Pretrial detention challenges the presumption of innocence, requiring courts in countries such as Brazil and Italy to justify the deprivation of liberty based on specific legal factors. However, the volume and complexity of judicial decisions make manual analysis of the underlying reasoning difficult. We propose a factor-guided extraction pipeline combining Large Language Models (LLMs) and Knowledge Graphs (KGs) to extract, structure, and visualize critical legal factors from appeal cases in the Supreme Court. Building on datasets from both countries, we employ LLMs to generate summaries constrained by an expert-defined factor schema. These summaries are mapped into KGs to visualize the relationships between legal factors and judgment outcomes. We evaluated this approach against a raw-text baseline using qualitative expert review and quantitative metrics. Results demonstrate that factor-guided prompting significantly improves extraction quality, achieving higher semantic similarity (LabSE scores ≈ 0.47 vs. 0.28) compared to unguided methods. Structurally, the KGs reveal convergent reasoning complexity across the two legal systems, despite distinct topological signatures. These findings suggest that integrating LLMs with structured legal knowledge enhances the interpretability of judicial reasoning, offering a robust, scalable tool for legal analytics.

US military service members have long faced challenges accessing reproductive health care, especially abortion. The 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) Supreme Court decision and subsequent state-level abortion policy restrictions have exacerbated barriers to care for many communities, especially those with marginalized identities. To assess the impact of Dobbs on abortion access for US active-duty service members, we launched a qualitative study among active-duty service members who experienced pregnancy and considered or obtained abortion care after the Dobbs decision. Recruitment was challenging, and we completed only 3 interviews. The complexity of accessing abortion care for active-duty military service members has intensified, with long-standing barriers related to insurance, mobility, finances, and confidentiality compounded by post-Dobbs abortion restrictions in states where many service members are stationed and by the failure of policies to provide support. We drew on the existing literature and illustrative quotations from interview participants to explore the impacts of Dobbs on this population and reflected on the need to address barriers to abortion access for active-duty service members-a critical issue for military readiness as well as the health and well-being of service members. (Am J Public Health. 2026;116(7):1038-1043. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2026.308431).

This article examines systematic breaches of medical confidentiality in Argentina's reproductive healthcare system, where healthcare providers often report patients experiencing obstetric emergencies to law enforcement agencies. Drawing on judicial records, interviews with healthcare professionals, and analysis of medical curricula, the study shows how structural weaknesses, regulatory ambiguities, and biases in medical education undermine professional confidentiality, turning hospitals into patients' entry points to the criminal justice system rather than spaces of care. Despite strong constitutional protections and Supreme Court rulings affirming patients' rights to confidentiality, significant gaps persist between legal standards and practice. Situating Argentina within broader Latin American patterns, the article argues that clearer institutional guidelines, improved professional training, and consistent judicial interpretation are needed to align medical practice with human rights standards and rebuild patient trust.

Despite decades of evidence demonstrating that cervical cancer screening prevents morbidity and mortality, approximately one in four eligible Americans remains overdue for screening. Screening gaps are unevenly distributed, disproportionately affecting uninsured individuals, those with lower income or educational attainment, rural residents, and racial and ethnic minority populations. In this commentary, we highlight that perceived out-of-pocket costs for cervical cancer screening-rather than actual costs-remain a salient and modifiable barrier to screening among low-income, underscreened women, even in the context of Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions. Optimizing cervical cancer prevention requires attention not only to initial screening uptake but also to completion of the full screening continuum, including timely follow-up after abnormal results. Recent policy developments-including the US Supreme Court affirmation of the ACA preventive services mandate, elimination of cost-sharing for patient navigation beginning in 2026, expansion of coverage for diagnostic follow-up starting in 2027 for insured individuals, and endorsement of self-collected human papillomavirus testing-create an unprecedented opportunity to reduce financial and logistic barriers to completion of cervical cancer screening. However, realizing the population-level and equity benefits of these advances will require deliberate implementation strategies that emphasize transparent communication about patient out-of-pocket costs, integration of navigation services, and follow-up pathways. See related article by Isaacson et al., p. 1158.

