Nursing and the courts
David M. Keepnews, Virginia Trotter Betts
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Frederick Douglass
The courts are an important source of health policy. Their decisions hold significant implications for nurses and for the patients, families, communities, and populations they serve. This chapter provides an overview of the legal and judicial systems and the role of the courts in shaping policy. It is not a comprehensive overview; rather, it aims to provide the reader with a general understanding of this policy arena and its critical importance for nursing. Although this chapter uses several examples to illustrate the relationships between law and policy, it is important to keep in mind that the policy landscape can change rapidly and unpredictably.
The judicial system
The United States has two parallel court systems: federal and state. The federal courts have jurisdiction over matters that involve federal law (generally speaking, those that pertain to the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and/or the actions of federal agencies). The trial courts for the federal system (the entry point for most federal cases) are called district courts, and there are 94 located throughout the United States and its territories. Federal courts of appeal, also referred to as circuit courts, are organized into 12 geographic circuits plus the Federal Circuit Court (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, n.d.). The U.S. Supreme Court is the federal court of last resort; there is no higher court to which its decisions can be appealed.
Each state has its own court system. State courts generally rule on issues arising under the state’s constitution and laws. They may also hear some claims that arise under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The state court systems include trial-level and appellate courts, with a high court as the court of last resort. The high court is known as the Supreme Court in most states, but not all; in New York State, for example, its highest court is known as the Court of Appeals.
The role of precedent
An important legal doctrine, stare decisis (“let the decision stand”), sets the course for judicial precedents by adhering to previous findings in cases with substantially comparable facts and circumstances. Thus courts grant deference to their prior rulings. Courts are not completely bound by precedent; they sometimes overrule prior decisions, but they are expected to depart from precedent based only on compelling and clearly articulated reasons. Lower courts are expected to follow the rulings of a higher court (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2010). Thus, for example, a federal district court in California or Oregon would look to rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes those states) for guidance; the Ninth Circuit would look to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Ninth Circuit’s own prior rulings.
The constitution and branches of government
The U.S. Constitution sets out the basic structure of the federal government. State constitutions do the same for each state government. A key element of this structure is a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government: legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. Each branch carries out specific functions, but no branch is completely autonomous. The federal courts act independently of the President and Congress, but judges are nominated by the President, subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
The Constitution is the fundamental source of U.S. law. All government action and laws must be consistent with it. This is true of the U.S. Constitution (which applies to the actions of the federal and state governments) and each state constitution (which applies to the actions of each state). Laws passed by a state legislature must be consistent with both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution.
Although much of the Constitution is concerned with the structure and functions of the federal government, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, define the basic rights of all people in the United States, including: freedom of speech; freedom of assembly; freedom of religion; freedom from unlawful searches and seizures; and protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. In the United States, the rights outlined by the Bill of Rights are defined primarily as limitations on government’s power to restrict or deny them. Thus, for example, the First Amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although the language of the Bill of Rights specifically focuses on the federal government, the 14th Amendment has had the effect of applying these rights to actions by state governments.
Because the Bill of Rights applies to government action, it does not directly limit the behavior of private individuals (including employers). Other laws may apply to actions by employers and individuals, for example, civil rights laws, which protect people from discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, or other factors, and whistleblower laws that protect employees’ rights to report illegal conduct or unsafe practices.
Rules or regulations issued by the executive branch must be consistent with the Constitution. There must also be some statutory (legislative) source of authority for an executive agency to act. For example, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized by federal law to issue rules and regulations to carry out the functions of his or her department, including the administration of the Medicare program (see, for example, Home Health Services Act, 42 U.S. Code, Section 1302, 2011); this is the basis for that agency to adopt regulations spelling out Conditions of Participation that health care organizations must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs (see, for example, Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals, 2018.) Federal law Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S. Code, Chapter 5, 2011) and parallel state laws also spell out the procedures that government agencies must follow in issuing regulations, such as how much notice must be provided to the public and how members of the public can provide comments on any proposed regulations.
