Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University School of Law Research: Scholarship CommonsNot a member yet
3119 research outputs found
Sort by
Law, Structural Racism, and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Get PDFRacial and ethnic minorities have always been the most impacted by pandemics because of: disparities in exposure to the virus; disparities in susceptibility to contracting the virus; and disparities in treatment. This article explains how structural racism, the ways in which laws are used to advantage the majority and disadvantage racial and ethnic minorities, has caused these disparities. Specifically, this article focuses on how employment, housing, health care, and COVID-19 relief laws have been manipulated to disadvantage racial and ethnic minorities, making minorities more susceptible to COVID-19 infection and death. This article uses Blumenshine’s 2008 framework to outline how structural racism causes racial and ethnic minorities’ disparities in exposure to viruses, in susceptibility to contracting viruses, in treatment of viruses, and in infection and death rates. This article discusses how historical and current practices of structural racism in existing employment, housing, and health care laws and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) cause disparities in COVID-19 infections and deaths. This article suggests legal solutions to address structural racism as well as public health solutions to help mitigate the racialized effects of the disease
The Importance of Standardized Data Collection and Reporting in Improving Medical Care for Immigration Detainees
Get PDFThe provision of substandard medical care for immigration detainees has become somewhat of a norm for some time now. From October 1, 2003 to June 5, 2017, alone, there were a total of 172 deaths in ICE custody. This number is only rising as the number of detainee beds increases and ICE continues to not be held accountable. Presently, there lacks a mechanism for oversight and accountability of ICE. This Comment suggests that requiring standardized data collection and reporting efforts is a crucial first step towards improving the medical care for immigration detainees and creating a mechanism for oversight and accountability over ICE
\u27Terroristic Threats\u27 and COVID-19: A Guide for the Perplexed
Get PDFThe first few months of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States saw the rise of a troubling sort of behavior: people would cough or spit on people or otherwise threaten to spread the COVID-19 virus, resulting in panic and sometimes thousands of dollars’ worth of damages to businesses. Those who have been caught doing this — or have filmed themselves doing it — have been charged under so-called “terroristic threat” statutes. But what is a terroristic threat, and is it an appropriate charge in these cases? Surprisingly little has been written about these statutes given their long history and regular use by states. Our article is one of the first to look systematically at these statutes, and we do so in light of the rash of these charges during the recent pandemic./= / \u3e/= / \u3eOur argument begins with the premise that these statutes typically contemplate a “core case” of terroristic threatening, e.g., someone calls in a bomb threat which forces the evacuation of a building. But these statutes have been variously revised and repurposed over the years, most notably to mass shootings, and more problematically to those who threaten to give others HIV. The recent COVID-19 charges seem to involve facts that are outside the “core case,” so that even if terroristic threatening is a permissible charge in these cases, it is often not the most appropriate one. We conclude by suggesting that in many of the COVID-19 cases other charges should be made (criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, false reporting, etc.) instead of terroristic threatening, and that a lot of the expressive and deterrence benefits of more serious charges can be accomplished just as well by social disapproval
The Reemergence of Vaccine Nationalism
Get PDFThis short essay explores the reemergence of vaccine nationalism during the COVID-19 pandemic. The essay traces the pre-COVID origins of vaccine nationalism and explains how it can have detrimental effects on equitable access to newly developed vaccines
Comments on the Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine
Get PDFOn September 1, 2020 the National Academies released a draft framework for Equitable Allocation of a COVID-19 Vaccine. In this response, we analyze the proposed framework and highlight several areas.
Among the proposed changes, we highlight the need for the following interventions. The final framework for distribution of COVID-19 vaccines should give a higher priority to populations made most vulnerable by the social determinants of health. It should incorporate more geography-based approaches in at least some of the four proposed phases of vaccine distribution. It should address the possibility of a vaccine being made available through an emergency use authorization (EUA), which we argue should not serve as a basis for widespread distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, and which may not be appropriate at all for the regulatory review of new vaccines. Moreover, it should address potential adjustments to the allocative framework once additional data pertaining to multiple vaccines becomes available, especially by discussing whether steps should be taken to prevent the administration of different vaccines to the same individual. Finally, it should provide guidance on allocation of vaccine in the case of a surplus, and specifically the Committee should specify whether unused doses of vaccine would automatically be allocated to next-level priority populations, and whether that would take place in the same geographical area