ABSTRACT This article develops the concept of “sovereign presidential lawfare” through a case study of the 2015–2024 Kamiński and Wąsik case in Poland. It reconstructs how President Andrzej Duda’s use of the pardon power, through a pre-conviction “individual abolition” in 2015, became a tool for restructuring relations between the executive and the judiciary. The analysis situates the case within a broader conflict between a normativist understanding of constitutional authority, advanced by the Supreme Court and ordinary courts, and a decisionist understanding, endorsed by the President and a politically captured Constitutional Court. Drawing on contemporary readings of Carl Schmitt, the article argues that pardon powers can be repurposed to suspend judicial processes, generate de facto immunities, and reconfigure accountability without formal constitutional amendment. The article makes three contributions. First, it identifies a subtype of presidential lawfare distinct from self-protective criminal lawfare. Second, it demonstrates how constitutionally grounded prerogatives, especially those traditionally understood as exceptional or symbolic, can operate as instruments of structural constitutional change. Third, it conceptualises this dynamic as a shift from commissarial to sovereign uses of executive power.

The absence of a law specifically regulating the Presidential Institution makes this institution the only one without its own regulations. However, according to the 1945 Constitution, the President of Indonesia is a High State Institution. This study aims to determine further regulations regarding the president's authority based on the Constitution's mandate, through analysis using normative legal research methodology. The results of this study indicate that there is no specific law for the presidential institution, so further regulations regarding the president's authority, obligations, and rights can be found scattered across several laws. In the future, it is hoped that the President will have a law that specifically regulates him, as other institutions with equal standing according to the 1945 Constitution, such as the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representative Council (DPD), the Judicial Commission (KY), the Supreme Court (MA), the Constitutional Court (MK), and the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), each of which has laws as a reference to limit the abuse of power between institutions and the implementation of checks and balances in the administration of the Republic of Indonesia.

Homelessness is an important public health issue, and the number of individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness has increased since 2020. On June 28, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued a 6-to-3 decision in City of Grants Pass v Johnson, which broadened the authority of local governments to prohibit public camping. The National Call Center for Homeless Veterans (NCCHV) offers a 24/7 virtual option for veterans to access services to address housing instability. The objective of this study was to assess whether expanded local enforcement authority affected inflow and characteristics of individuals contacting NCCHV after the Grants Pass decision. We used data from 418 814 contacts to NCCHV from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2024. We conducted 3 types of analyses: (1) bivariate analysis comparing changes in contact characteristics using Wald χ2 tests, (2) direct comparisons of average weekly call volume using paired t tests, and (3) an interrupted time-series analysis using an autoregressive linear regression model. While we did not observe seasonal variations in call volume, we found a significant increase in average weekly NCCHV call volume between the pre- and post-Grants Pass periods, from 3926.6 to 4394.8 calls (mean [95% CI] change in average weekly call volume: 468.2 [216.8-719.6; P = .005). This study provides an indication of the association between the Grants Pass decision and an increase in help-seeking behavior (potentially representing increased needs) among veterans experiencing housing instability. Future work should assess on-the-ground changes in the needs of individuals experiencing housing instability and responses offered by providers of homeless services.

This legal commentary analyzes two decisions by the Moroccan Supreme Court concerning commercial goodwill and registration requirements. The first decision (No. 653, December 5, 1979) establishes that a person regularly registered in the commercial register is presumed to be the apparent owner of commercial goodwill. It further rules that potential creditors of the seller of commercial goodwill cannot challenge a sale against third parties unless they contest it within the statutory time limits set forth in Article 4 of the Dahir of December 31, 1914. The second decision (No. 403, February 20, 1985) complements and reinforces the first ruling. The commentary provides critical legal analysis of these principles.

The United States Supreme Court's proportionality decisions in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons rest on a single constitutional principle: individuals who lack the behavioral and cognitive capacities necessary for full culpability cannot be sentenced to death. Contemporary neuroscience now provides the ability to measure these capacities directly. Research demonstrates that the neural systems supporting judgment, behavioral inhibition, emotional regulation, and future-oriented reasoning mature heterogeneously, vary substantially across individuals, and can be impaired by developmental deviation, psychiatric illness, traumatic injury, or neurodegenerative disease. Quantitative neuroimaging enables these impairments to be identified through norm-referenced structural and functional metrics, revealing when an individual's neural functioning falls below statistically defined thresholds. Behavioral and cognitive equivalence (BACE) operationalizes the Court's constitutional requirement by determining whether an individual's measurable functioning is equivalent to that of categorically exempt groups. Using validated neuroimaging techniques, normative modeling, and network-level analysis, BACE represents a transparent, reproducible method for assessing diminished capacity consistent with Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas. Integrating contemporary neuroscience with constitutional proportionality therefore supports extending categorical protection to individuals whose measurable impairments render them functionally incapable of the culpability required for capital punishment.

