Quality-of-life ethics and constitutional jurisprudence: the demise of natural rights and equal protection for the disabled and incompetent (2024)

The John Marshall law review, 1989

Georgia State University law review, 2010

Yale L. & Pol'y Rev.

Yale Law & Policy Review Vol. 15:49, 1996 population explosion has been linked to harsher sentencing guidelines and "three strikes and you're out" provisions. According to sources at the Department of Justice, however, this prison population growth has resulted from a ...

The John Marshall law review, 1996

Notre Dame Law Review, 1983

Building upon this author’s previous work applying the new theoretical framework of Family Systems Theory to termination of parental rights (TPR) cases in parents with mental challenges, New Jersey statutes and case law bear close examination as a focus jurisdiction. Too often, other states’ statutory presumptions of parental unfitness and statutory emphases on parental unfitness due to mental health can wrongfully lead to TPR. New Jersey’s legislature and courts are moving in the right direction by rejecting presumptions of unfitness due to parental mental health. In order for mentally challenged parents’ due process rights to be upheld, statutory schemes across the U.S. must be revisited to level the playing field. The termination of parental rights in parents with mental challenges is a growing and crucial issue. In 2010, an estimated 45.9 million adults in the U.S. had experienced a mental illness in the past year. This represents 20% of the adult population. More than five million children in the U.S. have a parent with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. Courts and child welfare systems too often assume that a parent is not amenable to treatment and is a danger to his or her child when strong symptoms of mental turmoil surface. Some studies report that as many as 70 to 80% of mentally ill parents have lost custody. Public systems are overwhelmed by this matter in an era of shrinking resources for such systems. However, often parents with mental health needs are willing to accept treatment, are able to participate in programming, and are worthy of regaining custody.

. Mary's LJ, 1996

150 ST. MARY'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 28:149 "If you spoke as she did, sir, instead of the way you do, why you might be selling flowers, too."1 I. Introduction In the summer of 1995, the en banc Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Flores v. State2 upheld a lower court's ruling that ...

The Americans with Disabilities Act and its predecessor, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), protect people from discrimination based on disability, but not if the disability is one of three archaic medical conditions associated with transgender people: “transvestism,” “transsexualism,” and “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments.” This Article describes the origins of transgender exclusion and discusses why a growing number of federal courts find this exclusion does not apply to gender dysphoria, a new and distinct medical diagnosis. Further, the Authors define the future of disability rights protections for transgender people.

TMS/Proceedings, 2016

Stanford Law Review, 2002

A. An Epistemic Community of Rehabilitation ........................................ 611 B. The Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act ........ 615 C. The Supreme Court and Disability Employment Policy .................... 619 II. (RE)ASSESSING SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE.............. ...

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012

Harvard Law Review, 1986

Loy. U. Chi. LJ, 2005

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013

Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2002

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003

Cardozo law review, 2017

This symposium explores the meaning of personhood as it is or should be applied to persons with disabilities. This panel focuses on the concept of legal capacity-the ability to make decisions about one’s life, to exercise agency, and to have those decisions recognized by third parties. For my part, I would like to discuss how we might use domestic law — specifically the integration mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and substantive due process — to help us move toward a recognition of universal legal capacity regardless of disability and bring meaningful changes to domestic guardianship regimes. While Article 12 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognizes the right to universal legal capacity, the United States has never ratified that treaty, and domestic law in this area is still underdeveloped. This talk seeks to push the boundaries of the Americans with Disabilities Act to argue, as I have in the past, that guardianship con...