University of California Hastings College of the Law
UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (University of California, Hastings College of the Law)Not a member yet
18514 research outputs found
Sort by
The Intrusive State: Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Minors, Exceptions to the Doctrine of Parental Consent, and Reliance on Science and Medical Expertise
No full textThe provision of gender-affirming medical care to transgender or gender diverse (“TGD”) youth is currently the subject of substantial controversy despite an overwhelming consensus in the healthcare community as to the safety and potential benefits of recommended treatments. Much of the debate is fueled by misinformation and inaccurate characterization of research and practice. Against this backdrop, twenty-three states enacted restrictions or complete prohibitions on access to gender-affirming medical care for adolescents between 2021 and the time of this writing in early 2024. The policies typically place healthcare practitioners who provide such services at risk of license revocation. Some statutes create rights of enforcement in third parties or the state, some establish criminal penalties, and others restrict financing of services. Minor patients and their parents have sued to prevent enforcement of these policies, alleging violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Many federal and state district courts have issued preliminary injunctions staying enforcement of some or all of the provisions of the reviewed statutes. Some of these injunctions have been reversed or modified on appeal, creating a split in the federal circuits. This Article reviews and examines the enacted state measures and the litigation challenging those policies. It focuses primarily on Due Process Clause challenges, analyzing the issues through the lens of the law governing healthcare decisionmaking for minors. Guided by federal constitutional law, state statutory and case law, scholarly commentary, and the new Restatement of Children and the Law, this Article reviews the doctrine of parental consent and its exceptions. It concludes that the recent state restrictions on access to gender- affirming care for TGD youth do not satisfy the legally recognized exceptions to that doctrine, and that therefore, the intrusions into family decisionmaking authorized by these statutes are unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause.
Proponents of these measures reject the scientific basis for the standards of care and the consensus positions of the healthcare community. In their place, the measures’ proponents proffer misinformation and in some instances, disinformation (that is, content disseminated with the intent of creating controversy, confusion, and uncertainty). Of additional concern, some federal appellate courts have given weight to these unsubstantiated assertions and misrepresentations of the scientific literature in reversing lower court decisions that were well-grounded in the science. This phenomenon reflects a broader trend: Politically and ideologically motivated efforts have infused misinformation into public discussions and legal decisionmaking, affecting the outcomes of legal decisions.
As the review of the scientific literature within this Article reveals, the measures—not the treatments they restrict—risk substantial harm to a highly vulnerable group of young persons and their families, isolating these individuals and families from much-needed professional sources of treatment and support. Although the denial of needed treatment is the most obvious harm, the infliction of pain on these children and their families through social stigmatization, rejection, and marginalization is among the many ripple effects of these legal measures
Stock-Based Compensation in Startups: Employee Implications & Potential Solutions
No full textStock-based compensation remains prevalent in the United States private market, particularly among high-growth private companies, yet concerns persist regarding its potential drawbacks. This paper focuses on stock-based compensation in startup companies, delving into the legal frameworks behind the practice and identifying regulatory gaps. It examines well-known advantages of stock-based compensation, common misconceptions, and highlights its many disadvantages, primarily from the perspective of a startup employee. These drawbacks stem from the lack of private company disclosure obligations, illiquidity and lock-in concerns, and regulatory changes favoring the private market. This paper also explores a trend in the SEC’s tone toward increased regulation of private companies, evaluates strategies taken by a few private firms to mitigate associated risks, as well as potential solutions, including improved disclosure, repricing programs, secondary market sales, and strategic adjustment of RSU liquidity event conditions
Big Capital & the Carceral State
No full textWho is accountable for the imposition of punishment in our carceral system? The answer used to be much simpler, as we held local, state, and federal government actors responsible. In recent decades, however, our correctional system has become increasingly privatized, with deeply troubling results. All aspects of the carceral state—whether prisons, jails, juvenile detention, rehabilitation, forensic hospitals, bail, or electronic monitoring—have dramatically increased their use of privatized correctional services.
With this new world of privatized corrections, we frequently don’t know whom can be held accountable when wrongdoing occurs. The bulk of our correctional services are now provided by complicated web of private entities, some of them large and publicly held, some owned by private equity. I dub them “Big Capital.”
Big Capital has invaded the carceral universe. Almost every aspect of correctional control has been outsourced to private companies somewhere. The normalization of private equity firms and enormous correction corporations partnering with public carceral institutions has resulted in a failure of basic incarceration services. Although private prisons, prison labor for private profit, and privatized services for inmates are nothing new, Big Capital’s recent infiltration into the carceral state has no historical parallel.
This Article seeks to uncover these companies’ incursion into the realm of public corrections and detail the disastrous results for those under correctional control. In so doing, I also explain why allowing complicated private entities to control our carceral system has made matters far worse, violating fundamental U.S. philosophies about punishment and rehabilitation, creating conflicts of interest, undermining democratic legitimacy, and ultimately corrupting the administration of justice
