United States Supreme Court Research Articles

Statute of Limitation on Civil Actionfor Child Sexual Abuse in the United States

In the case of sexual infringement against a minor, even if the victim muster up the courage to face the memory of past sexual violence and try to heal the wounds through legal remedies after becoming an adult, the civil statute of limitations has expired since the sexual infringement occurred long time ago. There is a problem of not being able to file a lawsuit due to the statute of limitation. In particular, in the case of sexual infringement against minors, in many cases, the perpetrator is a family member, teacher, religious person, etc. The victim, a minor, is economically and emotionally dependent on the perpetrator, so they do not easily think of filing civil lawsuits even as adults. Fortunately, South Korea established Article 766, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Act in 2020, and legislative improvements have been made so that the statute of limitations does not proceed until a minor becomes an adult in the case of sexual infringement. However, despite these good intentions, there are still limits to the relief, so this article will examine the US system. First of all, in the United States, state and federal laws operate different statute of limitations, and since the 1980s, the discovery rule has been applied so that victims can file lawsuits even after a considerable amount of time has elapsed after they become adults. For example, if the victim of a sexual assault is a minor and the victim has not yet discovered the injury after reaching adulthood, from the time he or she discovers the injury and the causal relationship between the injury and the sexual assault Legislative examples such as the requirement to file a claim for damages within four years reflect the discovery principle. However, despite these laws, there are many cases where the requirements are not met, and the relief of victims has not been smoothly carried out. Thus, California and New York State further extended the statute of limitations, and furthermore, through window legislation, even if the statute of limitations had expired, a period of one or two years was allowed to file a civil lawsuit. This legislation provides an opportunity to sue the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's decades of sexual exploitation of minors. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Windows Act is not unconstitutional. While retroactive legislation is “an identifiable injustice”, civil actions based on sexual abuse of minors are rather reasonable in light of the injustice done to the victims. Under these retroactive legislation, some religious organizations are actively raising their own funds for the relief of victims, and are paying settlements on the condition that they do not file a lawsuit against the religious organizations. The basis for such retroactive legislation is that if society has previously borne the cost of damages incurred to the victim, the perpetrator must bear the cost.

위헌심사기준으로서 헌법 제22조 제2항의 의미와 내용

Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that “the rights of authors, inventors, scientists, and artists are protected by law”. Despite being a provision that has continued since the Constitution's establishment, there has not been enough discussion in the constitutional academic community regarding its normative meaning and function, relationship with other fundamental rights, especially property rights, and concrete criteria for constitutionality review. Recently, in a case in which the Court reviewed the constitutionality of Article 9 of the Copyright Act, Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution was applied. As a result of this decision, discussions on the normative meaning of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution and its standard for constitutionality review were triggered in the constitutional law academia. These discussions are mostly related to whether Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution has a unique meaning and performs an independent function, its normative meaning, and the concrete standard for constitutionality review. However, many ambiguous aspects remain. Therefore, this article examines the normative contents of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. The composition of this article is as follows. First, as a starting point, the meaning and limitations of the decision of the Court are examined. Second, by examining the US Supreme Court's doctrine about the copyrights clause and related discussions, this article seeks applicability of it to the interpretation of the Korean Constitution. Third, based on this, it critically reviews the recent discussions in constitutional law academia and offers the contents of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a standard for constitutionality review.

Race should not be used as factor in university admissions, US Supreme Court rules

Race should not be used as factor in university admissions, US Supreme Court rules

Obstacles to Care Mount 1 Year After Dobbs Decision

This Viewpoint discusses the ramifications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision by the US Supreme Court and the state of reproductive health care in the US.

