(Image: Grand Peaks)

An important part of ensuring ethical practice in medicine is to build a relation based on trust between a patient. This happens through treating all patients with care and understanding despite any biases a physician may have. The comfortability of a patient is the physician's responsibility. A patient's comfortability plays an important role when it comes to caring for them in the most efficient way possible. This includes making sure they feel safe, understood, and respected. But unfortunately, these concepts aren’t always obeyed.

Starting in 1988 and ending in 2013, Dr. Levy has worked at the Johns Hopkins East Baltimore Medical Center. The surrounding neighborhood makes it so that the primary patients are low-income African Americans. Here, Dr. Levy has worked as a gynecologist for over 25 years, seeing, on average, 25 patients a day.

One day, one of his coworkers noticed something suspicious about the pen he wore; it was later found that it was a camera. The technicians reported it to her superiors, which was followed with Dr. Levy being confronted by hospital security. They believed he was recording patients, which caused Johns Hopkins to inform the police. 

This led to an investigation and it was found by Dr. Levy had been utilizing different types of cameras to take pictures and videos of patients. The visual media containing both the women and their private parts. Over 1200 videos had been found hidden away at Dr. Levy’s home, about 60 of them being of children. 

Further investigation had former patients speak up about Dr. Levy’s inappropriate behavior. Some of them report unnecessary touching and/or exams. He also administered check-ups without gloves, used inappropriate language like vulgar verbal observations, and violated the recommendation of having a nurse present in the room. The overwhelming evidence led to Dr. Levy’s firing on February 8th of 2013. And on February 18, 2013, Dr. Levy passed away by suicide.

To combat Dr. Levy’s crimes the victims filed a class-action lawsuit, and Johns Hopkins decided to settle instead of going to trial. Interviews and research was done to help the victims and shed light on what they went through. Many of the clients went through fear, trauma, and so much more. Because of this, the lawyers representing the victims filed a motion to ensure the media of the victims were never made public. After negotiation, Johns Hopkins agreed to settle for $190 million on July 21st, 2014; the funds going to about 9,000 victims. 

Although it stated that Dr. Levy acted alone, critics claim that the hospital could have covered up for him. They believe that because hospitals have covered up sexual abuse before, it isn’t so far-fetched to believe that the Johns Hospkins hopsital could have done it as well. 

During the height of the case, it was considered the largest settlement that involved a physician and sexual misconduct in U.S. history. But, although the case has been settled, the lives that were impacted and left traumatized, hurt, and betrayed should not be forgotten. A case like this should stand as a reminder of the importance of safety in a medical setting.

Works Cited:

“Leading the $190 Million Settlement of the Dr. Nikita Levy Case.” Schochor and Staton, PA, https://sfspa.com/verdicts-settlements/leading-the-190-million-settlement-of-the-dr-nikita-levy-case/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2026.

“Medical Malpractice Privacy | Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer.” Foran & Foran, 16 July 2025, https://www.foranlaw.com/practice-areas/medical-malpractice/medical-malpractice-privacy/.

News, NBC. “Johns Hopkins Settles $190 Million Over Pelvic Exams Suits.” NBC News, 21 July 2014, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/johns-hopkins-settles-190-million-over-pelvic-exams-suits-n161256.

Published February 20, 2013 • Updated on February 21, 2013 at 8:21 am. “Authorities: Doctor Suspected of Recording Patients Killed Himself.” NBC4 Washington, 20 Feb. 2013, https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/300-call-hotline-in-gynecologist-recording-probe/1991551/.

(Image: Online Learning College)

The relationship between a physician and a patient is built on trust. Today, most people expect that before any medical procedure is performed, they will be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives before deciding whether to proceed. This process, known as informed consent, is considered a fundamental principle of modern healthcare. However, this right was not always recognized. One of the earliest and most influential legal decisions to establish a patient's right to control what happens to their own body was the 1914 case Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital. Although the case occurred over a century ago, it continues to influence medical ethics and healthcare law today.

The case centered on Mary Schloendorff, a woman who sought medical treatment at the Society of New York Hospital after experiencing stomach problems. Physicians believed she had a uterine fibroid and recommended an examination under anesthesia to better assess her condition. Schloendorff agreed to the examination but made it explicitly clear that she did not consent to surgery if a tumor was discovered.

While she was unconscious, the physicians decided to remove the tumor despite her previous refusal. Following the operation, Schloendorff developed complications, including gangrene in her left arm, which she argued resulted from the surgery and the care she received. Believing her wishes had been ignored, she filed a lawsuit against the hospital, claiming that the surgery had been performed without her consent.

Although the court ultimately ruled that the hospital itself was not liable because charitable hospitals were generally immune from lawsuits under the legal doctrine of charitable immunity at the time, the case became historically significant for another reason. Writing for the court, Justice Benjamin Cardozo articulated one of the most famous statements in medical law:

"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body."