Judicial review
A major role of the judicial branch is to review actions of the legislative and executive branches if those actions are challenged. This power of judicial review has given the courts a significant role in public policy because they have the power to affirm or strike down laws or other government action.
Review of legislative action
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to declare a law unenforceable if it is found to violate the Constitution. A significant illustration of this power was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), in which the constitutionality of major sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was challenged. (Legal issues related to the ACA are discussed in Box 45.1.)
BOX 45.1
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Continuing Legal Issues
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court heard challenges to provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and upheld the law’s minimum coverage provision (often referred to as the individual mandate), that is, the requirement that most people who are not covered through their employer or through a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid must purchase health insurance. Opponents argued that Congress does not have the authority to compel people to purchase something. This case was closely watched by opponents and supporters of the ACA since the outcome would determine whether a key component of the ACA could go into effect.
The Court found that the individual mandate, which is enforced by requiring people without insurance to pay a financial penalty that will be levied by the Internal Revenue Service, was within Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes.
In the same decision, the Court struck down another important part of the ACA. The ACA included an expansion of the Medicaid program. Medicaid, which provides health insurance to many poor and disabled people, is administered by the states with joint federal and state funding. States are not required to participate in the Medicaid program although all states currently do. The ACA called for making everyone with incomes below 133% of the Federal Poverty Level eligible for Medicaid. States that failed to comply with this provision could be excluded from federal Medicaid funding altogether.
The Court, by a 7-2 majority, found that this penalty was too severe and over-reaching and that it would coerce states into implementing the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor wrote a strong dissent from the majority opinion, arguing that the penalty was within Congress’s power, especially since state participation in the Medicaid program itself is voluntary. The impact of this ruling was to make states’ implementation of the Medicaid expansion voluntary. As of 2019, 14 states have opted not to implement it, thereby excluding millions of potential Medicaid recipients from health care coverage (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2019).
Other Supreme Court decisions have had an impact on the implementation of the ACA. In 2015, the court turned back a challenge that would have weakened the ACA by limiting the states in which individuals could receive federal tax subsidies to assist with paying insurance premiums. In King v. Burwell, by a vote of 6-3, the Court found that subsidies could be available in all states and not just those that operated their own health exchanges. Ruling otherwise could have eliminated subsidies for people in three dozen states.
Subsequently in yet another challenge to the ACA, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) that corporations could opt for a religious exemption to the ACA’s requirement that employers cover women’s contraception.
Political developments have sparked new legal issues regarding the ACA, which continue to be debated in the federal courts.
Challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the affordable care act
As part of its large-scale changes in the federal tax system in 2018, Congress eliminated the penalty for failure to purchase health insurance, effective in 2019. Thus, although the individual mandate provision remains in place, Congress removed the mechanism for enforcing it. A federal lawsuit filed by 20 attorneys general argues that eliminating the penalty rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional since the Supreme Court, in the National Federation of Independent Business case, found that the mandate’s penalty was allowable under the Constitution’s taxing clause; thus, eliminating the penalty also eliminated the basis for the individual mandate ( Texas v. U.S., 2018 ). The Trump Administration’s Justice Department filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs. That brief also argues that the other provisions of the ACA—including guaranteed issue (restricting insurer’s ability to refuse coverage) and community rating (limiting insurers’ ability to charge higher rates to different groups)—should also be eliminated. (It is rare for the federal government to support a court challenge to one of its own laws.)
Many critics of the Trump Administration’s position have pointed out that this would also end restrictions on insurer’s ability to refuse coverage or charge markedly higher rates for individuals with pre-existing conditions. The case has been appealed to the 5th Circuit; its outcome remains to be seen.
