Loyola University Chicago, School of Law: LAW eCommons
Not a member yet
4877 research outputs found
Sort by
\u3cem\u3eMoore v. Texas\u3c/em\u3e and the Ongoing National Consensus Struggle Between the Eighth Amendment, the Death Penalty, and the Definition of Intellectual Disability
Get PDFIn Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court clarified its categorical ban against the death penalty for intellectually disabled individuals, holding that states cannot disregard current medical diagnostic criteria when making a legal determination of intellectual disability. The Court continued to hone the rules from Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida and correctly found that the reliance on outdated or subjective criteria creates an unacceptable risk of imposing a cruel and unusual punishment on such individuals. Furthermore, the Court demonstrated the crucial importance of utilizing legitimate and modern clinical standards to reflect a national consensus as well as evolving standards of decency.
In the wake of Moore, states will see many appeals from individuals on the cusp of intellectual disability seeking to overturn their death sentences. Importantly, the Court’s decision to hear any such appeals may very well be colored by fluctuations within the medical community in the interim. The addition of two conservative Justices since Moore was decided, however, means the rules from Moore, Hall, and Atkins will likely cease to expand
Exploring Precision FDA, an Online Platform for Crowdsourcing Genomics
No full textThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration has created an online platform for the next generation sequencing community, enabling users to evaluate biomarker information and share resources. This article examines this online platform and offers several observations about potential legal and regulatory implications
Reexamining Eli Lilly v. Canada: A Human Rights Approach to Investor-State Disputes?
Get PDFThis Article provides valuable insight to the broader discussion of reforming investor-state disputes. Many have noted that the system is in a crisis due to a lack of democratic accountability and inconsistent decisions, which create a chilling effect on legitimate domestic law and policy. Despite substantial discussion in recent years concerning how to reform investor-state disputes, there is only limited discussion concerning the extent to which such disputes challenge domestic intellectual property (IP) limits, as well as global IP norms. Moreover, even among those who recognize the challenge to IP limits, the relevance of human rights is generally not addressed. This Article begins to fill this gap from two angles. First, it aims to promote a better understanding of how such disputes undermine the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) at an important time when policymakers are recommending reliance on policy space under TRIPS. Second, it considers whether human rights might help to protect this policy space using the facts of Eli Lilly v. Canada