This simple yet powerful statement fundamentally changed the legal understanding of the physician-patient relationship. Rather than viewing physicians as the sole decision-makers, the ruling recognized that competent patients have the legal authority to accept or refuse medical treatment, even if physicians believe another course of action would be medically beneficial.

The decision established the legal principle that performing a medical procedure without a patient's consent constitutes battery, an intentional and unauthorized physical contact. In other words, the issue was not whether the surgery was medically appropriate but whether the patient had authorized it. By operating against Schloendorff's explicit wishes, the physicians violated her bodily autonomy.

Although the concept of informed consent as it exists today developed gradually through later court decisions, Schloendorff laid its foundation by establishing that patient consent is legally required before treatment. Later cases, including Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees (1957) and Canterbury v. Spence (1972), expanded upon this principle by requiring physicians not only to obtain consent but also to provide sufficient information for patients to make informed decisions.

The influence of Schloendorff extends beyond legal doctrine into modern medical ethics. Contemporary healthcare is grounded in four widely accepted ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Among these, respect for patient autonomy is perhaps the most directly connected to the Schloendorff decision. Patients are no longer viewed as passive recipients of medical care but as active participants who have the right to make decisions based on their own values, beliefs, and preferences.

Today, informed consent is a routine part of nearly every medical procedure. Physicians explain diagnoses, discuss treatment options, outline potential risks and benefits, and answer questions before asking patients to sign consent forms. While these conversations may seem like ordinary administrative steps, they exist largely because courts recognized that patients deserve control over decisions affecting their own bodies.

The case also highlights the ethical tension that can arise between physician judgment and patient choice. Doctors are trained to recommend treatments they believe are medically appropriate, yet patients may decline treatment for personal, cultural, religious, or quality-of-life reasons. Modern healthcare recognizes that respecting these decisions is an essential part of ethical practice, even when healthcare providers disagree.

More than 100 years after it was decided, Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital remains one of the most influential cases in medical jurisprudence. While Mary Schloendorff did not ultimately recover damages from the hospital, her case transformed the legal rights of patients by affirming that competent adults, not physicians, have the final authority over what happens to their own bodies. This principle continues to shape healthcare policy, medical ethics, and patient rights around the world, making Schloendorff one of the true landmarks in the history of medicine.

Works Cited:

"Impact of the Libby Zion Case on Graduate Medical Education in Internal Medicine." Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, scholars.mssm.edu/en/publications/impact-of-the-libby-zion-case-on-graduate-medical-education-in-in-2. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Leape, Lucian L. "Error in Medicine." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 318, no. 13, 31 Mar. 1988, www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198803243181209. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Lucey, Catherine R., and Bridget C. Segar. "Medical Education: The Libby Zion Case Revisited." PubMed Central, National Library of Medicine, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3008836/. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses." National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214940/. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"Zion v. New York Hospital (1994-95)." Encyclopedia.com, www.encyclopedia.com/law/law-magazines/zion-v-new-york-hospital-1994-95. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"Jury Splits in Zion Malpractice Case." UPI Archives, 6 Feb. 1995, www.upi.com/Archives/1995/02/06/Jury-splits-in-Zion-malpractice-case/4289792046800/. Accessed 21 June 2026.

(Image: Lightning Bolt)

When people go to a hospital, they trust that the medical team caring for them is alert, supervised, and making safe decisions. The case of Zion v. New York Hospital became one of the most influential medical malpractice lawsuits in American history because it raised serious questions about how hospitals train young doctors and how fatigue can affect patient care.

The case centered on the death of Libby Zion, a college freshman from New York City. On the night of March 4, 1984, Libby was taken to New York Hospital by her parents after developing a high fever, restlessness, and unusual movements. She had recently been prescribed Nardil, an antidepressant medication. After arriving at the hospital, she was examined primarily by a medical intern and a resident physician who had already been working for many hours. She was admitted to the hospital and later given Demerol, a pain medication. Several hours later, her condition worsened dramatically, and she died. She was only 18 years old.

Libby's father, journalist and lawyer Sidney Zion, believed mistakes had been made during his daughter's treatment. He argued that the doctors caring for her were overworked, insufficiently supervised, and failed to recognize a dangerous interaction between Demerol and Nardil. He also questioned why no senior attending physician had personally examined her during the critical hours before her death. His public criticism attracted national attention and sparked investigations into hospital practices.

The controversy quickly grew beyond a single medical malpractice claim. Investigators examined the conditions under which hospital residents worked. At the time, it was common for interns and residents to work shifts lasting more than 24 hours and weeks exceeding 100 hours. Critics argued that exhausted doctors were more likely to make errors, especially when handling complex cases late at night. A grand jury investigation reviewed the circumstances surrounding Libby's death and highlighted concerns about resident supervision, excessive work hours, and communication between medical staff. Although no criminal charges were filed, the investigation drew attention to weaknesses in the medical training system.

