ACSBlog

  • April 22, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Ellen M. Unterwald, Ph.D., Professor of Pharmacology, and Director, Center for Substance Abuse Research, Temple University School of Medicine

    Imagine a hospital administering a drug protocol devised without consideration of its scientific properties, selected by individuals without medical training. It’s unthinkable, but in the state of Oklahoma, prison officials without any pharmaceutical or medical training selected a combination of drugs to cause death. They elected to use midazolam as the first drug in the state’s three-drug lethal injection protocol despite the fact that there is overwhelming scientific consensus, including among pharmacologists like myself, that midazolam is incapable of inducing a deep, coma-like unconsciousness characteristic of general anesthesia and required for a humane and constitutional execution.

    The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case, Glossip v. Gross, addresses the use of midazolam in lethal injection executions. As a pharmacologist who studies drugs, I strongly believe the Supreme Court should prevent Oklahoma from using midazolam in lethal injection executions, and encourage states to base lethal injection protocols on all available scientific knowledge and research.

    The function of the first drug in Oklahoma’s three-drug lethal injection protocol is to ensure a prisoner is in a deep, coma-like unconsciousness prior to the injection of a paralytic agent to stop respiration and a third drug to induce cardiac arrest. Yet Oklahoma’s choice to use midazolam runs counter to the way that pharmacologists recognize that the drug works and counter to the way midazolam is used in the clinical setting by doctors. Glossip v. Gross will examine the constitutionality of this practice.

  • April 22, 2015
    Guest Post

    by David M. Driesen, University Professor, Syracuse University College of Law

    On April 21, 2015, I filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on behalf of a group of constitutional law professors defending the constitutionality of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) rule protecting the Utah prairie dog.  As mentioned in a previous post, this case focuses on a federal district court ruling striking down the prairie dog rule on the ground that the rule is “non-economic” and has only a tenuous link to interstate commerce.  Simply put, if the Tenth Circuit upholds this ruling, it could lead to a significantly adverse impact on the ESA, as nearly 70 percent of all protected species reside intrastate.  It would further cause a split in the circuits, potentially giving rise to review by the Supreme Court.            

    The brief’s primary contribution to the Tenth Circuit’s deliberations involves fleshing out the concept of “economic activities” under United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, and developing its implications for this case.  Both of these Supreme Court cases struck down federal statutes regulating ordinary criminal activity, emphasizing that those activities were not “in any sense” economic.  On the other hand, the Lopez Court reaffirmed a long line of cases upholding statutes regulating economic activities.         

  • April 22, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In SalonMarcy Wheeler explains why new reforms governing surveillance are not likely to solve many problems. 
     
    Russell Berman reports for The Atlantic that after a five-and-a-half month wait, the Senate is ready to confirm Loretta Lynch as U.S. Attorney General. 
     
    At the Constitutional Accountability Center's Text & History BlogDavid H. Gans discusses the importance of the Equal Protection Clause in the same-sex marriage cases.
     
    Noah Feldman writes at Bloomberg View that the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday that police cannot performa a cannot prolong a traffic stop to search for drugs with a trained canine illustrates a growing concern on the Supreme Court with police conduct. 
     
    At NPRNina Totenberg provides further coverage of the Supreme Court's Tuesday decision on canine drug searches during traffic stops.
  • April 21, 2015

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Sheryl Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter have drawn much attention for their thoughts about the professional working lives of women.  But Sandberg and Slaughter have failed to recognize or willfully ignored the stations of the vast majority of working women – those women who do not have the luxury of “opting out” or “leaning in.”  The inadequacies of our workplace laws leave many working women behind and perpetually struggling to survive.

    American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) President Caroline Fredrickson, a former labor lawyer and a longtime leader in the legal progressive community, declares a powerful response to “leaning in,” or “opting out,” which dominate discussion of inequalities facing women in the workforce.

    The discussion of workplace equality for women now focuses almost exclusively on white-collar professionals.  This discussion needs broadening.

    Fredrickson’s compelling book, Under the Bus: How Working Women Are Being Run Over, tells the stories of many women, who do not have the protection of our laws or the ability to stand up to their employers’ often illegal demands.  Indeed, for too long many employers have ignored or been exempted from laws meant to protect workers against corporate malfeasance.  Fredrickson also notes the inadequacy of our laws is ingrained in a history riven with racial and gender biases.  Time after time, Fredrickson notes that historical progressive movements to improve the lives of working Americans have left women behind.  If our nation fails to embrace collective solutions to collective problems, inequality will continue to fester in America while democracy suffers.

  • April 21, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Jess Bravin reports in The Wall Street Journal that the Supreme Court has revived a challenge to North Carolina’s election map based on the argument that it “illegally concentrates black voters in a handful of districts.”

    Nina Totenberg profiles for NPR the “accidental activists” of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage arguments.

    In a new podcast at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick discusses the balance of political and psychological  motivations on the Supreme Court with Adam Liptak and Eric Segall.

    Leslie Griffin criticizes at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights the recent decision by Justice Samuel Alito to stay a lower court decision that refused to grant an exemption to Catholic officials from filling out a form saying they would not provide employees with contraceptive coverage.

    Matt Ford of The Atlantic explains how the death penalty is becoming less common and public support for the practice is on the decline.