University of California, Irvine
University of California, Irvine: UCI Law Scholarly CommonsNot a member yet
1242 research outputs found
Sort by
Striking Down Physician-Only Laws: A Necessary and Constitutionally Required Answer to the United States’ Critical Abortion Provider Shortage
Full text linkIn 2020, women in South Dakota were deprived of an abortion provider in their state for seven months because the pandemic prevented out-of-state physicians from traveling. And as of late 2021, multiple states had only one abortion provider: if just one physician left, entire states or regions would be cut off from abortion access. The dearth of abortion care is not just caused by the pandemic or the escalating state-imposed restrictions on clinics that force them to close: it is the fact that laws in thirty-six states limiting the provision of abortion to physicians exclude an entire group of practitioners willing and able to safely administer early-term abortions. Including advanced practice clinicians (APCs)—who hold master’s or doctoral degrees—in the provision of first-trimester abortion will ameliorate the United States’ abortion provider shortage, especially for marginalized women.
Excluding APCs from abortion care is not just impractical: it is also unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court made clear in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that medical evidence must support a state’s health-motivated abortion restriction, physician-only laws cannot pass constitutional muster. It is well established that there is no difference in health outcomes between APC and physician-administered first trimester abortions. But the Supreme Court overturning Roe. v. Wade signals an unwillingness to appropriately follow bedrock abortion precedent, meaning that federal and state legislatures must also repeal physician-only laws in the case that the Supreme Court continues to disregard long-standing precedent
A Delicate Balance: Rethinking the Physician’s Role in Physician Aid-in-Dying
Full text linkThis Note considers the current framework of states’ death with dignity laws and analyzes physicians’ views of the legal standards to determine whether the current procedures in death with dignity states adequately protect the patient’s interests. Aid in Dying (AID) legislation attempts to balance individual privacy interests with state interests: obtaining an ideal balance is the state legislature’s goal and is the topic of much advocacy. This Note examines the current laws from a medical perspective and considers how physicians, as the ones implementing the laws, view their role and the legislative safeguards.
Part I reviews the history of AID through Supreme Court cases and concludes that AID is not a recognized constitutional right, and so legislation prohibiting or regulating AID is within the discretion of state legislators. Part II examines the state interests that are implicated by AID and physician concerns with legislation meant to protect those interests. Part III provides suggestions that states could implement to address physician concerns, including increased physician training, increased physician reporting requirements, and increased government oversight
The Globalization of Legal Education: A Critical Perspective
Full text linkhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2022-2023_book-covers/1009/thumbnail.jp
Negotiation: A Very Short Introduction
Full text linkhttps://scholarship.law.uci.edu/celebration_of_books_2022-2023_book-covers/1013/thumbnail.jp
Immigration Detention and Illusory Alternatives to Habeas
Full text linkThe Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether, or under what circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus may be used to challenge the conditions of detention, as opposed to the fact or duration of detention. Consequently, a circuit split exists on habeas jurisdiction over conditions claims. The COVID-19 pandemic brought this issue into the spotlight as detained individuals fearing infection, serious illness, and death requested release through habeas petitions around the country. One of the factors that courts considered in deciding whether to exercise habeas jurisdiction was whether alternative remedies exist, through a civil rights or tort-based action. This Article examines that question in depth, focusing specifically on the availability of meaningful alternatives for detained noncitizens. The Article analyzes challenges for noncitizens in bringing civil rights actions under Section 1983 or Bivens, tort actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act and state tort laws, and actions for injunctive relief directly under the Fifth Amendment and under the Administrative Procedure Act. By demonstrating that meaningful alternatives to habeas are often illusory for detained noncitizens, the Article argues that courts should err on the side of exercising habeas jurisdiction instead of making cursory conclusions that alternative remedies can be pursued
03. Floorplan of First Floor of Education Building
No full textThis undated map shows a proposed floorplan for the first floor of Education Building. While the main entry, classrooms, and restrooms are in the same spots as shown here, much of this plan was later modified
Representation, Inequality, Marginalization, and International Law-Making: The Case of the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission
Full text linkThis Article assesses the extent of inequality and marginalization in the making of international law. It examines whether there is equal contribution, and equal opportunity for contribution, in the making of international law by and for all States. In particular, the Article ponders whether the Global South is marginalized in law-making processes, or, put another way, whether the Global North is privileged. The Article evaluates whether there is equitable representation in international law-making bodies, and it focuses on the two most prominent ones, namely the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission. The assessment addresses both the formal requirements of representation and the actual practices within both bodies
Theorizing Intergenerational Justice in International Law: The Case of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Full text linkOn July 21, 2021, a resolution was introduced in the Chicago City Council calling on the US government to ratify the new United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and describing the struggle to abolish nuclear weapons as a matter of racial justice. Unlike prior nuclear disarmament treaties, the TPNW bans all nuclear weapons outright and reframes nuclear disarmament as a matter of decolonial struggle. The coming into force of the TPNW treaty raises questions about the relationship between this new treaty regime and the traditional framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
In this Article, we argue for understanding the novelty of the TPNW through the prism of intergenerational conflict and justice. The Nuclear Ban Treaty comes into effect at a moment when the generation that personally experienced nuclear warfare is quickly passing, and it speaks to a new generation of activists and diplomats who place less hope in back-room negotiations among great powers. More broadly, we argue for centering intergenerational justice in international law. Although the question of what each generation owes the next is not a standard frame of reference in international law, as we suggest in Part II, upon closer analysis, questions of intergenerational justice pervade may international legal problems, from climate change to human rights to the law of war.
To address the challenge of intergenerational justice demands that international lawyers develop more complex and subtle approaches to intergenerational conflict and collaboration. In Part III, we borrow insights from a global anti-nuclear art mural project with roots in Chicago\u27s community-based struggles for racial justice in which political action is framed as a problem of intergenerational collaboration.
Ultimately, we argue in Part IV that the contested relationship between the NPT and the TPNW frameworks can be an opportunity for intergenerational collaboration of its own. Progress on the elimination of nuclear weapons now requires working across generational divides in international law and developing methodologies and commitments to build solidarity across generations of experts and activists
