This document provides background information on the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. It discusses the history of relevant legislation and case law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It summarizes the Hobby Lobby case, in which for-profit corporations challenged the ACA contraceptive mandate on religious grounds under RFRA. The document analyzes the Court's decision and implications, including whether corporations can claim protections under RFRA and how the decision contradicts previous precedent.
CALIFORNIA Anti-SLAPP Law - - Garretson Resolution Group appears to be FRONTING Law Firm for United States President Barack Obama and Legal Counsel/Advisor (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz) which has submitted a SLAPP Complaint to OneWebHosting.com in efforts of PREVENTING the PUBLIC/WORLD from knowing of its and President Barack Obama's ROLE in CONSPIRACIES leveled against Vogel Denise Newsome in EXPOSING the TRUTH behind the 911 DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS, COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT violations and other crimes of United States Government Officials. Information that United States President Barack Obama, The Garretson Resolution Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, and United States Congress, etc. do NOT want the PUBLIC/WORLD to see. Information of PUBLIC Interest!
Federal Cannabis (Kaneh-Bos) Religious Permit and CorrespondenceAlan Gordon
Correspondence between activists Anne Armstrong and Alan Gordon and the National Park Service, leading to religious use permit for cannabis (Kaneh-Bos).
U.S. Supreme Court invalidates President's appointments to Labor BoardIus Laboris
In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that President Obama’s appointments of members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were unconstitutional. Rick Warren from our U.S. member firm FordHarrison explains.
Originally posted on the Ius Laboris Knowledge Base: www.globalhrlaw.com
How Far Can The President Go To Overhaul The U.S. Immigration System Without The Blessing of Congress?
President Obama reiterated his commitment to immigration reform and reproached the House Republicans for their unwillingness to confront this important issue. Potentially, the combination of four factors ─ Pressure from the immigration advocates that the President has done little on the immigration issue; Speaker John Boehner’s statement that the House would not vote on immigration legislation this year; the surge of children crossing the southern border (mostly from Mexico and Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras); and strategic positioning for the upcoming midterm elections ─ have all led to this recent announcement.
CALIFORNIA Anti-SLAPP Law - - Garretson Resolution Group appears to be FRONTING Law Firm for United States President Barack Obama and Legal Counsel/Advisor (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz) which has submitted a SLAPP Complaint to OneWebHosting.com in efforts of PREVENTING the PUBLIC/WORLD from knowing of its and President Barack Obama's ROLE in CONSPIRACIES leveled against Vogel Denise Newsome in EXPOSING the TRUTH behind the 911 DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS, COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT violations and other crimes of United States Government Officials. Information that United States President Barack Obama, The Garretson Resolution Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, and United States Congress, etc. do NOT want the PUBLIC/WORLD to see. Information of PUBLIC Interest!
Federal Cannabis (Kaneh-Bos) Religious Permit and CorrespondenceAlan Gordon
Correspondence between activists Anne Armstrong and Alan Gordon and the National Park Service, leading to religious use permit for cannabis (Kaneh-Bos).
U.S. Supreme Court invalidates President's appointments to Labor BoardIus Laboris
In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that President Obama’s appointments of members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were unconstitutional. Rick Warren from our U.S. member firm FordHarrison explains.
Originally posted on the Ius Laboris Knowledge Base: www.globalhrlaw.com
How Far Can The President Go To Overhaul The U.S. Immigration System Without The Blessing of Congress?
President Obama reiterated his commitment to immigration reform and reproached the House Republicans for their unwillingness to confront this important issue. Potentially, the combination of four factors ─ Pressure from the immigration advocates that the President has done little on the immigration issue; Speaker John Boehner’s statement that the House would not vote on immigration legislation this year; the surge of children crossing the southern border (mostly from Mexico and Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras); and strategic positioning for the upcoming midterm elections ─ have all led to this recent announcement.
Resource Case Brief Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al. in C.docxdebishakespeare
Resource: Case Brief Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al. in Ch. 2, section 2-6, “Commerce Powers,” of the text.
