Altruism, Markets, and Organ Procurement

For decades, the dominant view among biomedical ethicists, transplantation professionals, and the public at large has been that altruism, not financial considerations, should motivate organ donors. Proposals to compensate sources of transplantable organs or their survivors, although endorsed by a number of economists and legal scholars, have been denounced as unethical and impracticable. Organ transplantation is said to belong to the world of gift, as distinct from the market realm. Paying for organs would inject commerce into a sphere where market values have no place and would transform a system based on generosity and civic spirit into one of antiseptic, bargained-for exchanges. Here, Mahoney discusses a brief history of the restriction on payments to sources of transplantable organs. She then turn to the arguments commonly advanced against compensating organ sources and explain how they are grounded in beliefs that range from the highly contestable to the demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, she examines the most popular compensation proposals, and offering preliminary assessments of their promise and feasibility. She also concludes with some thoughts about the relationship between altruism and self-interest

Foreword: Sustainability in the City

“Nature loves to hide,” observed ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus roughly 2,500 years ago, and the worldwide “COVID-19” pandemic that followed the emergence of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019 has served as a bracing reminder of humanity’s incomplete understanding of the natural world. The COVID-19 crisis has turned out to be more than a public health emergency rooted in natural causes, for the pandemic has revealed significant weaknesses in humancreated institutions, including those that govern and influence the urban areas in which most Americans now live. Of course, with crisis comes opportunity, and it seems highly plausible that the institutional failures that fueled the calamity of COVID- 19 contain within them the seeds of healthier, more resilient communities. The hope and expectation that it is possible for humans to learn from the past and build a better world inspired the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review to sponsor a symposium on “Sustainability in the City.” Conducted virtually in February 2021, due to the ongoing pandemic, the symposium brought together law students, policy experts, and scholars with expertise in law, ethics, architecture, urban planning, sociology, business organizations, and economics. The result was a series of rich, fruitful exchanges about institutional design and the interactions of humans with nature, as well as four highly insightful and far-reaching articles, which are published in this issue. The articles produced for the symposium on “Sustainability in the City” address a range of important and timely issues, including the responsible use of novel technologies in the design and construction of “smart” cities, the challenges and opportunities afforded by innovations in urban agricultural practices, how cities can further biodiversity, and social justice considerations in the face of inequalities in “green and blue” (that is, biotic and aquatic) infrastructure. All offer distinct perspectives on the important role played by cities in preserving, modifying, and making constructive use of the natural world so as to ensure a sustainable future for later generations. The articles also offer a number of thoughtful proposals pertaining to legal reforms and public policy initiatives, as well as ideas for additional research and inquiry

Federal Courts and Takings Litigation

This Article first gives an overview of the role of the federal courts in takings claims over time, with a view to providing a more complete picture than that supplied by focusing either on the Lochner/New Deal-era dichotomy or on the advent of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (current § 1983). It traces the fairly robust role of the federal courts in protecting property under a nonconfiscation norm both before and during the Lochner era. It also points out that the legislative history of the 1871 Civil Rights Act does not support a firm conclusion that Congress intended takings claims to be litigable under § 1983. And § 1983 thereafter played little role in takings cases, which were generally pursued as claims under diversity jurisdiction or under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The New Deal saw the federal courts’ retreat from the non-confiscation norm, and the rise of abstention doctrines that reduced the federal court role in adjudicating such claims. But the retreat from stringent substantive standards, as well as from federal court jurisdiction, were more muted in takings claims than in other types of economic claims. The history thus indicates that the lower federal courts maintained a moderately active role in land use decisions during the nineteenth century and during most of the twentieth century. It was only with the Court’s 1985 decision in Williamson County that the Supreme Court reduced the federal courts’ role in takings to an extent comparable to the New Deal decline with respect to other economic rights. That decision offset for a time the potential increase of takings claims that might have arisen from the Court’s 1978 decision in Monell v. New York Department of Social Services, which held that municipalities were suable persons under § 1983. Going forward after Knick’s overturning Williamson County, we ask: What role should the federal courts play? The demise of Williamson suggests that the federal courts may significantly increase their role in land use decisions, but it may also suggest that they will more actively use abstention doctrines to reduce Knick’s impact. We evaluate the use of Pullman and Burford abstention doctrines in takings claims, and find them inapt. We suggest an abstention doctrine specially for takings cases that would sort out cases where the federal courts are most likely to contribute to fair applications of the law. Finally, we suggest that constitutionally-based actions brought under § 1331 may be better homes for takings cases than § 1983 actions

Restructuring United States Government Debt: Private Rights, Public Values, and the Constitution

Article published in the Michigan State Law Review

The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG

Scholars and policymakers have long debated whether corporations should serve social purposes at the expense of shareholder wealth. The SEC was recently drawn into the debate as it faces calls to mandate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures. This Article urges the SEC to proceed with caution. The adoption of ESG disclosure mandates in order to serve environmental or social goals is not well-aligned with the SEC’s stated mission of protecting Main Street investors and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Accordingly, the SEC should decline to act absent a showing that ESG disclosures will serve the financial interests of the households for whom institutional investors are fiduciaries and whose retirement and other savings they manage

The SEC\u27s Misguided Climate Disclosure Rule Proposal

The following article adapts and consolidates two comment letters submitted last spring by a group of twenty-two professors of finance and law on the SEC’s proposed climate change disclosure rules. The professors reiterate their recommendation that the SEC withdraw its proposal as legally misguided, while outlining some of the issues that the proposal will face when challenged in court

Bio-Repository of DNA in stroke (BRAINS): A study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Stroke is one of the commonest causes of mortality in the world and anticipated to be an increasing burden to the developing world. Stroke has a genetic basis and identifying those genes may not only help us define the mechanisms that cause stroke but also identify novel therapeutic targets. However, large scale highly phenotyped DNA repositories are required in order for this to be achieved.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The proposed Bio-Repository of DNA in Stroke (BRAINS) will recruit all subtypes of stroke as well as controls from two different continents, Europe and Asia. Subjects recruited from the UK will include stroke patients of European ancestry as well as British South Asians. Stroke subjects from South Asia will be recruited from India and Sri Lanka. South Asian cases will also have control subjects recruited.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We describe a study protocol to establish a large and highly characterized stroke biobank in those of European and South Asian descent. With different ethnic populations being recruited, BRAINS has the ability to compare and contrast genetic risk factors between those of differing ancestral descent as well as those who migrate into different environments.</p