After years of legal proceedings, the civil lawsuit went to trial in late 1994 and concluded in February 1995. The jury determined that several physicians involved in Libby's care had been negligent. They found that prescribing Demerol contributed to her death and that mistakes had been made in her treatment. However, the jury did not fully blame the hospital itself. Jurors concluded that Libby also shared some responsibility because evidence suggested she had not provided complete information about her drug use. As a result, the damages awarded to the Zion family were reduced. Ultimately, the family received compensation for Libby's pain and suffering, but the jury rejected claims for punitive damages.

Although the legal verdict was important, the lasting impact of the case came from the reforms it inspired. The investigations surrounding Libby's death led to the creation of recommendations from the Bell Commission, a panel established to examine residency training in New York. These recommendations called for stricter supervision of young doctors and limits on the number of hours residents could work. New York State later adopted rules restricting resident work schedules and requiring greater oversight from experienced physicians. Over time, similar standards influenced residency programs across the United States. Today, many residency programs follow work-hour limits that can be traced back to the changes sparked by the Zion case.

The case also changed how hospitals think about patient safety. It encouraged greater attention to medication interactions, communication among healthcare providers, and the effects of fatigue on decision-making. Hospitals increasingly invested in systems designed to catch dangerous drug combinations before they reach patients. Medical educators began discussing whether long work hours actually improved training or simply increased the risk of mistakes.

More than forty years after Libby Zion's death, the case remains a major part of medical ethics and healthcare education. It serves as a reminder that patient safety depends not only on the knowledge of individual doctors but also on the systems in which they work. The lawsuit showed that hospital policies, supervision, scheduling, and communication can have life-changing consequences. For the medical community, Zion v. New York Hospital became a turning point that helped reshape residency training and strengthen protections for patients nationwide.

Works Cited:

"Impact of the Libby Zion Case on Graduate Medical Education in Internal Medicine." Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, scholars.mssm.edu/en/publications/impact-of-the-libby-zion-case-on-graduate-medical-education-in-in-2. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Leape, Lucian L. "Error in Medicine." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 318, no. 13, 31 Mar. 1988, www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198803243181209. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Lucey, Catherine R., and Bridget C. Segar. "Medical Education: The Libby Zion Case Revisited." PubMed Central, National Library of Medicine, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3008836/. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses." National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214940/. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"Zion v. New York Hospital (1994-95)." Encyclopedia.com, www.encyclopedia.com/law/law-magazines/zion-v-new-york-hospital-1994-95. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"Jury Splits in Zion Malpractice Case." UPI Archives, 6 Feb. 1995, www.upi.com/Archives/1995/02/06/Jury-splits-in-Zion-malpractice-case/4289792046800/. Accessed 21 June 2026.

(Image: Grunge)

In 1979, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that continues to shape how states handle the psychiatric hospitalization of minors. The case, Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), centered on whether children have a constitutional right to a formal court hearing before being admitted to a mental health facility by their parents or guardians.

At its core, the case dealt with a difficult question: when a parent believes their child needs psychiatric care, how much legal process is required before that child can be placed in a state hospital?

The case began with a group of minors in Georgia who had been admitted to state psychiatric hospitals under a system that allowed parents or guardians to request admission. Under Georgia law at the time, a parent could sign an application for hospitalization. After that, hospital staff would conduct an evaluation, and a superintendent or medical team would decide whether the child showed evidence of mental illness and would benefit from treatment. If so, the child could be admitted for care. There was no requirement for a courtroom hearing or a judge’s approval before admission.

The children who brought the case argued that this system violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claimed that being placed in a psychiatric institution was a serious restriction on liberty and that they should have the right to an independent, adversarial hearing before that decision was made.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that Georgia’s procedures met constitutional requirements. The majority emphasized that due process does not always require a formal courtroom hearing. Instead, the level of process required depends on the situation, including the private interests at stake, the risk of error, and the government’s interest in how the system functions. This balancing approach is consistent with earlier due process reasoning used in cases like Mathews v. Eldridge.

A key point in the Court’s reasoning was the role of medical professionals. The Court stated that psychiatric hospitalization decisions involve medical judgment, and that trained clinicians are generally better suited than judges to evaluate whether a child needs treatment. Under Georgia’s system, a child was evaluated by a psychiatrist or admissions team, and their condition was reviewed periodically after admission. The Court found that this medical review process reduced the risk of wrongful commitment enough to satisfy due process.

The Court also rejected the idea that an adversarial hearing would necessarily improve accuracy. It expressed concern that turning medical decisions into courtroom disputes could make treatment decisions more rigid and less effective. In the Court’s view, the combination of parental involvement, medical evaluation, and ongoing review provided sufficient protection.

At the same time, the decision was not a complete denial of protections for minors. The Court emphasized that children still have a liberty interest when they are institutionalized. It also noted that hospitals and states have a continuing responsibility to monitor whether a child still needs to remain in care and to discharge them if treatment is no longer necessary.

There was disagreement within the Court. Some justices argued that the majority placed too much trust in medical decision-making alone and not enough emphasis on independent review. They worried that without a formal hearing, there is a greater risk of unnecessary or prolonged institutionalization, especially for children who cannot easily advocate for themselves.