ABSTRACT This study examines the historical development, evolution, and ongoing challenges of restorative justice (RJ) in Manitoba. RJ emerged in the 1970s through Mediation Services established by Mennonite Central Committee Manitoba, reflecting early efforts to integrate Indigenous justice principles with community-based healing. During the 1980s and 1990s, volunteer training, community justice committees, and Indigenous-led initiatives such as Onashowewin expanded RJ practices across the province. Federal developments, including the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003) and the Supreme Court’s decision in R v. Gladue, further reinforced alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous peoples. The Restorative Justice Act (2014) institutionalized restorative justice through formalized case diversion programs, although limited funding and resource constraints continue to restrict its broader implementation and accessibility. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with practitioners, this study highlights the contributions of organizations including the Restorative Justice Association of Manitoba, Circles of Support and Accountability, and Onashowewin. Persistent challenges include punitive public attitudes, mental health delays, reduced program autonomy, and case backlogs. The findings demonstrate meaningful benefits for victims and those who have caused harm while emphasizing the importance of strengthening Indigenous-led restorative justice initiatives.

Honor killings are, however, a combination of various human rights violations and the most serious, complicated caste and gender based violent practices recognised under international law. This research posits honour killings as transgressions of the basic rights of men and women alike, preserved in place due to patriarchal social structures, community watching and the complicity of institutions. The fact that it has mostly been conceived of as crime against women alone needs to be addressed, and the idea reconceptualised. The paper comprehensively traces the scope of violations against all range of rights under study and systematically addresses right to life and dignity and right to equality as well as right to personal liberty and liberty to marry freely and demonstrates rights being undermined by referencing a wide array of human rights instrument: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (DEVAW). It further analyses the jurisprudence of Indian courts on the issue and examine some prominent judgements of the Supreme Court of India where the courts slowly declared honour killings unconstitutional and asked the governments to take punitive and preventive steps. It analyses the adequacy of present penal provisions available under the Indian Penal Code and proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and other legislative developments like the Prevention of Crimes in the Name of Honour and Tradition Bill. Finally, the paper comes to conclusion that although the present laws are directionally appropriate, without a strong implementing framework and targeted legislations, in the context of the gender-sensitive interpretation by the judiciary conforming with human rights standards they are unable to address the issue properly. Keywords Honour killings; international human rights law; CEDAW; Indian jurisprudence; gender-based violence; constitutional rights

ABSTRACT Are democratic institutions under threat in the United States? We examine an understudied democratic bedrock: the judiciary and, in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court. We draw on data from “SCOTUSapp,” a tool that provides a database of 100,000+ news articles across thousands of unexamined sources. We find a new media environment where the Court receives attention from thousands of ideologically fragmented outlets. Additionally, some framings of the Court are potentially corrosive. We then use two experiments to examine the effects of these corrosive news frames. The first experiment (October 2021) provides evidence that frames portraying the Court as embroiled in secrecy, hypocrisy, illegitimacy, and politics cause a decrease in support for judicial independence. These frames are influential among Republicans and Democrats. The second experiment (May 2023) follows Dobbs, which severely damaged judicial faith among Democrats, and shows that corrosive frames lead to a corresponding decline only among strong Republicans.

‘The trajectory of Right to Education in India is a steady though firm transition from a policy goal to a constitutionally guaranteed and legally enforceable right. Education has been recognised by international human rights instruments as fundamental to human dignity, equality and the full development of the individual, and these principles have increasingly informed Indian constitutional and legislative thinking. Historical initiatives such as early colonial era debates, regional experiments with compulsory primary education, recommendations of committees and commissions and national education policies laid the intellectual and administrative foundations of universal elementary education. The turning point was the Supreme Court’s declaration that education is a fundamental right of children in the age group of six to fourteen years and the 86th Constitutional Amendment and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Collectively, these measures converted access to primary education from a directive goal into a justiciable right. But constitutional recognition alone does not guarantee educational justice. Persistent challenges related to access, quality, equity, infrastructure, teacher availability and social exclusion continue to impede the realisation of the right. The study thus concludes that the Right to Education is not only a legal guarantee but also a democratic commitment requiring sustained political will, public investment and inclusive implementation so that every child can participate fully and equally in national development.’

