Federal administrative health courts are unconstitutional: a reply to Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith

This commentary responds to the essay by Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith wherein they propose that the federal government may preclude plaintiffs with medically inflicted injuries from bringing state common-law tort claims against those whose negligence caused their injury. The administrative system championed by Elliott and other proponents is a radical departure from the current civil justice system. Specifically, we argue that the administrative health courts, as proposed, violate the commerce clause, the spending clause, the Seventh Amendment, and separation of powers principles. The commentary concludes that such a system is fatally flawed and cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Congress will be able to ground such a radical constitutional restructuring in any sound public policy, as the majority of studies do not evidence Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith's presumption that the civil justice system has failed in the medical malpractice context.     

The ghost that slayed the mandate

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed to its political salience also require its dismissal for lack of statutory subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has placed limits on statutory subject matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions in which a state seeks a declaration that a state statute is not preempted by federal law--precisely the relief sought in Virginia v. Sebelius. These statutory limits are a sea wall; they keep out, on statutory grounds, some suits that should otherwise be kept out on Article III grounds. The statutory and constitutional limits on federal jurisdiction over suits like Virginia v. Sebelius insulate federal courts from the strong political forces surrounding lawsuits that follow from state statutes designed to create federal jurisdiction over constitutional challenges by states to federal law. This Article identifies previously neglected jurisdictional limits, shows why they demand dismissal of Virginia v. Sebelius, and explains why it is appropriate for federal courts to be closed to suits of this type.     

Medical Marijuana Registries: A Painful Choice?

Though the medical use of marijuana is legal in thirty-three states, it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Any marijuana use can subject individuals to severe criminal and civil penalties under federal law. States that condition patient access and treatment on registration in a state database impose real risks on their citizens. Although many scholars have written about the tension between federal and state treatment of marijuana, this is the first article to examine marijuana patient registry privacy and fundamental rights issues. This article first reviews the relationship between marijuana use and patient treatment, with a focus on health-care and privacy rights under state and federal law. The article then explains how marijuana registries compare to broader patient registries, such as contagious disease and other medical condition patient registries, and the unique issues presented by marijuana patient registries. It then discusses the elevated risk to constitutional, privacy, and fundamental rights that may result if states do not carefully construct marijuana registries. The article concludes by proposing principles for how both states and dispensaries should approach marijuana registries in order to provide health benefits and avoid harm to patients.     

The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty

Abstract:  One of the core constitutional questions for national constitutional courts in the EU in the past decades has been whether to accept the claim made by the Court of Justice that EU law is the supreme law of the land, taking primacy even over conflicting national constitutional provisions. With the inclusion in the recently adopted Constitutional Treaty of a clause explicitly confirming the 'primacy of EU Law' appearances suggest that the EU is about to establish a characteristic of mature, vertically integrated, federal states such as the USA. This article argues that this view is mistaken. It develops a comprehensive jurisprudential framework for addressing constitutional conflicts, 'Constitutionalism Beyond the State' (CBC). CBS detaches the discussion of supremacy and constitutional conflict from a statist framework; provides a jurisprudential account that explains and justifies the highly differentiated, context-sensitive and dynamic set of conflict rules that national courts have in the past adopted; and provides the lacking theoretical basis for the more attractive, but undertheorised sui generis accounts of European constitutional practice that have recently gained ground in the literature. CBS provides a jurisprudentially grounded reconstructive account of why the issue of constitutional conflict is as rich and complicated in Europe as it is and why it is likely to remain so even if the Constitutional Treaty is ratified. The article then goes on to make concrete proposals addressed to national constitutional courts and the Court of Juctise respectively about how, in application of the developed approach, constitutional conflicts ought to be addressed doctrinally. It includes a proposal to read the new 'constitutional identity' clause as authorising Member States as a matter of EU Law to set aside EU Law on constitutional grounds under certain circumstances.     

Codification of Administrative Law: The US and the Union

Abstract: The US Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 was engendered by partisan political conflicts. Initially judicial review of administrative rule-making under the act was extremely deferent. In the course of the 1960s and 1970s the federal courts, basing themselves upon the unchanged language of the statute, created a new body of administrative law characterised by very great demands on the agencies and very intrusive judicial review. This transformation was fuelled by partisan realignments, fear of technocracy and desire for greater transparency and popular participation in government decision-making. Because these same forces are now active in relation to the Union, it may be anticipated that similar tendencies toward a demanding procedural law of rule-making and high levels of judicial review will be felt as Union administrative law develops.     

FDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?