The impact of Parham v. J.R. has been long lasting. It set the precedent that parents, in collaboration with medical professionals, can authorize a child’s psychiatric hospitalization without a prior court hearing. It also reinforced the idea that due process is flexible and depends heavily on context, especially in medical settings.

Today, the case is often discussed in debates about children’s rights, mental health care, and the balance between parental authority and state oversight. It remains a key example of how the Supreme Court has approached the intersection of medicine, family decision-making, and constitutional rights.

At its center, Parham v. J.R. reflects a continuing tension in law and policy: how to protect vulnerable minors while also allowing parents and doctors to act quickly when mental health treatment is believed to be necessary.

Works Cited:

“Parham v. J.R.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1977/75-1690. Accessed 16 May 2026.

“Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/442/584. Accessed 16 May 2026.

“Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).” Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/584/. Accessed 16 May 2026.

“Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).” Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep442584/. Accessed 16 May 2026.

(Image: Hofstra News)

Buck v. Bell (1927) stands as one of the most controversial decisions in United States Supreme Court history. The ruling upheld a Virginia law that permitted the state to forcibly sterilize individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. This decision gave legal approval to a broader eugenics movement that had already begun shaping public policy in the early twentieth century, influencing thousands of forced sterilizations across the country.

At its core, the case centered on Carrie Buck, a young woman institutionalized at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. State officials argued that Buck, her mother, and her infant daughter all demonstrated “feeblemindedness,” a term widely used at the time to categorize individuals with intellectual disabilities, mental illness, or perceived social and behavioral differences. The classification lacked a consistent medical definition and was often shaped by subjective judgments, social bias, and poverty.

The legal argument in Buck v. Bell reflected the principles of eugenics, a now-discredited scientific ideology that claimed human populations could be improved by controlling reproduction. Eugenic theory divided people into those considered “fit” and “unfit,” often using flawed measurements such as intelligence testing, family history, and institutional records. These ideas were heavily influenced by early interpretations of genetics, but they ignored environmental factors, education, and socioeconomic conditions. Over time, eugenics became closely tied to discrimination against disabled individuals, immigrants, and marginalized communities.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the majority opinion, famously stating, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The ruling concluded that compulsory sterilization did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections. As a result, the decision validated state power to restrict reproductive rights in the name of public welfare.

The impact of Buck v. Bell was far-reaching. Following the decision, more than 30 states expanded sterilization laws, leading to the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of individuals. Many of those affected were people with disabilities, psychiatric patients, prisoners, and individuals from low-income backgrounds. The ruling remained legally valid for decades, even as its scientific foundations were increasingly questioned.

The ideology behind the case, eugenics, deserves further context. Eugenics emerged in the late nineteenth century and gained popularity in the United States and Europe in the early twentieth century. It was promoted by some scientists and policymakers who believed that traits such as intelligence, morality, and mental health were strictly inherited. Modern genetics has since rejected this simplistic view. The term “feeblemindedness,” frequently used in early eugenic policy, was not a medical diagnosis in the modern sense. Instead, it functioned as a broad label applied to individuals who did not meet institutional expectations, often based on biased assessments rather than objective clinical criteria.

Although Buck v. Bell was never formally overturned, its legal influence weakened over time. A major shift occurred in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), in which the Supreme Court struck down an Oklahoma law mandating sterilization for certain repeat offenders. The Court recognized procreation as a fundamental right and ruled that sterilization laws could violate equal protection principles under the Constitution.

Unlike Buck v. Bell, Skinner v. Oklahoma treated reproductive rights as essential rather than expendable. The decision did not explicitly repudiate the earlier case, but it significantly limited its reach by establishing stricter constitutional protections around bodily autonomy and reproduction. Over time, this shift contributed to the decline of eugenic sterilization policies in the United States.

Today, Buck v. Bell remains a cautionary example of how legal systems can reinforce scientific misunderstanding and social prejudice. Its legacy is frequently discussed in medical ethics, disability rights history, and constitutional law as a reminder of the consequences of allowing flawed science to shape public policy.

Works Cited:

“Buck v. Bell.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, https://www.history.com/topics/eugenics. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Buck v. Bell.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Buck-v-Bell. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

(Image: Personal Injury & Accident Attorneys - Pintas & Mullins)

The case Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri sits within the larger legal fallout from the Flint water crisis in Flint, Michigan. While the facts of the contamination are widely discussed, what matters most in a legal context is what the court ultimately decided and how it handled responsibility.

This lawsuit was filed against officials in Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. The claim centered on how those officials responded to warnings about lead in the water supply. The plaintiffs argued that the government had not only failed to act quickly, but had also contributed to the problem by dismissing concerns raised by scientists and local residents. The case pushed the court to answer a specific question: when a government agency ignores clear risks, what happens next in terms of legal responsibility?

