With advances in medical technology more can be offered with respect to treatment, for example, in neonates born prematurely. This raises the public's expectations of what medical professionals can offer and puts healthcare professionals under pressure to continue treatment, which may ultimately be futile. The courts may be asked to intervene in those cases where there is disagreement between p...

On July 31, 2008, the Constitutional Court of Colombia (the Court) handed down a decision (T-760/2008) that ordered a dramatic restructuring of the country’s health system [1]. The judgment came as the culmination of a wave of litigation to enforce the right to health, with tens of thousands of health rights cases before the Colombian courts each year [2]. Since 1992, the Court has staunchly up...

The government may deport an immigrant appealing a deportation order in federal court even before the court rules on the case, unless the court issues a stay of removal. In its 2009 decision in Nken v. Holder, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal standard for stays of removal is the same test courts use for preliminary injunctions. Yet Justice Kennedy expressed frustration that the Court ...

When a court concludes that an agency’s decision is erroneous, the ordinary rule is to remand to the agency to consider the issue anew (as opposed to the court deciding the issue itself). Although the Supreme Court first articulated this ordinary remand rule in the 1940s and has rearticulated it repeatedly over the years, little work has been done to understand how the rule works in practice, m...

The public’s interest in medicine and good health is substantial. However, this interest is harmed when important medical devices or pharmaceuticals, although infringing on valid patents, are suddenly taken off the market after a court grants a permanent injunction. While permanent injunctions were automatically granted by the Federal Circuit before the Supreme Court’s holding in eBay v. MercEx...

Jessica P Hodge, M.S. University of Delaware Project Staff Introduction Although scientific knowledge is extraordinarily valuable as it assists the trier of fact to make an informed, legal decision, courts continue to struggle with admissibility decisions that evaluate such evidence. Judges must differentiate relevant and reliable experts from the socalled “hired guns” motivated by money alone,...

Few legal topics have raised more debate than the right of a pregnant woman to refuse medical treatment for religious, moral, philosophical, or personal reasons.' A woman's decision raises common law, statutory, constitutional, and ethical questions. Courts must define the scope of a pregnant woman's right to privacy in her own bodily integrity and compare that right to the State's interest in ...

A number of states have proposed initiatives or implemented laws that prohibit state courts from applying, considering, or interpreting foreign law, and in particular, Islamic law. The constitutionality of anti-Sharia legislation is in question. Its proponents claim that the Sharia ban protects state and federal constitutional rights, whereas its opponents claim that the ban infringes on the re...