United States Supreme Court Research Articles

Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case that could have severely impacted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion. The researchers summarize the legal challenges to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 decisions modifying mifepristone's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program and label, the responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to the challenges, and the potential implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. The researchers detail how the FDA relied on a robust scientific record analyzing tens of thousands of patient experiences that conclusively demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the changes to the mifepristone REMS Program and label and urge the Supreme Court to rely on the clear scientific record and preserve access to mifepristone without reimposing restrictions. What follows is a reprint of this brief.

The Supreme Court Decision on Firearm Ownership for People Subject to Restraining Orders

This Viewpoint explicates the complex reasoning the US Supreme Court has used in rulings on gun control and raises concerns that the recent Rahimi decision poses more questions than it settled on the future of the Second Amendment.

Examining public perceptions of US campaign finance over time through survey experiments

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the US Supreme Court ruled that campaign finance regulations “are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence.” Using data from multiple survey experiments repeated across six CCES surveys from 2012 to 2020, we test whether varied information regarding US campaign finance institutions and laws alter public perceptions of the campaign finance system and campaign finance reform across time, including the perception of improper influence. Respondents had more negative attitudes toward candidates who received support from Super PACs. However, respondents were not moved by primed differences in expenditure limits, coordination, or donation disclosure. Ultimately, we find that the majority of Americans dislike and distrust the campaign finance system and generally remain unmoved by any experimentally-primed differences. These experimental findings remain consistent across time, indicating that attitudes toward the US campaign finance system are stable and resistant to change.

“When does human life begin?” teaching human embryology in the context of the American abortion debate

The Dobbs decision of the United States Supreme Court and the actions of several state legislatures have made it risky, if not outright dangerous, to teach factual material concerning human embryology. At some state universities, for instance, if a professor's lecture is felt to teach or discuss abortion (as it might when teaching about tubal pregnancies, hydatidiform moles, or eneuploidy), that instructor risks imprisonment for up to 14 years (Gyori, 2023). Some states' new censorship rules have thus caused professors to drop modules on abortion from numerous science and humanities courses. In most states, instructors can still teach about human embryonic development and not risk putting their careers or livelihoods in jeopardy. However, even in many of these institutions, students can bring a professor to a disciplinary hearing by claiming that the instructor failed to provide ample trigger warnings on such issues. This essay attempts to provide some strategies wherein human embryology and the ethical issues surrounding it might be taught and students may be given resources to counter unscientific falsehoods about fertilization and human development. This essay provides evidence for teaching the following propositions.Mis-information about human biology and medicine is rampant on the internet, and there are skills that can be taught to students that will help them determine which sites should trusted. This is a skill that needs to be taught as part of science courses.

From Harm Reduction to Reproductive Justice: Lawyering in the Post-Dobbs Landscape

The US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned nearly fifty years of constitutional doctrine protecting the right to seek an abortion, throwing the nation into a state of legal chaos. This legal chaos has its own set of unique and harmful consequences to abortion seekers over and beyond the restricted access to care. As this article argues, helping abortion seekers, and those who would assist them, parse the changing state of the law and understand the threats in the legal landscape is a critical way that activist attorneys can help reduce harm and advance reproductive justice.

US Obstetrician-Gynecologists’ Perceived Impacts of Post–Dobbs v Jackson State Abortion Bans

(Abstracted from JAMA Network Open 2024;7(1):e2352109) The US Supreme Court decision in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) has had far-reaching consequences and implications for patients and for health care professionals. Between the announcement of the result of this case in 2022 and December 2023, 16 states, with 5 more pending, have passed bans on abortion with exceptions that in many cases are very limited.

Online Platforms and Legal Responsibility: A Contemporary Perspective in View of the Recent U.S. Developments

This paper critically examines the relevance of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the context of recent United States Supreme Court rulings, specifically Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google. The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that determining the extent of CDA230’s immunity lies with legislators, not the judiciary. This study explores the potential liability of algorithms in supporting terrorism and the implications for European regulations under the Digital Services Act. Findings indicate that while CDA230 has fostered internet growth, it also challenges content regulation. The United States approach contrasts with the European Union’s more explicit service provider responsibilities, suggesting a need for legislative updates to balance free expression with the control of harmful content.