Medicaid work requirements
In January 2018, the Trump Administration issued guidance to state Medicaid directors “support[ing] state efforts to test incentives that make participation in work or other community engagement a requirement for continued Medicaid eligibility” and encouraging states to seek waivers to allow such requirements. Kentucky, the first state to receive approval, required that Medicaid recipients devote 80 hours per month to work or “community engagement.” (Exceptions to this requirement included pregnant women, full-time students, people who are “medically frail,” and primary caregivers of a dependent minor or a disabled adult). Notably, Kentucky had previously decided to participate in the ACA’s Medicaid expansion for low-income individuals.
Kentucky’s work requirement was struck down by the federal district court for the District of Columbia which ruled that, in approving Kentucky’s work requirements, the Administration did not give adequate consideration to whether it was in keeping with the Medicaid program’s purpose of providing health care to low-income and other vulnerable populations ( Stewart v. Azar, 2018 ). The court also struck down Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas ( Gresham v. Azar, 2018 ). Additional federal lawsuits have challenged other states’ Medicaid work requirements. At this time, the outcome of these legal challenges remains to be seen.
Review of executive action
The actions of an executive agency may be challenged on the basis that it has acted without legal authority or failed to comply with procedural requirements.
In Spine Diagnostics Center of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Louisiana State Board of Nursing (2008), a Louisiana appellate court upheld a challenge to a Board of Nursing advisory opinion that interventional pain management is within the scope of practice of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), finding that it constituted a regulation authorizing CRNAs to perform a service that is “solely the practice of medicine.” Because this rule had not been issued in accordance with the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (including advance notice and an opportunity for public comment), it was found to be an improper attempt at rulemaking. The state supreme court subsequently declined to hear an appeal of the decision (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2009), thus allowing it to stand.
Impact litigation
Advocates have developed a tradition of using the courts strategically to establish, affirm, or clarify rights. Litigation that is “focused on changing laws or on the rights of specific groups of people” is often referred to as impact litigation (Harvard Law School, 2018).
A major example of such litigation is Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down school segregation and mandated that states begin a process of desegregating their public schools. The Court unanimously found that segregated public school education constituted a state policy of inferior education, that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and that it thus violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Laws passed at the federal or state level often create rights or remedies that can be legally enforced through the courts. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provides for equal treatment for disabled Americans and bars discrimination in a number of areas including employment and public accommodations. The ADA applies principles of equality and fair play that are basic to American law and public life, but it also created specific rights that can be enforced through government action and litigation.
Enforcing legal and regulatory requirements
The courts are often used as a means to seek enforcement of existing regulatory requirements. Nursing organizations sometimes turn to the courts to challenge practices they believe violate state nurse practice acts. For example, the California School Nurses Organization, the American Nurses Association (ANA), and ANA\California sued the California Department of Education (CDE) challenging a CDE directive authorizing insulin injection in public schools by unlicensed personnel. The CDE had issued this directive in connection with its settlement of a suit by parents of diabetic students who, the parents had charged, were being denied needed care by the lack of school personnel qualified to administer insulin (CDE, 2007). The nursing groups challenged this practice as a violation of California’s Nursing Practice Act and questioned the authority of the CDE to issue a directive on nursing practice. The trial court and appellate court ruled in favor of the nurses but the state supreme court later ruled that the CDE directive did not violate the Nursing Practice Act and allowed it to stand ( American Nurses Association v. Torlakson, 2013).
Roe v. Wade and access to abortion
Women’s reproductive rights, including the right to choose abortion, have long been a focus of political and legal controversy. In 1973, the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision found a constitutional right to choose abortion, overturning state laws prohibiting or unduly restricting abortion before the third trimester of pregnancy. Since that time, the Court has ruled on numerous state laws seeking to place restrictions on access to abortion. The continued evolution of the legal environment for abortion rights is too complex to cover in this chapter. However, it is important to emphasize that the right to choose abortion continues to be an active issue in the federal courts. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and held abortion clinics to the regulatory standards required of ambulatory surgical centers. This law had been framed by its proponents as necessary to protect women’s safety. Opponents of the law argued that the law placed unnecessary burdens on clinics that provided abortion (many of which had closed as the law took effect) and restricted women’s right to choose abortion. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court agreed, finding the law unconstitutional.
