Who makes decisions about life-sustaining treatment for patients who cannot decide for themselves, and according to what criteria? In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the United States Supreme Court held that the states are the proper parties to resolve these questions. The Court acknowledged that competent patients have a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment. The states, however, are to establish the standards and procedures to govern these decisions. Accordingly, the Court upheld Missouri’s refusal to permit Nancy Cruzan’s parents to authorize the termination of life-sustaining artificial nutrition and hydration because of the lack of clear and convincing evidence, as required by the state, that Ms. Cruzan wanted to forgo this treatment.
The Cruzan decision has important consequences for incapacitated patients who are currently receiving life-sustaining treatment and did not adequately articulate their consent to or refusal of this treatment. The broad discretion given to the states by the Cruzan Court essentially created a class of patients for whom decisions about their medical treatment can no longer be made by others. As a result, many of these patients will receive unsought and often, burdensome life-sustaining treatment which offers them no benefit and from which the law provides no escape. This Article examines the current approaches of New York law, and summarizes the major points and rationales for a proposal to change the New York law.
Scholars discuss the most significant immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, their ramifications, and what to expect in 2020.
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.
"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."
Migrant children fleeing violence in their native countries have experienced severe psychological trauma before and after entering the country when we separated them from their families and placed them in detention facilities, and some families remain separated.