Medical students' reproductive health perspectives: Pre- and post-Roe v Wade reversal.

The ability to make informed decisions about reproductive health is a cornerstone principle of the practice of prenatal medical genetics. Unfortunately, these reproductive health decisions have become entangled in the current, contentious political climate. This debate reached an inflection point in 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned the national right to abortion previously established in Roe v. Wade. This decision prompted a reassessment of the opinions of medical students on reproductive health and abortion. Our study focused on a medical school in Alabama, a conservative state that enacted a restrictive abortion ban following the Dobbs ruling. Two surveys, conducted in 2015 and 2022, explored students' viewpoints on reproductive health topics, including abortion. The comparison revealed a significant shift toward more pro-choice perspectives among medical students. Notably, religious affiliation did not consistently align with opinions, as many Christian students supported pro-choice views. Our results suggest that medical students' reproductive health opinions at our institution have shifted to a more pro-choice position over the last decade.

Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision

The US Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision allowed states to strengthen restrictions on abortion access, triggering the closure of family planning clinics and leading to confusion about the legality of emergency contraceptives (ECs). To evaluate the association between the Dobbs decision and fills for oral and emergency contraceptives in states that enacted the most restrictive abortion policies after Dobbs. This cohort study used data on contraceptive fills for women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the US from IQVIA's National Prescription Audit PayerTrak and data from the Guttmacher Institute were used to categorize changes in abortion restrictions in each state. A difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in monthly fill rates for daily oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and ECs in states that became most restrictive (implemented a full abortion ban after Dobbs) and comparison states (kept a medium level of abortion restrictions after Dobbs) before (March 2021 to November 2021) and after (July 2022 to October 2023) the Dobbs decision. State-level abortion restrictions. Monthly fills of OCPs and ECs per 100 000 women of reproductive age. Between March 2021 and October 2023, 142.8 million prescriptions for OCPs and 904 269 prescriptions for ECs were dispensed at US retail pharmacies. Before Dobbs, trends in monthly fill rates were similar for OCPs and ECs between the most restrictive and comparison states. After the Dobbs decision, states that became the most restrictive experienced an additional 4.1% decline in OCP fills with 285.9 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -495.8 to -6.8; P = .04). In contrast to OCPs, fills for ECs increased during the first year after Dobbs (July 2022 to June 2023) in both groups of states. However, 1 year after Dobbs (July 2023 to October 2023), the most restrictive states experienced an additional 65% decrease in emergency contraceptive fills with 13.2 fewer fills per 100 000 (95% CI, -27.2 to -4.1; P = .01). In this cohort study of prescriptions filled at US pharmacies, the Dobbs decision was associated with declines in oral contraceptives, particularly ECs, in states enacting the most restrictive abortion policies. Given the important role of OCPs and ECs in preventing pregnancy and the need for abortion, efforts to improve access may be needed, especially in states where legal abortion is no longer an option.

From Roe to Dobbs: How the Supreme Court of the United States (Scotus) Muddled Through Half a Century Women’s Reproductive Rights/ Abortion from Enshrinement to Dissolution

