Suchergebnisse

Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record. ; The Supreme Court's recent decision in Kansas v. Hendricks provides an exclamation point to the proposition that the Court will defer to reasonable legislative judgments regarding the substance of state civil commitment laws. This article argues that such deference is appropriate as a matter of constitutional law because of important institutional and structural considerations. For mental health professionals interested in influencing the law of civil commitment, the Hendricks decision suggests two propositions: (a) Mental health professionals must offer their expertise and input in the legislative process, and (b) when possible, mental health professionals should identify and explain for the courts any professional consensus on important issues regarding the definition and treatment of mental conditions.

Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record. ; This article traces the history of current Supreme Court Rule 37.4, which exempts the federal government, state governments, and local governments from rules that otherwise require consent of the parties to file an amicus brief and that require disclosure of information regarding whether any person or entity other than the named amicus contributed financially or otherwise to the amicus brief. The article surveys the Supreme Court's historical practices regarding amici filings by government entities, and locates the first rule of the Court addressing amicus filings, then traces the rule's evolution forward to the current day. In particular, the article considers the treatment of both Indian Tribes and foreign nations as sovereign amici in the Supreme Court, and comments upon their exclusion from current Rule 37.4.