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.

Individual- and household-level factors associated with fruit, vegetable, and dietary fiber adequacy among Native American adults in 6 reservation communities

Abstract: This study utilized baseline data collected in 2017 from the OPREVENT2 trial, which included 540 Native Americans in six Midwest and Southwest reservation communities. The objective was to identify correlates of fruit, vegetable, and dietary fiber adequacy among participants 18–75 years old who self-identified as the main food purchaser or preparer in their household. Mean daily servings of fruits and vegetables and grams of dietary fiber were quantified based on a 30-day semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Participants consumed an average of 0.5 (±0.4) cup-equivalent servings of fruit, 2.5 (±1.8) cup-equivalent servings of vegetables, and 15.5 (±8.9) grams of fiber per day. Females had a prevalence ratio 1.4 times greater than males for adequate intakes of vegetables (p = 0.008) and over 6 times greater for dietary fiber (p These findings can help guide the development of targeted interventions to improve diet quality; however, further work is needed to understand and address underlying reasons for low fruit consumption in these rural reservation communities.

International Consumer Protection and Private International Law

Abstract: As other contributions to this volume demonstrate in greater detail, the international community lacks a coherent institutional structure for effective consumer protection on a global basis. No single organization or agency plays the central standard setting role in identifying the issues or articulating the rules to deal with difficulties encountered by individual consumers in an increasing globalized economy.

Diversity As A Trade Secret

Abstract: When we think of trade secrets, we often think of famous examples such as the Coca-Cola formula, Google’s algorithm, or McDonald’s special sauce used on the Big Mac. However, companies have increasingly made the novel argument that diversity data and strategies are protected trade secrets. This may sound like an unusual, even suspicious, legal argument. Many of the industries that dominate the economy in wealth, status, and power continue to struggle with a lack of diversity. Various stakeholders have mobilized to improve access and equity, but there is an information asymmetry that makes this pursuit daunting. When potential plaintiffs and other diversity advocates request workforce statistics and related employment information, many companies have responded with virulent attempts to maintain secrecy, including the use of trade secret protection. In this Article, I use the technology industry as an example to examine the trending legal argument of treating diversity as a trade secret. I discuss how companies can use this tactic to hide gender and race disparities and interfere with the advancement of civil rights law and workplace equity. I argue that instead of permitting companies to hide information, we should treat diversity data and strategies as public resources. This type of open model will advance the goals of equal opportunity law by raising awareness of inequalities and opportunities, motivating employers to invest in effective practices, facilitating collaboration on diversity goals, fostering innovation, and increasing accountability for action and progress.

The Affordable Care Act in the United States and HIV Disease: Past, Present, and Future.

Abstract: From its beginning, the AIDS epidemic crystallized some of the major flaws of the American health care system. Most private health insurance was associated with employment, and job loss meant insurance loss. Private insurers refused new coverage for people with HIV infection. Medicaid, an important program for uninsured people with low income, was limited to only those in certain categories (eg, pregnant women or children), and although people who had progressed to AIDS were categorized as eligible (ie, "disabled"), those with early stage HIV disease were not. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a landmark change in health care law in general and for people with HIV infection in particular. Its provisions offer dramatic improvements in health coverage, although a Supreme Court ruling that limited the expansion of Medicaid poses ongoing problems in some states. This article summarizes a presentation by Timothy M. Westmoreland, JD, at the IAS-USA continuing education program, Improving the Management of HIV Disease, held in Washington, DC, in May 2015.

Reconstructing the Rule of Law

Abstract: The action taken in Bush v. Gore by the five conservative Justices on the United States Supreme Court, Bugliosi argued, was not just wrong as a matter of law, but criminal: It was a malem in se, fully intended, premeditated theft of a national election for the Presidency of the United States. Now, as Balkan and Levinson would argue, this seventh, "prosecutorial" response -- that the Court's action was not just wrong but criminal -- is also not available to a devotee of either radical or moderate indeterminacy. Even assuming both criminal intent and severe harm-a wrongful, specific intent to thwart the democratic outcome and a profound harm to democracy-an element of the crime, namely the act, which in this case has to be misstating the law, cannot be borne out. The indeterminacy thesis, if true, logically precludes the moral or legal condemnation of a certain sort of criminality and venality -- that of the official who intentionally and with harmful consequences violates an oath to uphold the law. If the indeterminacy thesis is correct, then there is no demonstrable violation of an oath to uphold the law merely because conclusion X does not follow from premises A and B, and there is no sense in trying to show one. More broadly, there is no sense, given indeterminacy, to holding this particular act of power (either Bush v. Gore itself or any other judicial construction or misconstruction of law) to the light of reason-at least, if by the light of reason we mean the light of legal reason. One can hold up power to the light of power, but nothing much follows morally from doing so, although quite a bit may follow politically, as Stanley Fish has never tired of reminding us.