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 Institutional Sources of State Success in Federalism Litigation before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's recent federalism decisions are the clearest example of the states' improving legal fortunes in litigation against the federal government. Reducing the dramatic shift in the Court's federalism jurisprudence to the attitudinal voting of individual justices ignores the influence on the Court's decision making from broader institutional developments in American politics and domestic policy. These developments include: (1) the diminishing effectiveness of the states' lobbying power in the federal policymaking arena; (2) the increasing effectiveness of litigation by states' attorneys general in the federal judicial arena; and (3) the convergence of these developments resulting in a pro-state Supreme Court agenda.     

Entrepreneurship and Legal Uncertainty: Unexpected Federal Trademark Registrations for Marijuana Derivatives

Though several states have legalized marijuana use, the drug remains illegal under federal law. Not surprisingly, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuses to register trademarks related to marijuana because of the federal prohibition. What is surprising, though, is the willingness to grant trademarks for cannabidiol (CBD), a marijuana derivative that is likewise expressly illegal under federal drug laws. This article explains why the USPTO's divergent treatment of trademark applications for CBD and marijuana products is legally incoherent. Additionally, when viewed from an entrepreneurial perspective, this phenomenon exemplifies how legal uncertainty breeds entrepreneurial opportunity. Specifically, the article argues that the evolving regulatory landscape for CBD and marijuana products has been and continues to be ripe for legal strategists and innovative entrepreneurs to combine forces to create competitive advantage in the emerging marijuana industry.     

Pegram v. Herdrich: On peritonitis, preemption, and the elusive goal of managed care accountability

Managed care presents the paradox of organizations having real power over people's lives without there being clear or consistent means of ensuring accountability. In Pegram v. Herdrich, the United States Supreme Court struggled with whether "fiduciary duties" under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) could be used to counterbalance the incentives that HMOs have to deny necessary care. Given press coverage of the case, however, it was easy to get the impression that the managed care industry itself was on trial in Pegram. This report examines the political and legal forces underlying the dispute and analyzes the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of the notion of federally imposed duties for HMOs. In the absence of ERISA fiduciary obligations, attention must now shift to developments in state tort law, the scope of federal ERISA preemption, and the prospect of legislative reform. The report concludes with an exploration of how the elusive goal of managed care accountability might be pursued in the wake of Pegram.     

Cannabis Regulatory Confusion and Its Impact on Consumer Adoption

The regulation of cannabis in the United States is inconsistent and contradictory, to put it mildly. While marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act—in the same category as heroin and morphine, with accompanying criminal penalties up to and including life imprisonment for its production, distribution, and possession—as of the end of 2020, eleven states and the District of Columbia had legalized recreational marijuana use and thirty-six states and the District of Columbia had decriminalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite the trend toward legalization, however, marijuana is a stigmatized product. Stigmatized products are those toward which a significant portion of consumers hold negative attitudes and beliefs, whereas the concept of legitimacy is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. This article addresses how current legislation and regulations influence consumer perceptions of a product category, and how conflicting regulations (or the lack of regulations) influence the adoption of a stigmatized product such as cannabis (i.e., marijuana and cannabidiol products)     

State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

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.     

Up in Smoke: International Treaty Obligations and Marijuana Reform in the United States

As the number of U.S. states that seek to loosen restrictions on marijuana rapidly increases, a heated debate over state and federal regulation has ignited. But an important component of that debate has been largely absent—are these state efforts placing the United States in violation of its international treaty obligations? This article attempts to answer this question by tracing the history of marijuana regulation both in the United States and abroad and outlining the foundations for domestic legislation. It argues that the experiments happening among a number of states and countries to liberalize marijuana laws are bearing fruit and should be tied to a broader reform agenda of the same international narcotics treaties that the United States sought decades ago.     