Access to sexual and reproductive health care varies widely by geography, and state-level policies play a major role in establishing the contours that govern the coverage, provision, availability, and costs of services. The role of state-level policies has been amplified in the wake of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eliminated the federal right to abortion care allowing states to set their own policies to ban or protect abortion. Additionally, states play a major role in shaping Medicaid policies that affect access to contraception and maternity care. This Perspective examines the many ways that state policy choices affects access to three interrelated areas of reproductive health care: contraception, abortion, and maternity care. State policy actions and decisions are at the core of reproductive health coverage and access. They are shaped by funding decisions, eligibility, and coverage polices established by the legislative and administrative bodies. This includes state policies related to contraceptive coverage and rights, Medicaid eligibility, telehealth and pharmacy access, scope of Medicaid and private insurance coverage, and efforts related to quality improvement and oversight. Affordability, availability, and coverage are still barriers to sexual and reproductive health services in many parts of the nation. Several states have intentionally erected barriers to abortion care, but structural challenges also affect contraception and maternity care access. Financing and regulatory policies treat contraception, abortion, and maternity care as distinct domains, but they are inextricably linked and many women often seek these services from the same clinicians. State level policies related to health coverage, reimbursement levels, workforce supply, and quality of care all overlap and affect the care that women receive and their experiences with the health care system. State policymakers play an outsize role in developing and implementing approaches to address their resident's reproductive health needs. The implementation of Medicaid work requirements and other federal cuts to health spending in the next several years is expected to lead to a major increase in people becoming uninsured at the same time that the reproductive health care safety-net faces financial uncertainty. States that take a coordinated, systems-level approach to health care can strengthen access, improve care delivery, and better meet patients' reproductive health care needs.

Live broadcasting of court hearings positions journalism within a negotiated space among open justice commitments, media logic, and professional ethics. This study explores how such negotiation unfolds in the daily practice of a national television news outlet’s live trial coverage. Using a qualitative descriptive case study, we gathered data through semi-structured interviews with five key informants (producer, assignment editor, programme director, field reporter, and camera operator), limited control room observation during live transmission, and document review of regulatory texts including Indonesia’s Broadcasting Behavior Guidelines and Programme Standards (P3SPS), the Journalistic Code of Ethics, and Supreme Court Regulation No. 5/2020. The result show (1) tensions between open justice and courtroom restrictions, mitigated through selective permissions, transmission delays, and self-censorship; (2) the dominance of media logic such as ratings, speed, and visuals balanced through curated imagery and avoidance of speculative commentary; (3) ethics and regulation compliance via internal newsroom procedures; and (4) public legal-education strategies through expert commentary and procedural framing. We synthesize “Journalistic Practice in Live Trials,” which conceptualizes courtroom broadcasting as a negotiated intersection of open justice, media logic, and professional ethics, carrying implications for governance and professional practice in court reporting.

Abstract Objective To assess how threat imminence shapes public judgments of deadly force used by police and by civilians, and whether the public believes the imminence requirement currently applies to police. Methods We fielded a nationally representative US survey experiment ( N = 1,183) that manipulated whether a suspect posed an imminent or non-imminent threat and whether a civilian or police officer faced the decision to use deadly force. Respondents evaluated support for shooting and reported beliefs about relevant legal rules. Results Imminence significantly affected support for deadly force. Although respondents were more supportive of police than civilians using deadly force across conditions, they generally disapproved of shooting a non-imminent threat. Nearly 95% of respondents incorrectly believed that Supreme Court precedent restricts police deadly force to imminent threats. Conclusions The public supports the imminence requirement for police and largely believes it already exists in law. This “imminence divide” between public expectations and legal standards may undermine police legitimacy when officers act lawfully but contrary to public judgment.

