Originally intended as a keynote address yet cancelled due to a global pandemic, this Article is timely in its analysis of a confluence of events across the nation that compel discussion of bioethics in a broad sense, as a lens through which to work toward social justice in America, further emphasizing important health inequities in America today. This Article examines disparities, first, by discussing the current social upheavals and their impact in America. Next, it explores one regulatory move that has almost been lost in the midst of a myriad of other pressing issues: the Trump administration’s claim of a clash of civil rights regarding transgender access to health care. Finally, this Article urges those at the intersection of law, medicine, and bioethics to do what they can to lessen the impact of recent events on vulnerable populations. It stresses how the current lack of care, and even outright cruelty rendering a variety of people susceptible to early death, illustrates why there must be more attention paid to social justice in the United States. 

While bioethics scholars and advocates have traditionally focused on individual rights, such as human-subject research and gene editing, some have recently begun to apply social justice principles to address community wide issues such as access to healthcare. Organizations, such as The Center for Practical Bioethics, have been successful at addressing community wide bioethical concerns, especially as it relates to healthcare. Similarly, community lawyering has focused on empowering poor or oppressed groups to create social change, build power, and establish leadership within communities. These efforts are largely grassroots mobilization though townhall meetings, door knocking, and face-to-face meetings. Community lawyers engage in a wide range of practices, including workers’ rights, immigration, children’s rights, public benefits, environmental rights, community economic development, and intellectual property. Community lawyers often partner with local groups and organizations to maximize their impact. As such, community lawyers and bioethics groups could maximize their impact on community bioethics concerns by partnering together. But who should community lawyers partner with and what are the drawbacks of the partnership? Community lawyers should partner with groups which target specific bioethics concerns at issue in their community including local hospitals and medical clinics. However, partnering with hospitals and medical clinics will create unique issues which community lawyers will have to address. Common issues, such as maintaining sustained community involvement, will not be the only issues community lawyers face when partnering with hospitals and clinics. Potential conflicts of interest and concerns over privacy and confidentiality are unique issues community lawyers and bioethics organizations may face during their partnership. Nevertheless, finding a way to overcome these challenges to serve their community’s needs will have a monumental impact. 

This Article asserts that the Florida Board of Bar Examiners violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by focusing its mental health inquiry solely on the disability status of applicants in Question 25 of the Florida Bar Application. It asks, “Within the past 5 years, have you been treated for, or experienced a recurrence of, schizophrenia or any other psychotic disorder, a bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder, that has impaired or could impair your ability to practice law?” If an applicant answers this affirmatively, that imposes an automatic subsequent request for information and potential investigation regardless of the extent to which such a disorder has resulted in problematic conduct. Accordingly, Question 25 is overly broad, is unrelated to protecting the public and safeguarding the judicial system, and thus discriminates against applicants with particular mental disorders by subjecting them to additional burdens solely because of their disability status. This Article offers a simple solution: use a set of conduct-focused mental health disclosure questions that is authorized by the Department of Justice as ADA compliant. 

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) homeless definition excludes most of those living in doubled-up situations. Living doubled-up means the person or family is living in another’s home. This Article argues that HUD’s interpretation of the HEARTH Act’s definition of homeless is incorrect based on legislative history and modern understandings of homelessness. The federal response to homelessness has historically evolved in response to crises. In the 1980s and late 2000s, the country faced national economic and housing crises, prompting the government to address national homelessness. While the understanding of homelessness in the 1980s was driven by healthcare disparities, the 2009 housing crisis forced the federal response to evolve to address homelessness as the complex economic and social issue it is. In light of this evolution in federal understandings of homelessness and the similarities between the doubled-up and those in shelters, this Article argues that HUD wrongfully excludes most of the doubled-up and should therefore amend its definition to include them.