Taking Abortion Rights Seriously: Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt

In Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion for just under a decade. By a majority of 5‐3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women's health were constitutionally invalid, placing a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court's application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite ‘women's health’ justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis.     

Attheraces v British Horseracing Board: What price abuse of dominance?

Legal context: This article concerns the interplay between the competitionrules (abuse of dominance) and intellectual property; the extentto which dominant companies are free to set the price for accessto their IP; and excessive and discriminatory pricing. Key points: The Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the BritishHorseracing Board (BHB) had not breached the competition rules.It overturned the High Court's decision that the BHB had chargedexcessive prices for access to its database of information.The Court of Appeal found that in determining whether a priceis excessive (and therefore a breach of competition law), itis not sufficient to look only at the level of the dominantcompany's return on its costs. This ‘cost +’ assessmentis only one element of the analysis which must be carried out. Practical significance: This case is apparently good news for IP owners, as it suggeststhat the legal test for showing excessive pricing is very high.However, the case also suggests that bringing a private actionto enforce the competition rules will remain extremely difficult.This may have a chilling effect on the development of the lawand in some cases may be to the public's detriment.     

Partners No More: Relational Transformation and the Turn to Litigation in Two Conservationist Organizations

The rise in litigation against administrative bodies by environmental and other political interest groups worldwide has been explained predominantly through the liberalization of standing doctrines. Under this explanation, termed here "the floodgate model," restrictive standing rules have dammed the flow of suits that groups were otherwise ready and eager to pursue. I examine this hypothesis by analyzing processes of institutional transformation in two conservationist organizations: the Sierra Club in the United States and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI). Rather than an eagerness to embrace newly available litigation opportunities, as the "floodgate" model would predict, the groups' history reveals a gradual process of transformation marked by internal, largely intergenerational divisions between those who abhorred conflict with state institutions and those who saw such conflict as not only appropriate but necessary to the mission of the group. Furthermore, in contrast to the pluralist interactions that the "floodgate model" imagines, both groups' relations with pertinent agencies in earlier eras better accorded with the partnership-based corporatist paradigm. Sociolegal research has long indicated the importance of relational distance to the transformation of interpersonal disputes. I argue that, at the group level as well, the presence or absence of a (national) partnership-centered relationship determines propensities to bring political issues to court. As such, well beyond change in groups' legal capacity and resources, current increases in levels of political litigation suggest more fundamental transformations in the structure and meaning of relations between citizen groups and the state.     

Abortion legislation after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: model statutes and commentaries

The following Article analyzes the United States Supreme Court's examination of abortion rights in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The Article then proposes model statutes restricting abortion in light of the Webster decision. The Cumberland Law Review invites and encourages commentary on both sides of the issue.     

Knight v. Beverly Health Care Center: in the Supreme Court of Alabama

HELD: Before tube feeding may be withdrawn from a person who is unconscious, pursuant to the directives of a living will, there must be a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is in a "persistent vegetative state" as defined in her living will, or in a "permanent unconscious state" as defined by state statute.     

Supervising junior doctors and "on-call" responsibilities: Brus v Australian Capital Territory; Greater Southern Area Health Service v Angus

The recent decisions of Brus v Australian Capital Territory [2007] ACTSC 83 and Greater Southern Area Health Service v Angus [2007] NSWSC 1211 highlight different aspects of the difficulties associated with supervision of junior doctors in the present public-funded Australian public hospital system. Their facts reveal how difficult it is for senior staff to achieve the fine balance required to assist trainees by according adequate experience and responsibility on the one hand, and to ensure patient safety, on the other. In addition, these cases highlight problems with the supervision process that are likely to be exacerbated in a privatised health care setting where senior staff may have less inclination to supervise struggling juniors unless adequately remunerated for such teaching, an issue of considerable controversy given the focus on profit of those institutions.     

Fourth Amendment update: the Supreme Court and strip searches: Safford Unified School District No. 1 v Redding

In light of the dramatic increase in the presence of weapons, violence, drugs, and other contraband in schools, school officials in the United States and England face significant challenges as they seek to maintain safe and orderly learning environments. Almost twenty five years after the United States Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O. allowed educational officials to search student lockers and property in order to keep schools safe, the Justices addressed the more delicate matter of strip searches for contraband such as drugs. In Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding (Redding), the Court invalidated the strip search of a student for drugs but left the door open for the possibility of allowing searches for weapons under some circumstances. In light of remaining unanswered questions after Redding, this article reviews the background on the Fourth Amendment, earlier cases on student searches in American public schools, Redding in detail, and reflects on unanswered questions in its wake in the hope of shedding light on the propriety of strip searches of students.