The wholesale problem with Congress: the dangerous decline of expertise in the legislative process

Objective: to document the declining respect for expertise in the US Congress, the implications for policymaking given the wholesale nature of the legislative process, and some possible ways to account for the decline of expertise in the legislative process.Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods: formal-logical and sociological.Results: It is no surprise to anyone that the US Congress has become a hyperpartisan battleground where little effort is expended to promote policies that work for Americans. While the US Congress has always viewed policy issues through the lens of party politics, the role of nonpartisan expertise in the legislative process is at an all-time low. The disrespect for experts is growing across society, but the decline in their use is particularly troubling in the US Congress because it exacerbates deficiencies that are inherent to the legislative process. The US Congress passes laws of general applicability and does not sit in judgment of specific applications of the law. Whether the US Congress does a good job setting those general policies depends on the process it uses for doing so. Sometimes, though increasingly rarely, the US Congress gathers the relevant facts and arguments about different aspects of a problem before acting. More often, legislators have specific outlier problems or prototypes in mind when they draft legislation, and if there is not an expert fact-finding process in place to study a proposal, cognitive biases may go unchecked.Scientific novelty: Part I details the role nonpartisan experts have played in the legislative process over time and documents the various ways that experts have fallen out of favor in the US Congress. Part II explains why this decline of expert involvement in legislation is particularly troubling given the way the US Congress operates as a body making wholesale policy with little individualized feedback on how its policies are applying to real-world scenarios. Part III then turns to the question of what, if anything, could or should be done about it. While the US Congress could, in theory, shift course, that seems unlikely. Throughout its history, the US Congress has cared about nonpartisan expertise when it worried about presidential overreach. But with parties dominating the political landscape, there is little likelihood that the US Congress will care enough about its institutional position relative to the executive. In the absence of legislative reform, Part III therefore considers two additional implications of the decline of expertise in the legislative process. First, the decline of internal expertise in the legislative body places greater weight on the use of administrative agencies to provide that guidance. Ironically, the US Supreme Court may be toying with a revitalization of the nondelegation doctrine at the precise moment that delegation is most urgently needed. Second, courts and other bodies that interpret statutes could consider the relationship between statutory meaning and the US Congress’s consultation with nonpartisan experts to help address statutory ambiguities.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to the functioning of the US Congress.

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated. To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023. For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term. The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity. These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

The Impact of the Dobbs Decision on Diagnostic Radiology Applicants, Residents, and Program Directors

In the Dobbs decision the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, returning the issue of abortion to the states. To date, there is little published data on the impact this might have on where future residents choose to pursue graduate medical education. We investigated the potential effects of the resultant varied political landscape of abortion care access laws with respect to influence on the selection of prospective diagnostic radiology training programs by medical students, comparing application rates for the 2022 recruitment cycle to the prior 4 years across a geographically diverse group of 22 academic and community sites across the United States. We provide strategies for program directors to consider in dealing with topics related to this continually evolving issue as it pertains to resident recruitment and retention.

The US Supreme Court has gutted federal protection for wetlands - now what?

Most US wetlands just lost federal protection, but there’s still time for state and local governments to act. Scientists and the public can help. Most US wetlands just lost federal protection, but there’s still time for state and local governments to act. Scientists and the public can help.

About Previously "Missing" Woman Jennifer Rothwell & Abortion Rights in the United States of America (U.S.A) - #Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W Condemns the Decision of the United States Supreme Court to Overturn the Landmark 1973 Ruling of Roe v Wade

About Previously "Missing" Woman Jennifer Rothwell & Abortion Rights in the United States of America (U.S.A) - #Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W Condemns the Decision of the United States Supreme Court to Overturn the Landmark 1973 Ruling of Roe v Wade

“Feel My Rage”: Angry Feminist Claims and Affective Mobilization

In this article, I ask, “How do angry feminist claims get heard?” Angry feminist claims, I argue, inform, and mobilize by resonating with empathetic communities, legitimating feelings and experiences, and triggering energetic transfers among feminists and non-feminists. Through analysis of the 2018 protests of the nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, I illustrate how angry feminist claims can be reclaimed as rational expressions of injustice, prompting divergent responses among differently situated audiences. Further, I demonstrate how anger as part of an affective appeal activates those attuned to hearing angry feminist claims as rational and legitimate, while simultaneously being challenged by intragroup intersectional differences.