The right to choose abortion remains a polarizing political issue, with opponents openly calling for the Court to overturn Roe. That goal has been stymied by the composition of the Court, which for many years has consisted of four Justices viewed as generally liberal on major social issues, four Justices viewed as generally conservative, with one Justice—Anthony Kennedy—serving as a swing vote on many issues. Recent changes in the Court’s membership (see “Influencing and Responding to Court Decisions,” below) have changed the court’s composition, tilting it to what many expect will be a more consistently conservative direction. Although the doctrine of stare decisis means most Justices are hesitant to break with precedent, it does not rule out overturning precedent if Justices find a compelling reason to do so. Thus, proponents of abortion rights remain concerned that the change in the makeup of the Court puts Roe at risk.
If Roe were to be overturned, it would not have the effect of outlawing abortion; it would leave decisions about access to abortion to each state. Many states would continue to allow abortion, but states that chose to restrict abortion or even outlaw it outright could do so within whatever standard (if any) the Supreme Court might set.
Criminal courts
Most of the court decisions that have an impact on health policy and nursing practice are civil actions. In some prominent instances, however, actions in criminal courts have resulted in significant policy implications for nursing as well. For example, although negligent acts or omissions that lead to patient injury or death are usually addressed in civil suits, on occasion they have led to criminal prosecution.
In 2006, 10 nurses simultaneously resigned their positions at a Long Island nursing home. These nurses were among a larger group, all of whom were recruited from the Philippines, working in facilities owned by the Sentosa Care nursing home chain. These nurses had complained that many of the promises made to them when they were first hired regarding wages and working and living conditions had been broken. The nurses, fearing retaliation by their employer, resigned with minimal notice. The facility, whose patients included ventilator-dependent children, covered their shifts with other nurses. After receiving a complaint from the nursing home, the state’s board of nursing found no basis to proceed with a patient abandonment complaint. An investigation by the state Department of Health later yielded a conclusion that no patients had been put at risk. Nonetheless, the local county District Attorney filed criminal charges against the nurses, indicting them for conspiracy and for putting children and disabled patients at risk.
The case raised significant concerns not only about mistreatment of immigrant nurses but also about the rights of all nurses (Keepnews, 2009). Nursing organizations including the ANA, the New York State Nurses Association, and the Philippine Nurses Association of America supported the nurses’ call for charges to be dropped. The trial court judge refused to drop the charges; however, the nurses filed an appeal of this decision. A state appellate court issued an order that the trial be stopped. The court found that “criminalizing [the nurses’] resignations” would have the effect of unjustifiably “abridging the nurses’ Thirteenth Amendment rights,” referring to that constitutional amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude (Vinluan v. Doyle, 2009).
Influencing and responding to court decisions
Although judges are expected to rule based on facts and law, several other factors may influence the outcome of court decisions. Judges often take changing social attitudes and standards into account in their rulings. Judges also differ in their own judicial philosophies. The views of federal judicial appointees and their judicial records are factors in a president’s judicial nominations and in the Senate’s decision whether or not to confirm the nominations. Thus, the outcomes of presidential and Senate elections can have an important impact in the composition of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Judges’ views may shift over time and cannot always be reliably predicted or neatly categorized. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, often characterized as a liberal Court member, and who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, had been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion in National Federation of Business v. Sebelius, upholding the ACA individual mandate.
However, the appointment of federal judges—all of whom hold lifetime appointments—has increasingly taken on an overtly partisan character. President Trump has boasted of his efforts—largely successful—to appoint younger, staunchly conservative judges at all levels of the federal judiciary who can shape the judicial landscape for decades to come (Kaplan, 2018). In particular, he has stated his goal to seek repeal of Roe v. Wade. His administration has utilized conservative think-tank organizations to screen potential judicial appointees for their political views (Baker, 2018).
