Supreme Court News Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Louis J. Virelli and Richard W. Murphy, Supreme Court News, 49 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 26 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli and Richard W. Murphy, Supreme Court News, 49 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 26 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Including Disabled People in the Battle to Protect Abortion Rights: A Call-to-Action, 70 UCLA L. Rev. 774 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The battle to protect abortion rights in the United States has not been this fierce in fifty years. From the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision to a precipitously growing number of states passing draconian laws that drastically limit—and in some states, entirely ban—access to safe and legal abortion services, reproductive freedom is under siege at every turn. The current assault on reproductive freedom has had devastating consequences for all people, but most acutely for historically marginalized communities, including people with disabilities. Critically, this attack most adversely affects people who live at the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities or statuses. Nonetheless, when disability is invoked in discourse concerning abortion, it is typically done to either support or oppose abortions based on fetal disability diagnoses. By framing disability and abortion only in the context of disability- selective abortions, activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers fail to recognize that it is actual disabled people—not hypothetical fetuses with disability diagnoses—who are harmed by abortion restrictions. Indeed, disabled people disproportionately experience pervasive and persistent disadvantages that increase their need for abortion services. They also experience considerable structural, legal, and institutional barriers that already put access to safe and legal abortion out of reach for many.
In response, the Article proposes a blueprint to help activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers as they imagine the next steps in the battle to protect abortion rights in a way that fully includes people with disabilities. First, the Article situates the current battle to protect abortion rights within the social and institutional contexts that propagate reproductive oppression of people with disabilities by examining how reproduction has been weaponized over time to subjugate disabled people as well as presenting contemporary examples of such injustices. Thereafter, it explores disabled people’s unique needs for abortion services and the myriad ways they are disproportionately and adversely affected by restrictions on abortion rights. Next, the Article presents disability reproductive justice, a jurisprudential and legislative framework, and its application to the fight for abortion rights. Finally, drawing from disability reproductive justice, the Article suggests normative and transformative legal and policy solutions for challenging the current assault on abortion rights and its impact on disabled people.
Date of Publication:
Jaclyn Lopez, Diminished Access to Judicial Review Is an Unacceptable Consequence of EPA’s Delegation of Its Responsibilities to States, 53 Envtl. L. 571 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The delegation of federal authority over national resources can, in theory, present conservation opportunities, but in fact has entrenched grave pitfalls. This Article explores a significant consequence of federal delegation that has received little serious consideration by courts, agencies, and scholarship: how the Environmental Protection Agency's delegation of federal bedrock environmental laws subverts Congress's intent to empower citizens to enforce these statutes when agencies will not. There are substantial differences between federal and state judicial review, specifically with respect to standing and fee shifting, which effectively limit which kinds of plaintiffs can challenge decisions that impact natural resources. This Article explores the regulatory
framework of delegation, and by focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency's recent delegation of 404 permitting to the state of Florida, provides a case study for how delegation can undermine Congress's intent to provide citizens access to judicial review. The analysis presented here, and the recommended remedies, may aid in identifying and addressing similar injustices in other state regulatory frameworks.
Date of Publication:
S. Mazeika Patricio Sullivan and Royal C. Gardner, US Supreme Court Opinion Harms Watersheds, 381 Science 385 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 37 Property and Probate 14 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, The US Supreme Court Has Gutted Federal Protection for Wetlands — Now What?, 618 Nature 215 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Most US wetlands just lost federal protection, but there’s still time for state and local governments to act. Scientists and the public can help.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, What the US Supreme Court Decision Means for Wetlands, 618 Nature 215 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle, Catalytic Converter Theft Fuels Thriving Black-Market Recycling, 39 Int'l Enforcement L. Reporter 240 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli and Richard W. Murphy, Supreme Court News, 48 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 21 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Disability Reproductive Justice During COVID-19 and Beyond, 72 Am. U. L. Rev. 1821 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The United States is experiencing the convergence of two crises threatening the reproductive freedom of people with disabilities and other historically marginalized groups: the COVID-19 pandemic and a rising assault on reproductive rights, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. This convergence has created a perfect storm, revealing the depth of existing reproductive injustices endured by disabled people and forcing a reckoning with the consequences of permitting such inequities to persist. As such, urgent attention by activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers is necessary.
In response, this Article offers a vision for addressing the deeply entrenched reproductive injustices experienced by people with disabilities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. To do so, first, the Article explores the reproductive oppression experienced by disabled people before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating that the current inequities are a continuation of long-lasting problems. Specifically, it examines reproductive health and healthcare inequities, barriers to information, contraception, and abortion, risks to self-determination and autonomy, and parenting challenges and threats. Thereafter, it presents disability reproductive justice and explains the significance of this jurisprudential and legislative framework for achieving reproductive freedom for people with disabilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, drawing from the disability reproductive justice framework, this Article concludes by suggesting legal and policy solutions to address disabled people’s immediate reproductive needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a path forward for dismantling the roots of the longstanding reproductive inequities they experience. It also considers issues requiring further attention and inquiry.