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in which you define the functions and role of law in business and society. Discuss the functions and role of law in your past or present job or industry. Properly cite at least two references from your reading.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
CASE 2.1 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
FACT SUMMARY Cipollone brought suit against
Liggett for violation of several New Jersey consumer
protection statutes alleging that Liggett (and other
cigarette manufacturers) were liable for his mother’s
death because they engaged in a course of conduct
including false advertising, fraudulently misrepresenting
the hazards of smoking, and conspiracy to deprive
the public of medical and scientific information about
smoking. Liggett urged the court to dismiss the state
law claims contending that the claims related to the
manufacturer’s advertising and promotional activities
were preempted by twCASE 2.1 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
FACT SUMMARY Cipollone brought suit against
Liggett for violation of several New Jersey consumer
protection statutes alleging that Liggett (and other
cigarette manufacturers) were liable for his mother’s
death because they engaged in a course of conduct
including false advertising, fraudulently misrepresenting
the hazards of smoking, and conspiracy to deprive
the public of medical and scientific information about
smoking. Liggett urged the court to dismiss the state
law claims contending that the claims related to the
manufacturer’s advertising and promotional activities
were preempted by two federal laws: (1) the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, and
(2) the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969.
SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Cipollone, holding
that his claims relying on state law were preempted by
federal law. The Court cited both the text of the statute
and the legislative history in concluding that Congress’s
intent in enactment of the laws was to preempt
state laws regulating the advertising and promotion of
tobacco products. Because Congress chose specifically
to regulate a certain type of advertising (tobacco), federal
law is supreme to any state law that attempts to
regulate that same category of advertising.
WORDS OF THE COURT: Preemption “Article VI of
the Constitution provides that the laws of the United
States shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Thus,
[. . .] it has been settled that state law that conflicts
with federal law is ‘without effect.’ [. . .] Accordingly,
‘the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone’
of pre-emption analysis. Congress’s intent may be
‘explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly
contained in its structure and purpose.’ In ...
FPTP - Recent developments within the US Supreme Courttutor2u
The Roberts Court usually hears around 70 to 80 cases a year. Most are of a dry and legalistic character, with little to capture the interest of students or teachers. However, there are times when the Court passes judgement on a case that could genuinely be considered a landmark.
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights Those .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter you should better understand:
· • The standards applied for determining whether a procedure satisfies the constitutional due process requirements
· • The manner in which the restrictions on federal government action in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the due process guaranty that applies to state actions
· • The U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to determining whether classifications violate the constitutional equal protection requirements
· • The classifications to which “strict scrutiny” is applied in the equal protection analysis
· • The basic remedies available for civil rights violations
At the heart of the rule of law lie the ideals that everyone should be treated fairly and equally before the law. Toward this end the U.S. Constitution protects individual rights by constraining government. But fairness and equality cannot be reduced to prohibitions. To reach more broadly the Constitution also includes fundamental guaranties. Many important court decisions and legislative acts addressing individual rights have been based on the two most fundamental general guaranties: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
A Due Process Clause was part of the Fifth Amendment in the original Bill of Rights and it was aimed at the federal government. It provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.” The original Bill of Rights did not mention equal protection of the laws in a general sense. The Fourteenth Amendment, added after the Civil War and aimed at former slave states, included the same due process provisions as the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also included the Equal Protection Clause. It provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although nothing in the text said that equal protection applied to the federal government as well as to the states, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually held that it did. In 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe the Court said that “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law,’ and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”1 Consequently due process and equal protection apply to both federal and state laws.
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses address government action. They require that laws and legal procedures be fair. As discussed in the final section of this chapter, other constitutional provisions or laws may directly address unfair or discriminato ...
Resource Case Brief Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al. in C.docxdebishakespeare
Resource: Case Brief Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al. in Ch. 2, section 2-6, “Commerce Powers,” of the text.