In February 2016, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, creating a vacancy on the Court. Then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a moderate appellate court judge, to fill that vacancy. The Senate’s Republican majority, however, refused to let Garland’s appointment move forward, arguing that Obama, as a “lame duck” (with 11 months left to his term), should not be permitted to appoint a new Justice. President Trump, shortly after his inauguration, nominated Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appellate judge, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy; Gorsuch was quickly approved by the Senate. In June 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. Trump’s nomination of conservative appellate court judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace him sparked considerable controversy, first because of his voting record, judicial philosophy, and partisan history and then because of his alleged conduct as a high school and college student, including charges of sexual assault. His conduct during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which many viewed as belligerent and at times openly partisan, sparked further controversy and questions regarding his judicial temperament. The impending 2018 midterm elections served to heighten partisan differences over Kavanaugh’s nomination. Ultimately, the Senate confirmed him on a 51-49 vote, along almost entirely partisan lines.
Persuading the courts: Amicus curiae briefs
An important route for influencing courts’ decisions is through filing amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs. Amicus briefs provide an important tool for advocacy groups to make their views known on a relevant case. When (with the court’s permission) groups and/or individuals file an amicus brief, they bring their perspectives, data, and beliefs about the issues before the court to persuade it on how to rule.
Examples of cases in which nursing organizations have filed amicus briefs include:
· • National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). The ANA, joined by five other health professional groups, filed an amicus brief in support of the ACA minimum coverage provision. The ANA also filed amicus briefs in other federal cases regarding the ACA.
· • Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). The American Academy of Nursing joined with GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing Health Equality and Sullivan & Worcester LLP in an amicus brief in support of marriage equality.
· • Olmstead v. L.C. (1999). The American Psychiatric Nurses Association joined other organizations in an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court to support the right of disabled persons to receive care in noninstitutional settings.
· • Commonwealth Brands Inc. v. U.S. (2010). The Oncology Nursing Society joined with 10 other organizations in support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco manufacturing, sales, and advertising.
Appealing unfavorable decisions
When faced with an unsatisfactory court ruling, a party may be able to appeal the decision to a higher court. Generally, there must be grounds to appeal beyond simply not being satisfied with the outcome. For example, the losing party may argue that the court made an error in how it applied the law or in refusing to consider relevant evidence. There is no guarantee that an appellate or higher court will agree to hear an appeal. If a court declines to review the decision of a lower court, that decision stands.
A request to the U.S. Supreme Court to consider an appeal of a lower-court decision is called a petition for writ of certiorari. Four out of the nine Justices must agree to grant certiorari in order to hear an appeal. The Court only does so for about 100 of more than 7000 cases submitted for appeal each year (Supreme Court of the U.S., n.d.).
Repudiating the court
When a court’s decision is based on its interpretation of a statute, another option is to seek a change in that statute. Of course, this requires a political strategy to secure passage of new legislation, which may or may not be a viable option.
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the equal-pay provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as meaning that a violation occurs only at the time that a biased pay scale is instituted, not each time workers are paid unequally as a result of that pay scale. This had the effect of sharply limiting employees’ ability to file discrimination claims. In response, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The preamble to the bill explicitly criticizes the Court’s Ledbetter decision, stating that “[t]he limitation imposed by the Court… ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended” (Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009).
Amending the constitution
Another potential means of responding to an unsatisfactory court decision, particularly if the decision is based on an interpretation of the Constitution, is to amend the Constitution. This is much easier said than done. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires approval by not only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress but also by three-quarters of the states. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times in its history.
Amending state constitutions, however, is often more readily achievable. States differ in their procedures for amending their constitutions, generally including approval by popular vote. In contrast to the U.S. Constitution’s 27 amendments, several state constitutions have been amended hundreds of times (Bowser, 2015).