The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label should say. This is in direct contrast to medical devices, where the federal statute regulating medical devices expressly provides that state regulations are preempted. This Article discusses basic preemption principles and drugs, and explores the policy ramifications of pro- and anti-preemption policy in the healthcare industry.     

新政后美国行政法发展的重心流变——《行政法的几个核心问题》评介

行政法变化的范围可以通过考证不同历史时期行政法学所要回答的核心问题来印证。新政时期随着行政权的膨胀,美国行政法的核心是统一的行政程序法和司法审查的范围问题。20世纪50年代后,行政调查权与福利国家下的政府给付问题成为新的焦点。随着经济发展的停滞,70年代后,追求更有效率的行政成为社会关注的中心,成本效益分析的运用与谢弗林原则的确立正是对此的回应。     

宪法作为行政法直接渊源论析

宪法作为行政法直接渊源是在技术层面所作的分析,对于宪法的实施与实现以及解决宪法与行政法的关系有深层次意义。它具有体现宪法规制力、弥补行政法不足、将宪法权利类型化、构造一国法治体系的价值。当然,鉴于宪法与行政法的质的区别,宪法原则、宪法中的政治性条款、宪法中的非行政性规则不能作为行政法的直接渊源。     

Ambivalent Legal Mobilization: Perceptions of Justice and the Use of the Tutela in Colombia

This article explores the relationship between legal consciousness and legal mobilization in the context of constitutional rights in Colombia. Citizens report extremely low confidence in the state and the judiciary, yet hundreds of thousands of Colombians make constitutional rights claims through the acción de tutela procedure each year. Why does profound skepticism of the ability of the judiciary to provide justice and fair treatment seem to coexist with high levels of use of the legal system? How do perspectives on rights and the legal system relate to observed mobilization of the law? Drawing on 74 interviews and an original 310‐person survey, this article develops legal consciousness theory, identifying the specific beliefs that encourage or discourage individuals to turn to the courts to make claims to their rights. In the Colombian case, understandings of law and the state encourage the use of the tutela procedure, not due to the realizable promise of the state to protect rights or the majestic power of the law, but because the tutela is understood to be the only mechanism through which citizens can access their rights. In other words, citizens turn to the courts because there is no other alternative.     

Interstate rendition: Discretionary or mandatory?

Ratification of a federal form of government in 1789 launched the United States into a fractious search for clear delineations of the authorities of the states vis-a-vis each other; interpretation of the extradition clause of the new constitution was a vital, though intermittent, element in this interstate struggle, Ultimately the courts were invoked to establish the legal definitions of interstate rendition rights and the obligation of state governors under the constitutional clause. Characteristically, courts have varied greatly in their rulings on such rights and duties, but there is an overall tendency to avoid an “absolute” interpretation of the extradition duty. A second strain of theory explored in this article is the application of the rendition clause to juvenile proceedings, which do not (by definition) pertain to crime. Rendition of juveniles is controlled among the states and territories by the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, and this arrangement has fulfilled its intended functions effectively.     

Casting Aside Clanking Medieval Chains: Prerogative,Statute and Article 50 after the EU Referendum

This article confronts the controversies surrounding Article 50 by analysing the relationship between statute and prerogative in the UK. The piece focuses on domestic constitutional issues and suggests a new way of classifying the relationship between statute and prerogative into two types falling under ‘the abeyance principle’ or ‘the frustration principle’. The abeyance principle means that where statute and prerogative overlap, the prerogative goes into abeyance. The frustration principle means that where statute and prerogative give rise to potential inconsistencies, but do not overlap, the prerogative cannot be used inconsistently with the intention of parliament as expressed in the relevant legislation. It then argues that Article 50 has the status of primary or ‘primary‐equivalent’ legislation which could justify applying the abeyance principle. This would mean that the trigger power would be exercised on statutory authority rather than through prerogative powers. If the courts are unable thus to construe the relevant legislation it argues EU law requires the courts to bridge the gap. Alternatively, if the abeyance principle is not applicable, it argues the frustration principle could apply but the circumstances in this litigation fall outside it. In the further alternative, EU law could require the frustration principle itself to be set aside in this case.     

The Allocation of Environmental Investigation Costs between the Defense and Indemnity Obligations under General Liability Policies

For policyholders responding to administrative demands of federal or state environmental agencies, the allocation of environmental consultant costs between a carrier's defense and indemnity obligations is a frequent source of disagreement. Likely due to the fact-sensitive nature of such disagreements, existing case law lacks consistency in the analysis of such issues. This article analyzes different legal standards adopted by courts to analyze this issue. Although each court recognizes the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry, some courts are quite detailed in their analysis while others simply seek to achieve a sense of “rough justice.” As a result, attorneys involved in such disputes must have both an understanding of the specific legal standards employed by the courts as well as an understanding of the specific facts that may ultimately tip the scales.     