United States v. Lyons: toward a new conception of legal insanity

In United States v. Lyons (1984), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court altered its definition of legal insanity to conform with recent recommendations of the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This paper briefly reviews the social and legal context of the Court's ruling. The author then discusses the insanity defense's rationale and suggests an interpretation of the Court's new definition that should guide psychiatric testimony.     

THE RIDDLE OF TROXEL

This article addresses the United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville, which is unique for its attention to the changing face of the American family and the Court's willingness to venture into the troubled waters of family law. Troxel conflates standing with standards and muddies the lines between private and public, between therapeutic intervention and state coercion. The article attempts to unravel the challenge of Troxel, considering both the cases' significance and inflammatory potential, while also raising significant questions that will confound professionals for years to come.     

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.     

The Role of the United States Supreme Court in Shaping Federal Drug Policy

Through judicial review, the United States Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in deciding and/or interpreting the constitutionality of legislation. Since the passage of the Pure, Food and Drug Act in 1906, the Supreme Court’s role has been integral in formulating drug policy. In some instances, the Court’s decisions have limited the authority of the federal government, while in others have greatly expanded this authority. As a direct result of the decision-making of the Supreme Court, limitations have periodically been placed on Congress to regulate controlled substances. Many people, who were perceived as medical patients, became criminal drug users. The Court has restricted and later approved of the use of drugs during the free exercise of religion. Lastly, the Court has continually reinforced the supremacy of the federal government over the states, in turn limiting the ability of the states to consider marijuana legislative reform.     

Supreme Court upholds criminal prohibitions on possession of marijuana for recreational use

In two recent decisions, R v Malmo-Levine and R v Caine (decided together) and R v Clay, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession, in the absence of a regulatory exemption for medical purposes, is constitutional.     

Oregon's guidelines for physician-assisted suicide: a legal and ethical analysis

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act was first passed by a ballot initiative in 1994, but numerous judicial challenges delayed implementation of the Act. In November of 1997, following the United States Supreme Court decisions in Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, which left the states' power to regulate physician-assisted suicide undisturbed, the Oregon voters upheld their law. Oregon remains the only state in the nation to authorize physician-assisted suicide. The Task Force to Improve the Care of Terminally Ill Oregonians published a Guidebook for health care providers on the Oregon Act, and the New England Journal of Medicine recently issued a special report on the first year's experience under the Act. This paper analyzes the legal context of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, discusses the efficacy of the tenets in the Guidebook, and explores ethical issues underlying the guidelines, particularly those pertaining to the meaning of a patient's request for assisted suicide and processes supporting informed consent.     

Liability for sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies

This article focuses on sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies from a legal perspective. The article briefly describes sexual harassment cases that address agency liability decided by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the standards of liability articulated in Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), and Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). A more precise understanding of when agencies are liable for the actions of their subordinates is developed through an examination of lower federal court decisions. Trends in the law are identified, as case law is categorized according to harassment by supervisors and co-workers. The article concludes by exploring the policy implications flowing from court decisions and by calling for further research on this troubling aspect of the criminal justice workplace.     

United States v Microsoft: High-tech Antitrust

'United States v Microsoft: High-tech Antitrust'. This article considers some of the substantive issues that have been raised by the case brought against Microsoft and that call into question the application of competition law to high-technology industries. Drawing arguments from both the United States and European Union jurisdictions the article focuses in particular on the relationship between intellectual property and competition law. Consideration is also given to product development and bundling, and to predation through innovation. In conclusion the author suggests that competition laws should continue to be applied to this sector, but that traditional analysis needs to be refined, and that intent should be more carefully considered.     