Conclusion
Health care practice and health policy continue to change rapidly in often chaotic and unpredictable ways. Successful policy strategies must include being knowledgeable about the role of the courts in health policy and being prepared to respond to and, when possible, seek to influence the outcome of court decisions.
Discussion questions
· 1. What impact do court decisions have on policy issues related to nursing and health care?
· 2. How can nurses have an impact on the outcome of legal issues related to nursing and health care?
References
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Understanding the federal courts 2010; Retrieved from www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/educational-resources/get-informed/understanding-federal-courts.pdf.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (n.d.). The federal court system in the U.S. Retrieved from www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/Publications/English.pdf.
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. Code, Chapter 5 (2011).
American Nurses Association v. Torlakson 2013 American Nurses Association v. Torlakson, 57 Cal.4th 570 (2013).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.L. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Baker P. A conservative court push decades in the making, with effects for decades to come New York Times 2018; Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/us/politics/supreme-court-conservatives-trump.html.
Bowser J. Constitutions: Amend with care 2015; Retrieved from www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/constitution-amend-with-care.aspx.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
California Department of Education. Children with diabetes win assurance of legally required services at school 2007; Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr07/yr07rel97.asp.
Commonwealth Brands Inc. v. U.S. 2010 Commonwealth Brands Inc. v. U.S. , 678 F. Supp. 2d (2010).
Gresham v. Azar, Civil Action No. 18-1900 2018 Gresham v. Azar, Civil Action No. 18-1900 (2018). Retrieved from https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1900-58.
Harvard Law School, Bernard Koteen Office of Public Interest Advising. Litigation: Impact 2018; Retrieved from https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-interest-work-types/impact-litigation/.
Home Health Services, 42 U.S. Code, Sections 1302 and 1395 (2011).
Kaiser Family Foundation. Status of state action on the Medicaid expansion decision 2019; Retrieved from www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D.
Kaplan T. Trump is putting indelible conservative stamp on judiciary New York Times 2018; Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/trump-judges.html.
Keepnews D. M. Welcome news in the Sentosa nurses case Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice 1, 2009;10: 4-5.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Inc. 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Inc., 127 S, Ct. 2162 (2007).
Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181.
Louisiana Supreme Court. News release #019 2009; Retrieved from www.lasc.org/news_releases/2009/2009-019.asp.
Marbury v. Madison 1803 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals, 42 CFR Chapter IV, Subchapter G (2018).
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
Obergefell v. Hodges 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
Olmstead v. L.C. 1999 Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
Roe v. Wade 1973 Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 ( 1973 ),.
Spine Diagnostics Center of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Louisiana State Board of Nursing, Louisiana Court of Appeal (First Circuit). No. 2008 CA 0813 December 23, 2008 Spine Diagnostics Center of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Louisiana State Board of Nursing, Louisiana Court of Appeal (First Circuit). No. 2008 CA 0813, December 23, 2008.
Stewart v. Azar, Civil Action No. 18-152, D.D.C. 2018 Stewart v. Azar, Civil Action No. 18-152, D.D.C. (2018). Retrieved from https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0152-74.
Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.). The Supreme Court at work. Retrieved from www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtatwork.aspx.
Texas v. United States, N.D. Texas, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00167-O 2018 Texas v. United States, N.D. Texas, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (2018). Retrieved from www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.299449/gov.uscourts.txnd.299449.1.0.pdf.
Vinluan v. Doyle, 2009 NY Slip Op. 219. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department 2009 Vinluan v. Doyle, 2009 NY Slip Op. 219. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department (2009). Retrieved from www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2009/D20723.pdf.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).
Online resources
American Association of Nurse Attorneys. www.taana.org
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Public Health Law Program. www.cdc.gov/phlp/index.html
Network for Public Health Law. www.networkforphl.org
Public Health Law Research. http://publichealthlawresearch.org
SCOTUSblog. www.scotusblog.com
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."