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in which you define the functions and role of law in business and society. Discuss the functions and role of law in your past or present job or industry. Properly cite at least two references from your reading.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
CASE 2.1 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
FACT SUMMARY Cipollone brought suit against
Liggett for violation of several New Jersey consumer
protection statutes alleging that Liggett (and other
cigarette manufacturers) were liable for his mother’s
death because they engaged in a course of conduct
including false advertising, fraudulently misrepresenting
the hazards of smoking, and conspiracy to deprive
the public of medical and scientific information about
smoking. Liggett urged the court to dismiss the state
law claims contending that the claims related to the
manufacturer’s advertising and promotional activities
were preempted by twCASE 2.1 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
FACT SUMMARY Cipollone brought suit against
Liggett for violation of several New Jersey consumer
protection statutes alleging that Liggett (and other
cigarette manufacturers) were liable for his mother’s
death because they engaged in a course of conduct
including false advertising, fraudulently misrepresenting
the hazards of smoking, and conspiracy to deprive
the public of medical and scientific information about
smoking. Liggett urged the court to dismiss the state
law claims contending that the claims related to the
manufacturer’s advertising and promotional activities
were preempted by two federal laws: (1) the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, and
(2) the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969.
SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Cipollone, holding
that his claims relying on state law were preempted by
federal law. The Court cited both the text of the statute
and the legislative history in concluding that Congress’s
intent in enactment of the laws was to preempt
state laws regulating the advertising and promotion of
tobacco products. Because Congress chose specifically
to regulate a certain type of advertising (tobacco), federal
law is supreme to any state law that attempts to
regulate that same category of advertising.
WORDS OF THE COURT: Preemption “Article VI of
the Constitution provides that the laws of the United
States shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Thus,
[. . .] it has been settled that state law that conflicts
with federal law is ‘without effect.’ [. . .] Accordingly,
‘the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone’
of pre-emption analysis. Congress’s intent may be
‘explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly
contained in its structure and purpose.’ In ...
FPTP - Recent developments within the US Supreme Courttutor2u
The Roberts Court usually hears around 70 to 80 cases a year. Most are of a dry and legalistic character, with little to capture the interest of students or teachers. However, there are times when the Court passes judgement on a case that could genuinely be considered a landmark.
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights Those .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter you should better understand:
· • The standards applied for determining whether a procedure satisfies the constitutional due process requirements
· • The manner in which the restrictions on federal government action in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the due process guaranty that applies to state actions
· • The U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to determining whether classifications violate the constitutional equal protection requirements
· • The classifications to which “strict scrutiny” is applied in the equal protection analysis
· • The basic remedies available for civil rights violations
At the heart of the rule of law lie the ideals that everyone should be treated fairly and equally before the law. Toward this end the U.S. Constitution protects individual rights by constraining government. But fairness and equality cannot be reduced to prohibitions. To reach more broadly the Constitution also includes fundamental guaranties. Many important court decisions and legislative acts addressing individual rights have been based on the two most fundamental general guaranties: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
A Due Process Clause was part of the Fifth Amendment in the original Bill of Rights and it was aimed at the federal government. It provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.” The original Bill of Rights did not mention equal protection of the laws in a general sense. The Fourteenth Amendment, added after the Civil War and aimed at former slave states, included the same due process provisions as the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also included the Equal Protection Clause. It provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although nothing in the text said that equal protection applied to the federal government as well as to the states, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually held that it did. In 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe the Court said that “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law,’ and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”1 Consequently due process and equal protection apply to both federal and state laws.
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses address government action. They require that laws and legal procedures be fair. As discussed in the final section of this chapter, other constitutional provisions or laws may directly address unfair or discriminato ...
Electronic copy available at httpssrn.comabstract=1375684.docxjack60216
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375684
1
THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2008:
A CASE STUDY OF THE NEED FOR BETTER CONGRESSIONAL
RESPONSES TO FEDERALISM JURISPRUDENCE
Harper Jean Tobin1
Abstract
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is the first new civil
rights statute enacted since the “federalism revolution” of 1995-2001, in which the
Supreme Court announced new limitations on congressional authority. Among other
things, these decisions invalidated civil rights remedies against states, declaring that
Congress had failed to amass sufficient evidence of the need for legislation. Although
passed in the shadow of these decisions, GINA’s limited legislative history makes it
vulnerable to attack – potentially limiting its protections for millions of state employees.
