Topic
Supreme Court Decisions
About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a Missouri ruling that sharply limited family decisions about life-sustaining treatment for incompetent patients, and held that the Constitution protects the refusal of life-saving treatment by competent patients.
Abstract: In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a Missouri ruling that sharply limited family decisions about life-sustaining treatment for incompetent patients. The Court held that the Constitution protects the refusal of life-sustaining treatment by competent patients. For incompetent patients, states may require "clear and convincing" evidence of refusal, specifically for the withdrawal of tube feedings, if such a person were in a persistent vegetative state. The ruling left many clinical questions unanswered, such as whether life-sustaining treatment must be given to terminally ill incompetent patients, whether patients may refuse artificial feedings, and what constitutes clear and convincing evidence of refusal. The decision also has potentially harmful consequences. It may undermine family decision making, encourage cynicism and disregard of the law, and promote defensive medicine. Physicians can minimize such consequences by encouraging patients to provide advance directives, such as the durable power of attorney for health care, by urging legislative action, and by setting national practice standards for decisions regarding incompetent patients.
59 citations
TL;DR: If the Court today were to decide Jacobson once again, the analysis would likely differ--to account for developments in constitutional law--but the outcome would certainly reaffirm the basic power of government to safeguard the public's health.
Abstract: A century ago, the US Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts upheld the exercise of the police power to protect the public's health. Despite intervening scientific and legal advances, public health practitioners still struggle with Jacobson's basic tension between individual liberty and the common good. In affirming Massachusetts' compulsory vaccination law, the Court established a floor of constitutional protections that consists of 4 standards: necessity, reasonable means, proportionality, and harm avoidance. Under Jacobson, the courts are to support public health matters insofar as these standards are respected. If the Court today were to decide Jacobson once again, the analysis would likely differ--to account for developments in constitutional law--but the outcome would certainly reaffirm the basic power of government to safeguard the public's health.
59 citations
TL;DR: Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 US Supreme Court decision, raised questions about the power of state government to protect the public's health and the Constitution's protection of personal liberty and later cases that expanded, superseded, or ignored those ideas.
Abstract: Jacobson v Massachusetts, a 1905 US Supreme Court decision, raised questions about the power of state government to protect the public’s health and the Constitution’s protection of personal liberty. We examined conceptions about state power and personal liberty in Jacobson and later cases that expanded, superseded, or even ignored those ideas.Public health and constitutional law have evolved to better protect both health and human rights. States’ sovereign power to make laws of all kinds has not changed in the past century. What has changed is the Court’s recognition of the importance of individual liberty and how it limits that power. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.
58 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the consumer's right to receive commercial speech is reviewed, followed by survey results showing substantial discrepancies between the opinions of the consumer and the attorneys who defend commercial speech.
Abstract: Supreme Court decisions that have established the consumer's right to receive commercial speech are reviewed, followed by survey results showing substantial discrepancies between the attorney selec...
57 citations
TL;DR: The authors argued that the increasing caseload of the judiciary, coupled with the techniques of Supreme Court case selection, makes more fractured decisions inevitable and applied Arrow's Theorem to show that it is impossible for critics to demand consistent decisions from the Supreme Court without requiring it to sacrifice its essential institutional nature.
Abstract: Critics have attacked Supreme Court decisions not only for their substance, but also for their structure and inconsistency. Professor Easterbrook responds to these critics by arguing, first, that the increasing caseload of the judiciary, coupled with the techniques of Supreme Court case selection, makes more fractured decisions inevitable. Second, Professor Easterbrook applies Arrow's Theorem to show that it is impossible for critics to demand consistent decisions from the Supreme Court without requiring it to sacrifice its essential institutional nature.
56 citations