Unacceptable: H.R. 36’s 20-Week Abortion Ban

By Rebecca Reingold

This post was written by Brenna Gautam and Rebecca Reingold. Earlier this month, on October 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 36, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” Under H.R. 36, it is a crime for any person to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas:

06.30.15

Glossip v. Gross: When it comes to the death penalty, the Supreme Court remains divided

By Rebecca Reingold

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term yesterday, handing down a decision that upholds the use of a controversial drug for lethal injection in executions. In recent years, the limited availability of substances used in lethal injection protocols – due to changes in the domestic production of these substances as well as tighter regulations in […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas:

07.03.14

All Religious Beliefs are Equal, But Some Religious Beliefs are More Equal than Others

By Brian Honermann

Last Monday, five justices of the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. The basic outline of the case was already briefly discussed on this blog as well as in many many other locations.  In short, Hobby Lobby (and others) sued Health and Human Services (HHS) over the contraception mandate […]

Thematic Areas:

04.24.14

A nutritionist named Coca-Cola

By Aliza Glasner

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by POM Wonderful  gainst Coca-Cola, alleging fraudulent and deceptive advertising of Coca-Cola’s Pomegranate-Blueberry juice. The legal question centered on whether a private party can bring a lawsuit for misleading advertising if a label is compliant with regulations established by a federal agency, here the […]

Thematic Areas:

07.30.13

What Possible Effects Can the Recent United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution Have in Latin American Courts?

By O’Neill Institute

This post was written by Luis Enrique Rosas (Intern at  Mexican Supreme Court), summer research assistant at Georgetown University Law Center. Any comments or questions about this post can be directed to luisenriquerosas@gmail.com. The 23rd session of The United Nations Human Rights Council was held in Vienna on May 27-June 14, 2013. In the session, […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas:

07.10.13

Can new FDA graphic warning labels for tobacco pass a first amendment legal challenge?

By O’Neill Institute

A Georgetown public health expert and attorney examines what the FDA must do to prevail. WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposes new graphic warning labels for tobacco products, they can survive a First Amendment challenge if they depict health consequences and their effectiveness is supported by adequate scientific evidence, says […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas:

06.25.13

The AMA Recognizes Obesity as a Disease – Why the controversy surrounding this decision is missing the point and why this decision is the good one?

By O’Neill Institute

This post was written by Florian Kastler (Global Health LL.M. 2011), visiting researcher at Georgetown University Law Center. Any comments or questions about this post can be directed to florian.kastler@gmail.com. By a decision overriding its own council on Science and Public Health, the house of delegates of the American Medical Association (AMA) has officially recognized […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas:

06.21.13

The End of “Pay-for-Delay”? By Opening Collusive Pharmaceutical Settlements to Antitrust Scrutiny, FTC v. Actavis Promises to Make Medicines More Affordable

By Daniel Hougendobler

  In a decision that could save U.S. consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars a year, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that “pay-for-delay,” also known as “reverse payment” settlements, between name-brand and generics pharmaceutical companies are subject to antitrust laws. The seeds of the controversy were planted in 1984 with the passage of the Hatch-Waxman […]

Thematic Areas:

06.03.13

O'Neill Institute's 100th Post – A Look Back

By O’Neill Institute

In honor of the O’Neill Institute’s 100th blog post, we present a “top ten” list of some of our most memorable posts: 1. The Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act Upheld: The Individual Mandate is a Tax. States Have a Choice Whether to Expand Medicaid  (June 2012). 2. New York’s Ban on Large Sodas: […]

Categories:
Thematic Areas:

The views reflected in this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law or Georgetown University. This blog is solely informational in nature, and not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed and retained attorney in your state or country.

See the full disclaimer and terms of use.