The impact of the recent Supreme Court rulings in Pegram and Rush Prudential on state regulation of managed care organizations

Over the past two decades, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has shielded managed care organizations (MCOs) from liability for negligent treatment or coverage decisions. This Article examines the Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of ERISA preemption, and assesses the impact of these recent decisions on state regulation of MCOs. The author concludes that recent decisions in Pegram v. Herdrich and Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran have broadened the states' power to regulate MCOs and enhance the ability of injured plaintiffs to sue such organizations under state tort law.     

The Supreme Court and the Social Conception of Abortion

Skeptics of Supreme Court power have pointed to abortion policy as an example of surprising limits on the justices' power to change society. I argue, however, that the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade played a critical role in transforming how Americans think and talk about abortion. I develop an account of the development of the social conception of abortion from a critical reading of twentieth century American journalism and then test some predictions of that account through the use of quantitative content analyses. I conclude by discussing some implications for the study of judicial politics and public constitutionalism.     

The Supreme Court and Police Practices: The Last Two Terms

The 2003–2004 term of the Supreme Court was noteworthy because it decided a relatively large number of cases dealing with police practices, many of which were of special significance. The next two terms (2004–2005 and 2005–2006 terms) were not quite as noteworthy, but still the Court decided eight police practices cases, dealing with such important issues as the detention of the residents of a home while executing a search warrant, the use of canine sniffs during a traffic stop, the validity of anticipatory search warrants, and the validity of third party consent to search when another person with authority to consent is present and objects to the search. These two terms do not provide enough cases to permit a confident prediction about the approach that the two new members of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to take in police practices cases. However, their positions in the cases discussed in this article suggest that both will take positions in support of the police in these cases.     

The US Supreme Court Affirms the Filartiga Paradigm

In 2004, for the first time in history, the United States SupremeCourt addressed the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute(ATS) of 1789. Originally intended to provide redress for actsof piracy or offences against ambassadors, the Statute has beenused since the 1980 watershed case of Filartiga v. Peña-Iralato award damages in civil trials in the United States to foreignvictims of, inter alia, torture, summary execution and forceddisappearance. Opponents have claimed, among other things, thatuse of the ATS shows disregard for principles of internationalcomity; is inconsistent with principles governing the use ofuniversal jurisdiction; and results in an imperialist Americanprivatization of human rights. The author argues that the SupremeCourt's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain limits the ATS toa tool of complementary justice consistent with prevailing principlesof global accountability.