States will likely attack GINA on two grounds: first, that Congress relied only on its
commerce power, and not its Fourteenth Amendment remedial power; and second, that
Congress failed to identify a sufficient threat to constitutional rights to justify subjecting
states to suit. While there are strong grounds for rejecting these challenges, that outcome
is far from certain. The risk of invalidation might have been minimized had Congress
developed the rationale for GINA’s extension to the states more thoroughly, or
alternatively, required states to waive their immunity as a condition of federal grants.
These strategies are illustrated by recent proposed civil rights legislation addressing
sexual orientation discrimination and racial profiling, as well as by the Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization Act of 2006, which is currently before the Supreme Court. To ensure the
efficacy of future civil rights legislation, Congress should consistently tailor laws to
withstand federalism challenges. Future laws should expressly invoke Congress’s
authority and intent to create remedies against states; be accompanied by a strong and
targeted legislative record; expressly require waiver of state immunity; and specifically
enumerate remedies.
Introduction
In spring of 2008, more than a decade after its initial introduction, Congress
passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) with near-
1 Staff Attorney, Herbert Semmel Federal Rights Project, National Senior Citizens Law Center. My
colleagues, Simon Lazarus, Ian Millhiser, and especially Rochelle Bobroff provided invaluable comments
on this Article, as did Mark Posner and Jennifer Mathis. I am grateful to Christina Crosby, Rebecca
Sickenberger, and Lindsay Ruffner for their research and editorial assistance.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375684
2
unanimity. Designed to promote genetic research and preventive screening, safeguard
medical privacy, and prevent unfair treatment of individuals based on disease-linked
traits, GINA prohib ...
Judson, K., & Harrison, C. (20 16). Law and ethics for the h.docxtawnyataylor528
Judson, K., & Harrison, C. (20 16). Law and ethics for the
health professions. (7th ed. ). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Law&Et cs
FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONS
KAREN JUDSON
CARLENE HARRISON
Key Terms
204
Privacy, Security,
and Fraud
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
LO 8. I Discuss U.S. constitutional amendments and privacy
laws that pertain to health care.
LO 8.2 Explain HIPAA's special requirements for disclosing
protected health information.
LO 8.3 Discuss laws implemented to protect the security
of health care information as health records are
converted from paper to electronic form.
LO 8.4 Discuss the federal laws that cover fraud and abuse
within the health care business environment and the
role of the Office of the Inspector General in finding
billing fraud.
LO 8.5 Discuss patient rights as defined by HIPAA, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, and other health
care entities.
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF . ..
ANN, AN R.N. IN A TEXAS HOSPITAL FOR NEARLY 25 YEARS,
remembers when patients' names were posted on the doors to their
rooms. She and her colleagues once freely informed telephone call-
ers and visitors how patients were progressing. Now, Ann remarks,
because of federal legislation to protect the privacy and security of
health care information, times have changed. "We have to be so care-
ful about releasing any information that when my father's dear friend
was admitted to my floor in the hospital where I work, I couldn't tell
him that his friend had been admitted."
From Ann's perspective, because she cares about her patients, she
would like to be able to talk more freely with family members or friends
who also care about her patients. But she is duty-bound to follow the law,
and she knows the benefits to patients for laws that guard their privacy.
From the perspective of friends and family members who call for infor-
mation about a patient, the law is harsh and hard to understand. They are
often angry when they cannot learn the status of a friend or loved one.
From the perspective of some patients, the law sometimes feels over-
protective and unnecessarily intrusive, but for others-such as the patient
who has tried to commit suicide and failed, who doesn't want anyone to
know he is in the hospital, or the battered spouse who doesn't want her
abusive husband to find her-it's a safety net they can depend on.
The United States Constitution
and Federal Privacy Laws
Contrary to popular belief, the term privacy (freedom from unauthor-
ized intrusion) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill
of Rights. However, the United States Supreme Court has derived
the right to privacy from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
LO 8.1
Discuss U.S. constitutional
amendments and privacy laws
that pertain to health care.
privacy
Freedom from unaut horized int rusion.
LANDMA ...