This study explores the evolution of U.S. Supreme Court ruling from (Tribe, 1973). That is, how the ruling in Roe which codified the right of women to abortion and the precedent set survived the test of time for more than half century until the Dobbs Case whose ruling overturned the enshrined privacy right of women. It also examines how states took advantage of contradictions and inconsistencies in decades of Supreme Court rulings to pass anti-abortion laws which were challenged with its cases reverted to the courts, thereby creating a revolving door scenario for litigants and states as well as prolife and prochoice groups over abortion. In the analysis, the author identified the role politics played in the “packing” of the Supreme Court with conservative judges who are committed to overturning Roe based on their “judicial restraint” doctrine that follows the lead of the legislature in interpreting the law and denying the enshrined and codified rights of women to abortion. Furthermore, the authors suggest various mitigation strategies to rectify the situation and codify the rights of women to access abortion through scenarios and options such as the use of federal powers through “executive order” to guarantee the principle of free interstate movement and commerce that will allow abortion seeking women to freely move from anti-abortion and pro-life states to those of pro-choice where abortion is allowed without penalty; the institution of term limit for judicial appointees to override the current life-long appointments; expansion of the Supreme Court beyond the current nine justices to allow the inclusion by appointment of more liberal judges who will likely interpret the law based on “Judicial Activism” doctrine and principles and interpretation of the constitution in a manner consistent with the spirit of the time and the challenging needs of the nation; suspension or removal of the “filibuster” to allow vote in the senate and possible passage of federal legislation to codify Roe, and constitutional amendment even though it has a slim chance of ratification. The authors conclude with the clear statement that the fight for women’s right to reproductive rights/abortion and the codification of Roe though legislation does not end with the Dobbs by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but rather just a reboot that has triggered the beginning of a new fight to restore the reproductive rights of Americans.

Food and Drug Administration v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—A Cautious Win for Reproductive Health Care and FDA Authority

This Viewpoint discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling allowing mifepristone—a drug used in medication abortion—to be widely available in the US, summarizes the history of challenges to the availability of mifepristone, and highlights reasons for concerns that remain after the Court’s current ruling.

Disproportionality monitoring for special education and stakeholder practices in a post-affirmative action landscape

ABSTRACT In this article, we examine and explore how the recent US Supreme Court case on affirmative action within higher education will shape and contextualize disproportionate minority representation and its monitoring within a K-12 public school context for students with disabilities. That is, as the litigation and ultimate judicial decision shape how institutions of higher education advance affirmative action policies for the admission of racialized and ethnic minority college students, another unanswered question remains. Namely, how will K-12 public school districts both adhere to federal policy that mandates proportionate racial representation of students with disabilities within special education categories and support teachers and school systems with compliance to federal policy? Using a legal compliance focal point theoretical perspective, this article contextualizes the affirmative action conversation as one that must include guidance to education systems and teachers working to ensure federal compliance and racial equity within special education.

Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy

Prior observational research has shown that infants born in states with more abortion restrictions are more likely to die during infancy. It is unclear how recent and more severe abortion bans in the US have impacted infant mortality. To examine whether Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which banned abortions after embryonic cardiac activity and did not allow exemptions for congenital anomalies, is associated with infant mortality in the state of Texas. This population-based cohort study of all recorded infant deaths from the state of Texas and 28 comparison states used a comparative interrupted time series analysis with an augmented synthetic control approach and national birth certificate data from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022, to estimate the difference between the number of observed and expected infant and neonatal deaths and death rates among monthly cohorts exposed to Texas' SB8. Deaths in March 2022 were treated as the first cohort exposed to the Texas' SB8 abortion policy because these infants (if born full term) were approximately 10 to 14 weeks' gestation when SB8 went into effect on September 1, 2021. The exposure period was thus March through December 2022. Our outcomes were monthly counts and rates of infant (aged <1 year) and neonatal (aged <28 days) deaths in the exposure period in Texas. In secondary analyses, annual changes in cause-specific infant deaths between 2021 and 2022 in Texas and the rest of the US were examined. Between 2018 and 2022, there were 102 391 infant deaths in the US, with 10 351 of these deaths occurring in the state of Texas. Between 2021 and 2022, infant deaths in Texas increased from 1985 to 2240, or 255 additional deaths. This corresponds to a 12.9% increase, whereas the rest of the US experienced a comparatively lower 1.8% increase. On the basis of the counterfactual analysis that used data from Texas and eligible comparison states, an excess of 216 infant deaths (95% CI, -122 to 554) was observed from March to December 2022, or a 12.7% increase above expectation. At the monthly level, significantly greater-than-expected counts were observed for 4 months between March and December 2022: April, July, September, and October. An analysis of neonatal deaths found somewhat similar patterns, with significantly greater-than-expected neonatal deaths in April and October 2022. Descriptive statistics by cause of death showed that infant deaths attributable to congenital anomalies in 2022 increased more for Texas (22.9% increase) but not the rest of the US (3.1% decrease). This study found that Texas' 2021 ban on abortion in early pregnancy was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal deaths in Texas between 2021 and 2022. Congenital anomalies, which are the leading cause of infant death, also increased in Texas but not the rest of the US. Although replication and further analyses are needed to understand the mechanisms behind these findings, the results suggest that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost as a result of increases in infant mortality. These findings are particularly relevant given the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization US Supreme Court decision and subsequent rollbacks of reproductive rights in many US states.

Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal.

To investigate the abortion views and reproductive concerns of current in vitro fertilization patients after the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing abortion access. This is a cross-sectional survey of English-speaking patients undergoing in vitro fertilization from January to November 2022 at a large academic institution in a state with restricted abortion care. Participants completed a 43-question electronic survey which measured feelings about abortion, future fertility treatments, and embryo disposition both quantitatively and qualitatively. Of 543 eligible patients, 267 (49%) consented to participate when called and were sent the survey. Of those, 180 (67%) completed it, resulting in a total completion rate of 33%. The majority believe abortion should be legal in the case of birth defects (90.8%) or rape or incest (90.3%). A significant proportion (91.4%) expressed concerns about abortion being illegal in the state that they receive infertility care. They reported some concern about making embryos (89.6%), controlling what happens to them (95.4%), and discarding them (94.4%). Patients wrote about their concerns with pursuing fertility treatments, fear of not having access to needed medical care, and the desire to remain close to states with less restrictive abortion laws. The evolving political landscape surrounding access to reproductive care has created significant concerns regarding legal regulation of these treatments and the disposition of embryos. By understanding patients' concerns, health care providers can more effectively advocate for the protection of fertility treatments and patients' autonomy in embryo disposition.

Personality Aspects and Attitudes About Animal Welfare Legislation

ABSTRACT The US Supreme Court recently debated and upheld a significant piece of farmed animal welfare legislation, Proposition 12, which was broadly supported by Californian voters. The goal of this study was to determine how individual differences in personality are related to attitudes about this legislation. We examined how ten lower-order aspects of the Big Five personality traits were related to Proposition 12 in an American sample (n = 802). The Openness aspect of Openness to Experience, the Withdrawal aspect of Neuroticism, and trait domain Agreeableness were consistently related to support for Proposition 12. Effects were not moderated by political orientation, region, gender, or age. Our results show that personality traits are not only an important factor in general political attitudes about animal welfare, but that they can predict people’s attitudes about particular pieces of animal welfare legislation. Results also highlight the importance of considering lower-order aspects for predicting animal welfare attitudes.

Assessing the Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Physician Assistant/Associate Program Graduates from 2010 to 2012 and 2019 to 2021.

To assess the racial/ethnic diversity of graduates of US Physician Assistant/Associate (PA) programs compared with the diversity of the populations from which they draw students and to assess diversity changes over time among PA graduates. We calculated proportion of Black or Hispanic PA graduates nationally and by school between 2010 to 2012 and 2019 to 2021 using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and compared it with the diversity of the 20 to 35-year-old population using the American Community Survey. We created benchmark populations for each school based on whether the school was public or private, with in-state/out-of-state proportions provided by the Physician Assistant Education Association. A diversity index (DI) was calculated for each program. A DI of 0.5 means that the representation of Black/Hispanic graduates is half their representation in the benchmark population. Although the numbers of Black/Hispanic graduates increased from 2010 to 2012 to 2019 to 2021, the percentage of Black graduates decreased. Nationally, the DI for Black graduates decreased from 0.28 to 0.23 and the Hispanic DI increased from 0.28 to 0.37 between 2010 to 2012 and 2019 to 2021. Among 213 PA programs included in the 2019 to 2021 dataset, 5 schools had a DI >1.0 for Black graduates and 7 schools had a DI >1.0 for Hispanic graduates. Using the IPEDS data, we found that Black and Hispanic graduates are underrepresented among PA program graduates. The PA education community needs to develop new strategies for diversifying the profession consistent with the new US Supreme Court decision banning race-conscious admissions.