Questions concerning paternity have been of major interest over the centuries. Issues such as legitimacy, fidelity, inheritance and child maintenance have been central. Maternity was unequivocal, but paternity could be uncertain. A key issue in paternity cases was whether the mother's account of sexual intercourse was consistent with the timing of the birth. This required an understanding of the possible duration of pregnancy. We examined how law and forensic medicine assessed the significance of pregnancy duration in establishing paternity throughout the 20th century. The study is based on a review of paternity case judgments by the Norwegian Supreme Court in the 20th century with regard to pregnancy duration in the context of historical obstetric literature. Well into the 20th century, knowledge of pregnancy duration was primarily of interest in forensic medicine. Paternity could be ruled out but not established. In 1914, the Norwegian Forensic Medicine Commission defined pregnancy duration as 240-320 days, and this became the standard in Norwegian law for much of the 20th century. The courts made an overall assessment in which pregnancy duration and the mother's credibility, conduct and sexual morality were taken into account. Around 1990, DNA typing replaced blood group testing and discretionary assessments, and paternity disputes largely disappeared from the courts.

Maternal mental health disorders are among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality. In the US, the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and ensuing state-level abortion restrictions have raised concerns that such policies may worsen maternal health and mental health outcomes. To examine the association of the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) abortion law, which banned abortions after embryonic cardiac activity in September 2021, with maternal mental health outcomes. This repeated cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences (DiD) design with pooled data from the 2016 to 2023 National Survey of Children's Health. The nationally representative sample included US mothers aged 18 to 49 years who lived with at least 1 child aged 0 to 17 years. Data were analyzed from April to October 2025. Mothers residing in Texas represented the treatment group, and mothers in states without abortion bans (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) served as the control group. The primary outcome was mothers' self-reported fair or poor mental and emotional health. Logistic regression models, adjusted for child-, mother-, and household-level characteristics, were used to estimate changes in the probability of mental health outcomes for mothers coinciding with SB8 implementation. Similar models were estimated with maternal physical health and fathers' mental health as outcomes for sensitivity analyses. The sample included 4323 mothers in Texas (47.2% [95% CI, 45.1%-49.4%] aged 30-39 years) and 152 573 mothers in nonban states (47.1% [95% CI, 46.4%-47.7%] aged 30-39 years). Compared with mothers in nonban states, those in Texas experienced a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of reporting fair or poor mental health following SB8's implementation (DiD estimate, 2.52 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.02-5.01 percentage points). The largest increases were observed among mothers of children with public insurance (DiD estimate, 7.06 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.83-13.29 percentage points). No significant outcomes were observed for mothers' physical health outcomes or fathers' mental health in the sensitivity analyses. In this repeated cross-sectional study, the implementation of an abortion ban in Texas was associated with a worsening of maternal mental health among reproductive-age mothers relative to mothers in states without such bans. These results underscore the association of abortion restrictions with maternal mental health and highlight the need to strengthen support in the post-Dobbs policy environment.

The case of Aruna Shanbaug, a young nurse rendered permanently unconscious following a violent assault in 1973, stands as a defining moment in India's medico-legal and ethical history. Over four decades of institutional care without legal guardianship, reassessment, or advance directive brought to light the systemic gaps in forensic investigation, sexual violence prosecution, and end-of-life jurisprudence. This essay undertakes a critical analysis of the forensic failures surrounding the assault, the narrow legal definitions that denied justice, and the prolonged absence of ethical oversight in Shanbaug's custodial management. It further explores the Supreme Court's 2011 judgment on passive euthanasia, which - though denying the specific plea - laid the groundwork for constitutional recognition of the right to die with dignity. By drawing comparisons with international cases such as Terri Schiavo (USA) and Tony Bland (UK), the essay situates the Indian experience within a global discourse on bioethics, autonomy, and medical futility. It also charts the post-2011 evolution of Indian medico-legal frameworks, including the recognition of advance directives, reforms in sexual violence law, and the institutionalization of ethical review in clinical practice. Through this multidisciplinary reappraisal, the essay argues that the Shanbaug case was both a consequence of systemic inaction and a catalyst for enduring reform in law, medicine, and ethics in India.

Italian Supreme Court Rules on the Use of an Incoterm in a Contract of Sale to Define the Place of Delivery for Jurisdiction Purposes