Constitutional Limits on the Right of Government Investigations to Interview and Examine Alleged Victims of Child Abuse or Neglect

Investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect presents unique challenges, particularly if parents or guardians are the alleged perpetrators. Those accused of harming the children are in a position to prevent the victims from getting access to the help they need to escape their abuser(s). The courts have not clearly defined the federal constitutional boundaries of searches and seizures in this context. The Supreme Court, in particular, has not weighed in on the constitutionality of warrantless searches and seizures in connection with abuse and neglect investigations. This lack of Supreme Court guidance has led to unpredictable and sometimes conflicting opinions from state and lower federal courts, particularly with respect to Fourth Amendment requirements in this context. This Article will examine whether court orders allowing searches and seizures in child abuse or neglect cases can be issued based on a standard lower than probable cause and still pass muster under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, it discusses the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and weighs arguments in favor of and in opposition to applying the special needs exception to child abuse and neglect investigations. Finally, the Article discusses whether searches without a warrant or other court order may be conducted in response to allegations of child abuse or neglect if the special needs exception does not apply

Traumatic Justice

In the recent past, allegations of police misconduct have periodically led to widespread community protests, but usually only when the incident is sufficiently high-profile and the harm is severe, such as when a police officer beats or kills an unarmed Black person. More often the spotlight and outrage have faded quickly, as victims were discredited and no charges were brought, or no convictions obtained. But citizens have increasingly harnessed the power of cell phone videos and social media to bring attention to acts of racial violence and hold accountable those who are responsible, particularly in cases of alleged police misconduct. As violent encounters with police are more frequently filmed, posted, and shared on social media—thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of times—calls for justice and reform grow louder and more sustained

Private Oppression: How Laws That Protect Privacy Can Lead to Oppression

This is the published version

Employer-Mandated Vaccination Policies: Different Employers, New Vaccines, and Hidden Risks

Although debates about access to healthcare and healthcare financing have been in the headlines for years, attention has only sporadically focused on new and resurgent health challenges in the form of outbreaks of contagious diseases. One obvious weapon in the fight against outbreaks is vaccination. Many vaccines have been proven safe and highly effective, but vaccine opponents have been vocal and influential; even some who work in healthcare facilities distrust vaccines. The tension between employees who distrust vaccines and employers who want to encourage or require vaccination has led many healthcare policy and legal scholars to explore the legal and ethical implications of compulsory vaccine policies. Most of the legal scholarship has focused on mandatory influenza (“flu”) vaccinations for healthcare workers, and healthcare employers’ potential liability if they impose vaccine mandates. However, influenza is not the only disease that threatens communities. Moreover, healthcare facilities are not the only employers affected by outbreaks. This Article considers the legal issues healthcare and nonhealthcare employers should consider when deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated against the flu and other diseases such as measles and pertussis—for which safe and effective vaccines already exist, and the Ebola and Zika viruses—for which vaccines are currently being developed. Most arguments in support of or in opposition to flu vaccination policies do not address whether healthcare or other employers may face liability if they do not require employees to be vaccinated. The question is critically important because many lawyers and government agencies advise employers to encourage but not mandate employee vaccination, and the only risk identified is the risk of being sued for imposing a mandate in violation of antidiscrimination statutes. The unstated premise is that there is no liability if the employer chooses not to require vaccination. This should consider when deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated against the flu and other diseases such as measles and pertussis—for which safe and effective vaccines already exist—and the Ebola and Zika viruses—for which vaccines are currently being developed

Dying for Equal Protection

When health policy experts noticed that health outcomes for African Americans were consistently worse than those of their White counterparts, many in the health care community assumed that the poor outcomes could be blamed on poverty and lifestyle choices. Subsequent research told a different story. Studies repeatedly showed that neither money, nor marriage, nor educational achievement protect African American men, women, or children from poor health. Instead, the disparities were more likely explained by racism. Specifically, multiple studies have shown that experiencing racism has been linked to increased infant and maternal mortality rates, elevated stress levels, and an increased risk of numerous diseases, including cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and breast cancer. Mounting evidence makes it clear that health disparities cannot be eliminated simply by changes in diet or socioeconomic status; it requires eliminating racism and building a more just society. A just society starts with a just government, but racially-biased government policies and practices have existed since the founding of our country and have had—and continue to have—a direct and devastating impact on the health of African American individuals and communities. This Article traces the racially discriminatory laws and policies enacted or tolerated by state and federal governments in America from colonial times to the present—including slavery, Black Codes, convict leasing, lynching, segregation, and discriminatory policing—and links that racism to poorer health outcomes for African Americans. It concludes by discussing the need for criminal justice and social reforms to explicitly consider their impact on the health of the African American community

Employer-Mandated Vaccination Policies: Different Employers, New Vaccines, and Hidden Risks

Although debates about access to healthcare and healthcare financing have been in the headlines for years, attention has only sporadically focused on new and resurgent health challenges in the form of outbreaks of contagious diseases. One obvious weapon in the fight against outbreaks is vaccination. Many vaccines have been proven safe and highly effective, but vaccine opponents have been vocal and influential; even some who work in healthcare facilities distrust vaccines. The tension between employees who distrust vaccines and employers who want to encourage or require vaccination has led many healthcare policy and legal scholars to explore the legal and ethical implications of compulsory vaccine policies. Most of the legal scholarship has focused on mandatory influenza (“flu”) vaccinations for healthcare workers, and healthcare employers’ potential liability if they impose vaccine mandates. However, influenza is not the only disease that threatens communities. Moreover, healthcare facilities are not the only employers affected by outbreaks. This Article considers the legal issues healthcare and nonhealthcare employers should consider when deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated against the flu and other diseases such as measles and pertussis—for which safe and effective vaccines already exist, and the Ebola and Zika viruses—for which vaccines are currently being developed. Most arguments in support of or in opposition to flu vaccination policies do not address whether healthcare or other employers may face liability if they do not require employees to be vaccinated. The question is critically important because many lawyers and government agencies advise employers to encourage but not mandate employee vaccination, and the only risk identified is the risk of being sued for imposing a mandate in violation of antidiscrimination statutes. The unstated premise is that there is no liability if the employer chooses not to require vaccination. This should consider when deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated against the flu and other diseases such as measles and pertussis—for which safe and effective vaccines already exist—and the Ebola and Zika viruses—for which vaccines are currently being developed