Is state power to protect health compatible with substantive due process rights?

Public health laws may mandate drastic limitations on individual liberty, such as forced medication and quarantine. This results in a tension between public health laws and guarantees of liberty such as the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has resolved this tension in favor of one or the other of these legal principles, depending on the facts and issues involved. Nevertheless, Supreme Court jurisprudence is internally consistent. The Court has applied a level of scrutiny that, while rigorous, is more flexible than strict scrutiny. I denote this as "enhanced public health scrutiny." Applying this scrutiny, the Court will uphold public health legislation if it protects an inchoate class of people who may not yet be identifiable, who will incur a specific disease or injury absent the law, but who will not experience this disease or injury if the law is enforced. If this doctrine were explicit, it would constitute a clear guideline to courts seeking to balance health and liberty concerns. This guideline would be consistent with current case law, and would not impact on law affecting reproductive liberty.     

Procedural Innovation and the Surreptitious Creation of Judicial Supremacy in the United Kingdom

In Re an Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review, the Supreme Court made unfavourable comments about Northern Irish abortion legislation in a way which showed complete disregard for elements of civil procedure which are a foundation of proper adjudication within the context of respect for democracy. This was but the latest of a number of cases in which the senior judiciary has made unaccountable procedural innovations furthering judicial supremacy in defiance of the sovereignty of Parliament. In addition to Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, two other of these cases, Simmons v. Castle and R (Miller and another) v. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, will be discussed. These cases reveal an effort to create judicial supremacy by means which we are obliged to call surreptitious.     

CASH TRANSFERS BY THE QUEENSLAND STATE GOVERNMENT TO NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Abstract: This is the first in a series of studies into cash transfers from the State government to non-government organizations in Queensland. It focuses particularly on transfers from the Departments of Welfare Services and Children's Services. Information has been obtained from public government documents, departmental files and records, and from interviews with representatives of eight non-government organizations in receipt of cash transfers. The study documents the pattern and process of transfers and explores existing means of achieving accountability, accessibility, effectiveness, efficiency and equity. While transfers to the non-government sector in Queensland are a well established practice, the proportion of government funds going to the non-government sector is small. The larger, well-established organizations receive the most and are best satisfied with their relationship to government. It would appear that much could be done to improve accessibility to government transfers in Queensland, where program accountability has not been emphasized. The final section of the paper questions the advisability of jumping on the program evaluation bandwagon. The need for more research into the impact of government funding on program development, efficient use of resources, social cohesion, political position and meeting the most pressing needs in the community is emphasized. Glennerster's "pluralist planning model" is suggested as a possible guide for improving the process of allocation of transfers in Queensland.