The court did not treat the situation as an isolated mistake. Instead, it allowed key parts of the case to move forward, rejecting efforts by the defendants to dismiss the claims early in the process. That decision mattered. It meant that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to suggest that officials could be held legally accountable for their role in the crisis. In legal terms, the case survived motions to dismiss, which is often a critical step before a full trial or settlement.

As the case progressed, it became part of a broader pattern of litigation tied to the Flint water crisis. Many of these cases were eventually consolidated into larger proceedings, but Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri played a role in keeping pressure on state officials. It helped establish that claims of negligence and failure to act were serious enough to be examined in court rather than being shut down early.

The outcome of the case also contributed to accountability measures outside the courtroom. While not every individual lawsuit ends in a dramatic verdict, cases like this can influence settlements and policy changes. In the Flint crisis, this legal pressure led to financial settlements for residents and increased scrutiny of how environmental decisions are made and monitored.

Another important result of the case was how it shaped the standard for what counts as government responsibility in environmental health issues. The court’s willingness to allow the case to proceed signaled that ignoring warnings about public health risks, especially those affecting children, can lead to legal consequences. This became part of a larger legal message that institutions are expected to respond when credible evidence of harm appears.

The case also reinforced the role of evidence in medical-related litigation. Scientific data about lead exposure, including its effects on brain development and behavior, was central to the claims. The court had to consider whether the evidence supported the argument that officials’ actions, or lack of action, contributed to real harm. That intersection of science and law is a defining feature of cases like this.

Even though Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri is not always the most publicly discussed case from the Flint crisis, its procedural outcome matters. It helped establish that lawsuits against government agencies can move forward when there is evidence of negligence, and that early dismissal is not guaranteed when public health is at stake.

The result is less about a single final verdict and more about what the court allowed to happen. By permitting the case to continue, the court opened the door for accountability, settlements, and a wider recognition of how environmental failures translate into legal responsibility.

Works Cited:

“Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri.” ACLU of Michigan, https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/concerned-pastors-social-action-v-khouri-safe-water-flint. Accessed 27 Mar. 2026.

“Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri.” CaseMine, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59145a1badd7b049341d062c. Accessed 27 Mar. 2026.

“Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri.” NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/court-battles/concerned-pastors-social-action-v-khouri. Accessed 27 Mar. 2026.

“Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri.” Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/15221/. Accessed 27 Mar. 2026.

(Image: Catholic World Report)

In the United States, many medical issues eventually reach the courtroom. Questions about healthcare policy, religious freedom, and patient rights sometimes become legal battles that end up shaping national policy. One of the most significant recent examples is Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a Supreme Court case decided in 2020 that focused on birth control coverage, religious freedom, and the limits of government authority in healthcare.

The case began with a dispute over a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the major healthcare law passed in 2010. The ACA requires many employer health insurance plans to cover preventive care services for women without additional cost. Federal health agencies later interpreted this requirement to include all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, meaning many employers had to provide insurance coverage for birth control as part of employee health plans.

However, some religious organizations objected to the requirement. One of them was the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group of nuns who run homes for elderly people in need. The group argued that providing insurance coverage for contraception conflicted with their religious beliefs. They believed that even indirectly participating in providing contraceptives through their employee health plans would violate their faith.

Earlier government rules attempted to address this concern by creating a system known as an “accommodation.” Under this system, religious nonprofits could file paperwork stating their objection, and their insurance provider would arrange separate contraceptive coverage for employees without involving the organization further. But the Little Sisters argued that even filling out the certification form made them morally complicit in providing contraception, which they believed was wrong.

The dispute became part of a long series of legal battles over the contraceptive mandate. Similar issues had already reached the Supreme Court in cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in 2014 and Zubik v. Burwell in 2016. Over time, the federal government expanded the exemptions that allowed certain employers to opt out of the mandate for religious or moral reasons.

In response, several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, challenged those expanded exemptions. The states argued that the federal government had gone too far by allowing many employers to refuse contraceptive coverage. They claimed the policy could reduce access to birth control for thousands of women and that federal agencies did not have the authority to create such broad exemptions.

The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The main legal question was not directly about whether birth control should be covered by insurance. Instead, the Court focused on whether federal agencies had the authority to create exemptions from the contraceptive mandate and whether they could consider religious objections when designing those rules.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the federal agencies responsible for implementing the ACA had the authority to create exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections to the contraceptive mandate. The Court held that the agencies had acted within their legal powers when issuing the rules that allowed those exemptions.

The decision did not completely end the national debate over contraceptive coverage. Critics argued that the ruling could allow employers to deny workers insurance coverage for certain reproductive health services. Supporters of the decision, however, saw it as an important protection for religious liberty, saying organizations should not be forced to act against their deeply held beliefs.

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania highlights how complicated healthcare regulation can become. Medical policy does not exist in isolation. It often intersects with questions about constitutional rights, administrative law, and the balance between government authority and individual freedoms.