Vulnerability Through a Legal Lens: A Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis of the Law of Confessions and Vulnerable Suspects

This article considers the law of confessions in England and the United States of America Supreme Court's Fourteenth amendment cases, with a focus on suspects who are vulnerable. The question that is asked in the piece of work is whether the English statutory provisions and the decisions of the US Supreme Court provide sufficient protection to vulnerable suspects who falsely confess to crimes. A novel approach is adopted with this comparative analysis as it extends the knowledge base by examining vulnerability and the law of confessions within two jurisdictional parameters. A further contribution to knowledge can be seen as the paper provides a bespoke piece of legislation that affords protection to such individuals, and thereby adds to the current debate on vulnerability in the criminal justice system. Firstly, the work critically examine why vulnerable suspects will falsely confess to criminal acts. It will be established that vulnerable suspects may confess even if they have not been coerced, and this will be the foundational basis for the suggested reform: a vulnerable suspects confession should be excluded as a result of their characteristics or that such individuals should be provided with mandatory legal advice. The focus will then turn to the extant position in England, where it will be revealed that confessions will be excluded if they have been obtained by unfair practices or through inhumane or degrading treatment. It will also be recognised that the English jurisdiction affords limited protection to vulnerable suspects even though they are entitled to legal advice and an appropriate adult being present. The US Supreme Court's position will then be evaluated by chronologically critiquing the use of the due process clause in cases of confessions. It will be identified that the vulnerability of the individual can be considered in determining whether a confession should be excluded but cannot be utilised in isolation of other factors. The two jurisdictions will then be critically compared and the positive and negative aspects of the law in the jurisdictions will be evaluated. It will be established that neither England nor the US Supreme provides sufficient protection to vulnerable suspects and the law requires further refinement, by placing priority on mandatory legal advice and/or an opportunity to exclude the confession. A de novo remedial statutory provision for England is provided as an effective solution to the issue of vulnerability and false confessions.

Critérios para a delimitação da proteção jurídica da imagem dos agentes políticos/servidores públicos em face da liberdade de expressão/imprensa: Reflexão à luz do caso New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Through exploratory qualitative research, monographic procedure, inductive approach, the general objective is to analyze the ratio decidendi in the preceding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964), with the aim of solving the problem about which criteria should be used in solving the real antinomy between the personality rights of a political agent or public servant on the one hand and freedom of expression / press on the other. With a focus on this research problem, it was assumed that due to the constitutional similarity between the compared systems, it would be possible to apply, in Brazilian law, the legal rules adopted by the American Supreme Court. As a result, based on the sources adopted, the hypothesis initially adopted can be confirmed, as it was found that the criteria used by the American Supreme Court in this paradigmatic precedent are compatible with the Brazilian constitutional system and offer an adequate criterion for the solution of this antinomy, since at the same time they guarantee the right to participation democracy through access to information as a rule, establish exceptions through the doctrine of the actual malice that is shown to balance the interests at stake, preventing the dissemination of information known to be false, or whose verification of veracity has been neglected by the journalist / broadcaster; as well as that defamatory information that relates to the strictly personal / intimate sphere of the public person’s life, since these cannot be considered covered by the “public interest”.

Are Memories of Use-of-Force Incidents Altered When Police Officers View Their Body-Worn Camera Footage?

For evaluations of police conduct, the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Graham v. Connor (1989) sets the standard for deciding if an officer’s use of force was reasonable and justified. The “reasonableness” criterion, according to this ruling, must be “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” How should “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene” be evaluated? The results of research indicate that viewing their body-worn camera (BWC) footage of a use-of-force incident can alter officers’ memory for what occurred during the incident, and so their perception of the event after viewing the video may be different from their actual perception “on the scene”. If an officer’s event memory is to be used to determine whether their use of force was justified, then it is important to ensure that these memories are not altered by viewing their BWC footage, which we now know can be a powerful source of post-event suggestion.

The Impact of the Recent Supreme Court Ruling on the Dermatology Recruitment Pipeline.

The 2023 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions may have implications for the selection of individuals into the dermatology workforce. This article highlights the impact of these decisions at the undergraduate, medical school, and graduate medical education levels, as well as within the field of dermatology.