#RoeOverturned: Twitter Dataset on the Abortion Rights Controversy

On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned landmark rulings made in its 1973 verdict in Roe v. Wade. The justices by way of a majority vote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, decided that abortion wasn't a constitutional right and returned the issue of abortion to the elected representatives. This decision triggered multiple protests and debates across the US, especially in the context of the midterm elections in November 2022. Given that many citizens use social media platforms to express their views and mobilize for collective action, and given that online debate provides tangible effects on public opinion, political participation, news media coverage, and the political decision-making, it is crucial to understand online discussions surrounding this topic. Toward this end, we present the first large-scale Twitter dataset collected on the abortion rights debate in the United States. We present a set of 74M tweets systematically collected over the course of one year from January 1, 2022 to January 6, 2023.

Anticipated Impact of Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization on Training of Residents in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Qualitative Analysis.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization ended constitutional protection for abortion, thus severely restricting access to reproductive health care for millions of individuals. Concerns have arisen about the potential impact on medical students, residents, and fellows training in restricted areas and the effect on gynecologic training and the future provision of competent comprehensive women's health care in the United States. To qualitatively explore the anticipated impacts of the Dobbs ruling on training in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN). A participatory action research approach employing methods of qualitative analysis was used. Trainees and leaders in national OB/GYN professional and academic organizations with missions related to clinical care and training of medical students, residents, and fellows in OB/GYN participated. Two focus groups were held via Zoom in July 2022. Using an iterative process, transcripts underwent coding by 2 independent researchers to identify categories and common themes. Themes were organized into categories and subcategories. An additional reviewer resolved discrepancies. Twenty-six OB/GYN leaders/stakeholders representing 14 OB/GYN societies along with 4 trainees participated. Eight thematic categories were identified: competency, provision of reproductive health care, residency selection, inequity in training, alternative training, law-based vs evidence-based medicine, morality and ethics, and uncertainty about next steps. This qualitative study of leaders and learners in OB/GYN identified 8 themes of potential impacts of the Dobbs ruling on current and future training in OB/GYN.

Is the US Supreme Court a reliable backstop for an overreaching US president? Maybe, but is an overreaching (partisan) court worse?

AbstractThe Roberts Court has been called the most “___” Court in history, with many different adjectives being offered. Surprisingly, our study of voting data from Supreme Court terms 1937–2021 shows that the Roberts Court is the most “anti‐president” Court in that period: It has ruled against the president at a greater rate than any other Court. Should we take this to mean that the Court will be there to protect democracy if an overreaching president tries to trample constitutional limits? Not necessarily. Additional analysis and a deep dive into the cases and reasoning reveal a more complicated picture, of a Court exhibiting historic levels of partisan and loyalty bias as well as a strong penchant for judicial supremacy.

Turning Rage Into Action: Abortion Care and Residency Training in the United States.

Turning Rage Into Action: Abortion Care and Residency Training in the United States.

Reworking Emergency Medicine Resident Education Post-Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Reworking Emergency Medicine Resident Education Post-Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Potential Impacts of Roe v. Wade repeal on Sexual and Reproductive Health in Sub‐Saharan Africa