The case also shows how the Supreme Court sometimes resolves disputes that begin far outside the courtroom. What started as a disagreement about insurance coverage eventually became a national legal battle involving religious organizations, state governments, and federal agencies. The outcome continues to influence how healthcare policy and religious freedom interact in the United States today.

Works Cited: 

“Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.” Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/little-sisters-of-the-poor-v-pennsylvania. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-431. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania.” Justia Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-431/. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Supreme Court Upholds Religious Exemptions for Employers from Federal Discrimination Laws and the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate.” Taft Law, https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/supreme-court-upholds-religious-exemptions-for-employers-from-federal-discrimination-laws-and-the-affordable-care-acts-contraceptive-mandate/. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

(Image: UMKC School of Law)

In 1983, 25-year-old Nancy Cruzan was in a severe car accident in Missouri. She suffered massive brain damage and ended up in a “persistent vegetative state”. She could not communicate, recognize her family, or perform basic functions on her own. Her condition left her completely dependent on medical care, including a feeding tube to survive.

A few years later, Nancy’s parents asked her doctors to remove the feeding tube, believing she would not have wanted to live in that condition. The hospital refused, citing state law, and the case quickly escalated through the courts. The central question became: can someone refuse life-sustaining treatment through a surrogate, like a family member, when the patient cannot communicate their wishes?

In 1990, the case reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health that competent adults have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in Nancy Cruzan’s situation, the Court said that states could require “clear and convincing evidence” that the patient would have wanted treatment withdrawn. Because Missouri law demanded a high standard of proof, and her parents could not provide evidence strong enough, the feeding tube could not be removed immediately.

This case was groundbreaking because it clarified the legal limits of end-of-life decisions and established that patients have a right to control their own medical care, even if that means refusing life-saving treatment. At the same time, it showed that states can set rules to protect patients and ensure that decisions to end treatment truly reflect the patient’s wishes.

The decision sparked national discussion about medical ethics, patient rights, and the role of families in healthcare. It led to the growth of living wills, advance directives, and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. These tools allow people to state in advance what kinds of medical care they want or do not want if they become unable to communicate. This case is a clear example of how the law interacts with personal choice and medical technology.

The case also highlighted the emotional weight carried by families. Nancy Cruzan’s parents were caught between respecting what they believed were her wishes and following strict legal rules. For many families, situations like this remain deeply challenging, even decades later. Courts and lawmakers continue to balance the rights of patients with safeguards against potential abuse.

Cruzan also influenced other important cases. It laid the foundation for debates about euthanasia, assisted suicide, and patients’ rights across the United States. Hospitals began to adopt policies to address family requests for treatment withdrawal, ensuring that patient autonomy and safety were both considered.

Understanding Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health shows how the legal system, ethics, and personal values can intersect in complex ways. It reminds us that life-and-death decisions are rarely simple, and having clear communication, legal planning, and ethical guidance is critical. Nancy Cruzan’s story and the Supreme Court ruling continue to influence American healthcare and the way we think about choice, dignity, and responsibility at the end of life.

Works Cited: 

“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/261/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2026.

“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZS.html. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.

“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1503. Accessed 19 Feb. 2026.

Kimsma, Gerdine. “Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health: A Case Study in End-of-Life Decisions.” PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12041283/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2026.

(Image: The MIT Press Reader)

In 1962, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that reshaped the boundaries of criminal law and constitutional protections: Robinson v. California. The case addressed a profound legal question—can a state criminalize a person for a disease or a condition, rather than for an act? The Court’s ruling firmly established that punishing someone solely for their status, rather than their behavior, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The case began with Lawrence Robinson, a resident of California who was convicted under a state law that made it a criminal offense to be addicted to narcotics. Unlike traditional criminal statutes that punish specific actions—such as theft or assault—this law effectively punished Robinson for his condition: his drug addiction. Robinson challenged the conviction, arguing that the law targeted a disease, not criminal behavior, and therefore was unconstitutional.

At the heart of the case was a key legal issue: whether punishing a person solely for their status constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court had to consider the distinction between criminalizing conduct, which society traditionally punishes, and criminalizing a condition or status, which the individual cannot control. This distinction carried profound implications for criminal law, public health, and civil liberties.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Robinson. Justice Potter Stewart, writing for the majority, emphasized that a person cannot be punished merely for a disease or condition. The Court recognized drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a moral failing, and criminalizing it as a status violated fundamental principles of human dignity and fairness. The ruling made clear that punishment under the law must target voluntary conduct, not involuntary conditions.

The Court’s reasoning drew on longstanding constitutional principles protecting human dignity and humane treatment. By distinguishing between behavior that could be punished and a condition that could not, the decision reinforced the idea that the law must account for human frailty and medical realities. This was a significant step in recognizing the limits of state power over vulnerable populations.

Although there were dissenting voices in the case, some of whom argued for legislative discretion and public safety considerations, the majority opinion prevailed and set a clear precedent. Robinson v. California invalidated laws that targeted individuals for conditions beyond their control, establishing an essential safeguard against cruel and unusual punishment.