Police GPS Surveillance on Vehicles and the Warrant Requirement: “For a While I’ve Been Watching You Steady”

The global positioning system (GPS) has become ubiquitous to modern American life. The system supplies direction for travel through navigation systems as well as employee monitoring capabilities (Rosenberg Washington Journal of Law, Technology, and Arts 6:143–154, 2010). Law Enforcement has also found GPS to be a valuable tool. The technology provides a relatively cheap and highly effective way to monitor a suspect’s movement. Depending on the device, travel data can be reported in real time or be retrieved from the implanted device at intervals (Shah Journal of Law, Technology, and Policy 2009:281–294, 2009). This paper will first explore the core foundational Fourth Amendment cases that shape the use of GPS devices by law enforcement. Next, the federal circuits and state supreme courts’ decisions that have addressed the use of GPS will be reviewed. Third, the case of U.S. v. Jones (2012), which was recently decided by the United States Supreme Court, will be examined. Last, the policy implications of the current legal landscape regarding the use of GPS by police will be discussed.     

Embryonic stem cell research: one small step for science or one giant leap back for mankind?

At the forefront of modern debate over the ethical use of biotechnology is embryonic stem cell research. In this poignant analysis of its legitimacy, the author examines the history of this research in light of the United States' policy favoring the protection of human beings over scientific progress. Stem cells, which can divide in culture to create specialized cells in the human body, possess significant potential for curing disease, particularly when taken from human embryos. However, as evidenced by the research atrocities committed under the Nazi regime, the benefits of human research do not come without a cost to humanity. Recognizing this, the later trial of these scientists produced the Nuremberg Code, a set of natural law principles guiding future research on humans that continues to influence health policy decisions. Drawing on this background, the author first considers the appropriate legal status for a human embryo. Biologically, the characteristics of a human embryo place it between human tissue and a constitutional person. Judicially, the answer is even less clear. The author analyzes case law in the context of abortion and in vitro fertilization, as well as classifications by the common law, state legislation, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, to conclude that a human embryo should be subject to the same legal and ethical restrictions as any other "human subject." Accordingly, the author argues that embryonic stem cell research violates the ethical standards and purposes of the Nuremberg Code and should be banned by federal legislation. Such a prohibition will fulfill the societal policy choice of protecting potential life and vulnerable human subjects.     

Federal antitrust jurisdiction in peer review cases: the Pinhas decision

In Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, the United States Supreme Court by a narrow majority found that the exclusion of an ophthalmologist from a hospital in Los Angeles had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction under the Sherman Act. In resolving a split among the federal circuit courts of appeal, the Court applied the broad jurisdictional test from McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. to peer review proceedings. Despite many ambiguities in the majority opinion by Justice Stevens and a scathing dissent by Justice Scalia, the effect of Pinhas will be to increase the suits in federal court on antitrust grounds brought by aggrieved medical staff members and applicants denied appointments or privileges, and to decrease, if not eliminate, the likelihood of preliminary dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. This, in turn, should serve to emphasize the importance of complying with the Health Care Quality Improvement Act in order to obtain immunity from damages under federal antitrust and state laws.     

Inexplicable wealth and illicit enrichment of public officials: A model draft that respects human rights in corruption cases

The employment of crimes of inexplicable wealth as an anti-corruption tool has been increasingly advocated in recent years. The United Nations Convention against Corruption calls for the creation of a crime of illicit enrichment. This paper seeks to evaluate the drafting of such crimes from human rights and criminal justice perspectives. The author considers the jurisprudence from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and South Africa, as well as the European Court of Human Rights. The paper also evaluates the Hong Kong inexplicable wealth offence and subjects it to criticism in terms of the rights of defendants and the lack of clarity in drafting. The author concludes that there is no need for a specific crime of inexplicable wealth. A crime of corruption is perfectly adequate. All that is required is the use of a special rule of evidence which places the evidential burden upon the defendant. The use of a mandatory presumption of law is the most clear analytical method of drafting. This is consistent with human rights standards and common law jurisprudence. Finally, regulatory offences requiring proper financial record keeping and declarations of wealth should be created alongside the more serious corruption offence. These could impose strict liability. Wealth previously declared by public officials should not be presumed to be corrupt funds for the purposes of any corruption prosecution. This approach is consistent with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and would represent an acceptable mode of implementing that treaty.