These closing words of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor best express the United States Supreme Court’s desire to maintain the states’ responsibility for shaping the law of health care decision making. Indeed, since the 1976 landmark decision in New Jersey regarding Karen Quinlan, most of the formative work has occurred in state courts and legislatures. The Supreme Court prefers to see it continue there, and states have obliged by continuing a veritable legislative frenzy on the topic of health care decision making.
On one level, the law governing patient health care decision making rights is not especially intricate or vast, compared with, for example, tax law or trust and estate law. Yet, cast within the complex interplay of a patient’s personal history, technologically powerful medical care systems, and sociocultural demands, the law reflects a formidable, continuing struggle to find clearer pathways for decision making that are both respectful of personal autonomy and protective of patients’ well-being.
Experts discuss legal developments and related ramifications one year after President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S. Southern Border with Mexico in order to build a wall.
A panel discussion about current topics in policing from the Fourth National People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference.
"It's important to note that scholars have long observed that political discourse and political events can contribute to the frequency of bias incidents. In fact, this phenomenon has a name today. It's called the Trump Effect."
Scholars discuss the most significant immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, their ramifications, and what to expect in 2020.