The impact of the ruling was immediate and long-lasting. It prompted a reexamination of laws criminalizing drug addiction and other personal conditions, influencing both legal thinking and public health policy. The decision also paved the way for later cases that expanded Eighth Amendment protections and reinforced the principle that the criminal justice system must respect human dignity.

Today, Robinson v. California remains highly relevant. Its core lesson resonates in modern debates over decriminalizing health-related conditions, treating addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one, and protecting vulnerable populations from punitive laws. Courts and policymakers continue to draw on this precedent when balancing individual rights, public health, and state authority.

In the end, Robinson v. California was more than a drug case—it was a profound affirmation that the law must protect human dignity, even for those society may stigmatize. By drawing a clear line between conduct and condition, the Supreme Court ensured that justice remains tempered with fairness, compassion, and constitutional protection.

Works Cited: 

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). U.S. Reports, vol. 370, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 1962, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep370/usrep370660/usrep370660.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2026.

EBSCO. “Robinson v. California.” EBSCO Research Starters: Law, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/robinson-v-california. Accessed 22 Jan. 2026.

Murray, Christopher P. “The Meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause: Robinson v. California and the Politics of Constitutional Change.” Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, vol. 25, no. 1, 2019, pp. 157–185, https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol25/iss1/10/. Accessed 22 Jan. 2026

(Image: Law Pundit)

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was created to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and use of drugs that can be harmful if misused. Under the CSA, licensed physicians are allowed to prescribe controlled substances as long as the prescriptions are issued for a legitimate medical purpose and within the usual course of professional practice. This law is meant to prevent drug abuse while still allowing doctors to treat patients appropriately.

As opioid misuse increased, the government began prosecuting doctors whose prescribing practices appeared to deviate from medical norms. This raised important questions about mens rea, or criminal intent, and whether doctors should face criminal punishment for medical decisions that may later be considered mistakes. These concerns led to the Supreme Court case Ruan v. United States in 2022.

The case involved Dr. Xiulu Ruan and Dr. Shakeel Kahn, two licensed physicians convicted under the CSA for allegedly prescribing controlled substances outside authorized medical practice. At trial, juries were instructed to judge the doctors based on what a reasonable doctor would have done, rather than whether the defendants knowingly acted unlawfully. The lower courts upheld these convictions, prompting Supreme Court review.

The key legal issue was whether the CSA’s requirement that a person act “knowingly or intentionally” applies to the law’s authorization exception. The government argued that doctors could be convicted based solely on objective medical standards. The defendants argued that criminal law requires proof that they knew their conduct was unauthorized.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the mens rea requirement does apply. Once a doctor shows that their prescriptions were issued for a medical purpose, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor knowingly or intentionally acted outside authorized medical practice. Simply showing that a doctor deviated from standard practices is not enough for a criminal conviction.

This decision is important because it reinforces the principle that criminal liability requires intent or knowledge. It protects physicians from being unfairly prosecuted for good-faith medical decisions while still allowing the government to punish truly intentional misconduct. By clarifying the role of mens rea, the Court ensured that the CSA is applied fairly and consistently with long-standing principles of criminal law.

Works Cited: 

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Ruan v. United States, 20-1410.” LII / Supreme Court Bulletin, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1410. Accessed 3 Jan. 2026.

“Opinion: Ruan v. United States (20-1410).” Attorney General Journal, National Association of Attorneys General, https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/opinion-ruan-v-united-states-20-1410/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2026.

Ruan v. United States, No. 20-1410, Supreme Court of the United States, 2022, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan. 2026.

(Image: Courage California Institute)

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that would permanently alter the relationship between medicine, law, and personal autonomy. Roe v. Wade was not just a political turning point. It was a medical case at its core, centered on patient care, physician judgment, and the limits of government involvement in healthcare decisions. For decades, it shaped how doctors practiced medicine and how patients accessed reproductive care.

The case began in Texas, where state law made abortion illegal in nearly all circumstances. The plaintiff, identified under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” was a pregnant woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy but was unable to do so legally. The defendant, Henry Wade, was the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law. Roe argued that the Texas statute violated her constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy implied by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices were faced with a complex question: to what extent could the state regulate abortion without violating individual liberty? The Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Roe. In its decision, the Court held that the Constitution protects a pregnant person’s right to choose to have an abortion, especially during the early stages of pregnancy. At the same time, the ruling acknowledged that the state has an interest in protecting both maternal health and potential life.

To balance these interests, the Court introduced the trimester framework. During the first trimester, abortion decisions were left almost entirely to the patient and their physician. In the second trimester, states could regulate abortion in ways related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus was considered viable, states could restrict or ban abortions except when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. This framework placed doctors at the center of the decision making process, recognizing their medical expertise rather than treating abortion as solely a legal or moral issue.