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.     

‘Til Death Do Us Part: Affidavits of Support and Obligations to Immigrant Spouses

This article analyzes the use of a federal affidavit of support, a required document that forms part of all family immigration petitions to overcome public charge grounds of inadmissibility. The federal statute mandating affidavits of support was altered in 1996 in an attempt to make them contractually binding, even after the dissolution of marriage. Further, affidavits of support implicate not only obligations between spouses, but also deeming analysis for public benefit eligibility. Case law interpreting these affidavits of support is scarce and varied, but trends, patterns, and contested issues are emerging. Yet courts have not settled on any theory and practice for incorporating these affidavits into their decisions related to family dissolution. This article provides an introduction to affidavits of support and an initial effort to frame the most critical issues related to them that arise in family litigation. This article also highlights some of the key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• An introduction to affidavits of support and the immigration law context in which it exists
• A review of trends, patterns, and contested issues emerging in available judicial decisions in state and federal courts
• Key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties on the use of affidavits of support

     

TENNESSEE'S ADOPTION LAW

Tennessee has recently enacted legislation increasing access to adoption records, allowing adult adoptees to obtain their birth certificates and other information contained only in their adoption records. After that controversial statute became law, it was challenged in Doe v. Sundquist . After 3 years of litigation, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The authors discuss the history of Tennessee's adoption law, demonstrating how certain events led to the passing of the controversial statute. They also discuss the adoption triad, including the birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees, noting the interests of each party. Following that is a discussion of the Tennessee statute and how it operates. The commentary continues with a detailed look at Doe v. Sundquist , including the procedural and substantive issues in both federal and state court. The authors conclude that the Tennessee law is a practical and reasonable solution to the controversy over sealed adoption records.     

Canadian "medical necessity" and the right to health

In this article, Kathryn Garforth examines legal claims to health care in South Africa and Canada. Both countries face rising costs of health care that put a great strain on publicly funded systems, albeit in radically different contexts. Kathryn argues that despite these differences there are similarities in how litigants in South Africa and Canada have framed their claims to healthcare services, in how governments have responded, and in the factors courts have analyzed in reaching decisions. In South Africa, the leading case is Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) et al v Minister of Health et al, a constitutional challenge, while in Canada the relevant jurisprudence concerns the interpretation of the concept of medical necessity, articulated for the most part in non-constitutional cases.     

Medicare program; aggregation of Medicare claims for administrative appeals--HCFA. Final rule

Medicare beneficiaries and, under certain circumstances, providers, physicians and other entities furnishing health care services may appeal adverse determinations regarding certain claims for benefits payable under part A and part B of Medicare. For administrative appeals at the carrier or intermediary hearing level or administrative law judge (ALJ) level and for any subsequent judicial review, the amount remaining in dispute must meet or exceed threshold amounts set by statute. Section 1869(b)(2) of the Social Security Act permits claims to be aggregated to reach the ALJ hearing threshold amounts. This final rule establishes a system of aggregation under which individual appellants have one set of requirements for aggregating claims and two or more appellants have a different set of requirements for aggregating claims.     

“Because of … Sex”: the Historical Development of Workplace Sexual Harassment Law in the USA

The current article tracks the historical development of the law of workplace sexual harassment. It begins with a discussion of the implementation of the law that serves as the basis for most sexual harassment cases in the federal courts, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The article then discusses the developments that permitted sexual harassment to come within the purview of the antidiscrimination language of Title VII. Then, the major federal legal cases that have defined the contours of sexual harassment law are discussed. Finally, the current procedures to file sexual harassment claims in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, state agencies, and federal and state court are described.     

Constitutional Review in the United States and Austria: Notes on the Beginnings

Abstract.   Despite far-reaching historical and political differences, and despite legal systems that reflect altogether different traditions, the United States and Austria manifest striking similarities where some aspects of their respective development of constitutional review are concerned. For example, on the constitutional review of federalist issues (competing claims of federal and state law), the review power was there from the beginning in both countries. And both countries developed a power of constitutional review reaching to the enactments of the federal legislature. In a brief sketch of aspects of the early development of constitutional review in both countries, the author looks, in particular, to the kinds of arguments made on behalf of constitutional review in the American and Austrian legal systems.