Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Judging the Next Emergency: Judicial Review and Individual Rights in Times of Crisis

Abstract: The conventional wisdom holds that one cannot rely on courts to protect civil liberties in the face of national security claims by the government, especially in times of emergency. This article offers a revisionist view of the history of judicial intervention on matters of national security. It argues that the conventional wisdom focuses too narrowly on the specific plaintiffs who appear before courts in times of crisis, most of whom lose. But it notes that if one steps back and takes a longer view of the role of courts on matters of national security, the judicial record is not so bleak. While the Supreme Court (in)famously upheld punishment of speech during World War I, racial discrimination during World War II, and guilt by association during the height of the McCarthy era, it ultimately developed tests that essentially rule these emergency tactics off the table for future emergencies. The article discusses why the formal attributes of judicial decisionmaking are especially suited to playing this more long-term role in the defense of civil liberties. The article then examines the courts' record on civil liberties in the post-September 11 period, and argues that while it is too early to make any formal assessment, the record so far is much better, from a liberties perspective, than in previous times of crisis. I suggest some reasons why courts may be more inclined today to question national security claims. Finally, the article responds to a proposal advanced by Professors Oren Gross and Mark Tushnet, in independent articles, to acknowledge openly the legitimacy of extraconstitutional measures in times of emergency. Gross and Tushnet propose shifting the locus for assessing emergency powers from the judicial to the political branches. I argue that this proposal is fundamentally misguided, and would likely lead to even less protection of civil liberties than we have seen in the past. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, judicial review is the worst protector of liberty in times of crisis, with the exception of all the others.

Informational Privacy and the Public's Health: The Model State Public Health Privacy Act

Abstract: Protecting public health requires the acquisition, use, and storage of extensive health-related information about individuals. The electronic accumulation and exchange of personal data promises significant public health benefits but also threatens individual privacy; breaches of privacy can lead to individual discrimination in employment, insurance, and government programs. Individuals concerned about privacy invasions may avoid clinical or public health tests, treatments, or research. Although individual privacy protections are critical, comprehensive federal privacy protections do not adequately protect public health data, and existing state privacy laws are inconsistent and fragmented. The Model State Public Health Privacy Act provides strong privacy safeguards for public health data while preserving the ability of state and local public health departments to act for the common good.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Abstract: The goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was to create a civil rights law protecting people with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of their disabilities. Disability rights advocates in 1990 were victorious in their efforts to open doors for people with disabilities and to change the country's outlook and acceptance of people with disabilities. These advocates believed that the terms of the ADA, based as they were on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, combined with the legislative history of the ADA, would provide clear instructions to the courts that the ADA was intended to provide broad coverage prohibiting discrimination against people with a wide range of physical and mental impairments.Unfortunately, the Supreme Court -- with lower courts following in its lead, barricaded the door that the ADA had opened by interpreting the definition of "disability" in the ADA to create an overly demanding standard for coverage under the law. This article provides an overview of the advocacy effort that has resulted in restoring the original intent of the ADA and destroying the barriers of discrimination that prevent people with disabilities from fully participating in society.

Biomedical research involving prisoners: ethical values and legal regulation.

Abstract: Until the early 1970's, approximately 90% of all pharmaceutical research was conducted on prisoners, who were also subjected to biochemical research, including studies involving dioxin and chemical warfare agents. By the mid-1970's, biomedical research in prisons sharply declined as knowledge of the exploitation of prisoners began to emerge and the National Commission for the protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical Research was formed. Federal regulations to protect human subjects of research were established in 1974. Special protections for prisoners were added in 1978, severely limiting research involving prisoners. However, the US correctional system has undergone major changes since the adoption of the federal regulations, making it appropriate to reexamine the ethical framework for research involving prisoners. While the history of prisoner exploitation cautions against allowing research, modern science might be able to improve understanding of the intractable problems faced by prisoners. Finding a balance between encouraging beneficial research and safeguarding prisoners is challenging and politically controversial. This commentary presents a series of proposals, based on the recommendations of Institute of Medicine Committee on Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. If adopted, the following proposals would provide such a system of safeguards while allowing responsible research. 1) Expand the Definition of Prisoner to include non-custodial prisoners, comprehensively covering all individuals whose autonomy and liberty are restricted by the justice system. 2) Ensure Universal, Consistent Ethical Protection of prisoners by regulating all research on prisoners uniformly, irrespective of the source of funding, supporting agency, or type of correctional facility. 3) Create a National Database of Prisoner Research to permit greater accountability, provide a scientific methodology for assessing the success of research projects, and facilitate the implementation of beneficial research findings to prisoner populations. 4) Shift from a Category-Based to a Risk-Benefit Approach to Research Review to ensure that research with prisoners should be conducted only if it offers a distinctly favorable benefit-to-risk ratio, not because prisoners are a convenient source of research participants or have no access to therapeutic treatment. 5) Update the Ethical Framework to Include Collaborative Responsibility meaning that, to the extent possible, stakeholders (e.g., prisoners, correctional officers, medical staff) should participate in the design, planning, and implementation of research. 6) Enhance Systematic Oversight of Research by strengthening safeguards, making them consistent, and applying them in relation to the levels of risk and restriction of liberty experienced by prisoner-subjects.

Institution-specific victimization surveys: addressing legal and practical disincentives to gender-based violence reporting on college campuses

Abstract: This review brings together both the legal literature and original empirical research regarding the advisability of amending the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or creating new Department of Education regulations to mandate that all higher education institutions survey their students approximately every 5 years about students' experiences with sexual violence. Legal research conducted regarding the three relevant federal legal regimes show inconsistent incentives for schools to encourage victim reporting and proactively address sexual violence on campus. Moreover, the original research carried out for this article shows that the experience of institutions that have voluntarily conducted such surveys suggests many benefits not only for students, prospective students, parents, and the general public but also for schools themselves. These experiences confirm the practical viability of a mandated survey by the Department of Education.