AbstractThe United States (US) Supreme Court's decision to repeal Roe v. Wade has had significant implications for abortion care in the US, especially for emergency care. This ruling may also have an impact on sub‐Saharan Africa, where restrictive laws and policies limit women's access to safe and legal abortions. Sub‐Saharan Africa is the region with the highest rate of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, resulting in 15,000 preventable deaths annually. Although every country in sub‐Saharan Africa has at least one legal basis for abortion, they remain limited. In Nigeria, where 29% of pregnancies are unintended, 48% of these led to abortions, amounting to over 1.4 million abortions between 2015 and 2019. Unsafe abortions are prevalent in the region due to socioreligious stigma, particularly for unmarried women. Criminal charges can result from violating these limitations, with prison terms ranging from 3 to 14 years. The reversal of Roe v. Wade could have significant consequences in abortion‐related policies and politics in sub‐Saharan Africa, encouraging nations to adopt restrictive policies and legitimizing them. The landmark decision of Roe v. Wade may also impact the rate of unsafe abortions in the region, much like the US Mexico City Policy. With the high probability of foreign assistance funds for safe abortions depleted, sub‐Saharan African countries must prepare for this financial vacuum in health response. Therefore, the repeal of Roe v. Wade may lead to increased maternal morbidity and mortality in sub‐Saharan Africa, where access to safe and legal abortions is already limited.

Protecting Reproductive Rights Post-Roe: Can Companies Keep Your Data Safe?

AbstractThe United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization brought to the forefront the intersections between technology and reproductive rights. As the country grappled with the impact of Dobbs on reproductive rights, digital and human rights experts warned that the vast amounts of data collected by companies could now be used to target and punish people seeking or facilitating access to abortions. This is the most recent manifestation of the negative impact technology can have on women, girls and persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and represents a global challenge for companies that collect, store, share and process user data. To fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights, companies should take steps to prevent the risks associated with collecting, storing, sharing and processing user data, and adapt these steps to respond to emerging risks, such as those now posed by the Dobbs decision.

Preimplantation sex selection via in vitro fertilization: time for a reappraisal

In recent years, there has been rapid increase in the availability of elective sex selection via genetic testing of preimplantation embryos created through invitro fertilization. We explore the standing of this ethically controversial practice in the context of a changing legal landscape after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health decision by the US Supreme Court.

An Assessment of the Supreme Court's Ruling in South Dakota V. Wayfair: A Macromarketing Case Study

Years ago Shelby Hunt noted that cromarketing focuses on marketing systems, the impact of marketing systems on society, and the impact and consequences of society on marketing systems. The ruling by the United States Supreme Court enabling states to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes on in-state purchases exemplifies the latter. Imposing a new tax burden on previously untaxed remote sellers has the power to alter the structure of retailing and impact consumer welfare. Responding to “new economic realities,” the Court reversed long-standing precedent requiring that sellers must have a physical presence in the state to be subject to taxation. Proponents viewed this as a major step in restoring lost tax revenues to the states. Critics point to the inconsistency of the Court's ruling with stare decisis, the regressive nature of sales taxes, and recent public policy mandates stemming from the Covid pandemic. Although the Wayfair ruling is now the law and many of the concerns voiced prior to the Court's action seem to have been unfounded, the macromarketing implications remain. The potential impact of public policy on retailing cannot be ignored nor should the regressive nature of an increase in sales taxes on income inequality be overlooked. Additionally, there remain questions of fairness and administration with the ruling. Students of macromarketing should not ignore these issues. The responsibility to examine the impact of society—and the Court—on marketing systems was reinforced years ago by Bartels and Jenkins: “…the goal of marketing is the achievement of entrepreneurial goals in a manner consistent with the best overall interests of society… Macro models represent value judgments made by society for society; by governments in the form of laws, administrative orders, and judicial decisions…and by others who assume the role of advocating what is best for the general welfare.”

Abortion Access as a Racial Justice Issue

(N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1537–1539) Improvement of racial equity in health care is a significant priority for research and policy, as disparity in outcomes is readily apparent. The landmark US Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in June 2022 severely constrained access to abortion, a procedure considered an essential element of comprehensive reproductive care. The legal status of abortion impacts the civil rights of all with the capacity for pregnancy, but has strong reverberations in the Black and Indigenous populations of the United States, who have historically suffered from acute reproductive oppression. Abortion access is proposed as a racial justice issue that should be addressed by policymakers, health care organizations and clinicians.