From a medical standpoint, Roe v. Wade transformed reproductive healthcare. It allowed physicians to provide abortion services without fear of criminal prosecution, leading to safer procedures and standardized medical guidelines. Before Roe, illegal abortions were a significant cause of injury and death. Patients often resorted to unsafe methods or unqualified providers. After the ruling, abortion became regulated as a medical procedure, reducing complications and mortality rates.

The decision also reinforced the principle of doctor patient confidentiality. By framing abortion as a private medical decision, Roe strengthened the idea that healthcare choices should be made based on medical judgment and patient consent, not political pressure. This principle extended beyond abortion and influenced broader discussions about bodily autonomy, informed consent, and reproductive rights.

However, Roe v. Wade was controversial from the moment it was decided. Critics argued that the Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion and that the decision overstepped judicial authority. Supporters countered that many medical decisions rely on implied rights to privacy and liberty, even when not explicitly written into law. Over time, states passed numerous regulations testing the limits of Roe, leading to additional Supreme Court cases that modified but did not overturn the original ruling.

That changed in 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returned regulatory power to the states. This decision had immediate consequences for the medical industry. In states with trigger laws or strict bans, doctors faced legal uncertainty, particularly in emergency situations involving miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or severe complications.

For medical professionals, the end of Roe raised ethical concerns. Physicians must now navigate conflicts between legal restrictions and established standards of care. In some cases, delays in treatment have been reported due to fear of prosecution, highlighting the tension between law and medicine that Roe once sought to resolve.

Roe v. Wade remains one of the most significant court cases affecting healthcare in American history. Even though it is no longer law, its legacy continues to influence debates about medical ethics, patient rights, and the role of government in healthcare decisions. At its core, the case asked a question that still matters today: who should have the final say in deeply personal medical choices, the patient and doctor, or the state?

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that would permanently alter the relationship between medicine, law, and personal autonomy. Roe v. Wade was not just a political turning point. It was a medical case at its core, centered on patient care, physician judgment, and the limits of government involvement in healthcare decisions. For decades, it shaped how doctors practiced medicine and how patients accessed reproductive care.

The case began in Texas, where state law made abortion illegal in nearly all circumstances. The plaintiff, identified under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” was a pregnant woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy but was unable to do so legally. The defendant, Henry Wade, was the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law. Roe argued that the Texas statute violated her constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy implied by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices were faced with a complex question: to what extent could the state regulate abortion without violating individual liberty? The Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Roe. In its decision, the Court held that the Constitution protects a pregnant person’s right to choose to have an abortion, especially during the early stages of pregnancy. At the same time, the ruling acknowledged that the state has an interest in protecting both maternal health and potential life.

To balance these interests, the Court introduced the trimester framework. During the first trimester, abortion decisions were left almost entirely to the patient and their physician. In the second trimester, states could regulate abortion in ways related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus was considered viable, states could restrict or ban abortions except when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. This framework placed doctors at the center of the decision making process, recognizing their medical expertise rather than treating abortion as solely a legal or moral issue.

From a medical standpoint, Roe v. Wade transformed reproductive healthcare. It allowed physicians to provide abortion services without fear of criminal prosecution, leading to safer procedures and standardized medical guidelines. Before Roe, illegal abortions were a significant cause of injury and death. Patients often resorted to unsafe methods or unqualified providers. After the ruling, abortion became regulated as a medical procedure, reducing complications and mortality rates.

The decision also reinforced the principle of doctor patient confidentiality. By framing abortion as a private medical decision, Roe strengthened the idea that healthcare choices should be made based on medical judgment and patient consent, not political pressure. This principle extended beyond abortion and influenced broader discussions about bodily autonomy, informed consent, and reproductive rights.

However, Roe v. Wade was controversial from the moment it was decided. Critics argued that the Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion and that the decision overstepped judicial authority. Supporters countered that many medical decisions rely on implied rights to privacy and liberty, even when not explicitly written into law. Over time, states passed numerous regulations testing the limits of Roe, leading to additional Supreme Court cases that modified but did not overturn the original ruling.

That changed in 2022 with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returned regulatory power to the states. This decision had immediate consequences for the medical industry. In states with trigger laws or strict bans, doctors faced legal uncertainty, particularly in emergency situations involving miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or severe complications.

For medical professionals, the end of Roe raised ethical concerns. Physicians must now navigate conflicts between legal restrictions and established standards of care. In some cases, delays in treatment have been reported due to fear of prosecution, highlighting the tension between law and medicine that Roe once sought to resolve.

Roe v. Wade remains one of the most significant court cases affecting healthcare in American history. Even though it is no longer law, its legacy continues to influence debates about medical ethics, patient rights, and the role of government in healthcare decisions. At its core, the case asked a question that still matters today: who should have the final say in deeply personal medical choices, the patient and doctor, or the state?

Works Cited:

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Abortion Is Healthcare.” ACOG, www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Abortion Surveillance, United States.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041486.htm.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Roe v. Wade.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Legal Information Institute. “Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).” Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Oyez. “Roe v. Wade.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Supreme Court of the United States. “Roe v. Wade.” Justia, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.