Fordham Law Review最新文献

Prescription drug costs can be astronomical. The advent of generic drugs, which sell at substantially lower prices than their brand-name counterparts, can save consumers billions of dollars per year. The Hatch-Waxman Act, which governs the introduction of generic pharmaceuticals into the marketplace, produces an undesired side effect-the "approval bottleneck." This Comment examines the "approval bottleneck"-a potential roadblock to the generic drug approval process, and comments on attempts to alleviate the problem.This Comment suggests that developments in statutes and case law have made leaps in attempting to alleviate the "approval bottleneck" problem.The Comment evaluates these developments, which include (1) the ability of a subsequent Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) filer to trigger the generic exclusivity period of the first ANDA filer; (2) the forfeiture provisions; (3) declaratory judgments and the relaxed declaratory judgment test; and (4) the rulings on covenants not to sue. Despite these attempts, however, the potential harm to consumers resulting from delayed access to generic medicines remains.

This Note explores the conflict over whether a prisoner must suffer more than de minimis injury to sustain an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. It examines this conflict against the backdrop of the various standards the U.S. Supreme Court adopted in its Eighth Amendment prison conditions jurisprudence between 1976 and 1992, principally focusing on the 1992 Hudson v. McMillian decision. Moreover, this Note considers the intersection of "the evolving standards of decency," the "hands-off doctrine," and the Eighth Amendment injury requirement. Ultimately, this Note advocates that excessive force--when meted out as punishment--violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment regardless of whether a prisoner's injuries are more than de minimis.

After the watershed 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v.Texas, courts are faced with the daunting task of navigating the bounds of sexual privacy in light of Lawrence's sweeping language and unconventional structure. This Note focuses on the specific issue of state governments regulating sexual device distribution. Evaluating the substantive due process rights of sexual device retailers and users, this Note ultimately argues that the privacy interest identified in Lawrence is sufficiently broad to protect intimate decisions to engage in adult consensual sexual behavior, including the liberty to sell, purchase, and use a sexual device.

More than 1.5 million Americans have participated in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past seven years. Some of these veterans have subsequently committed capital crimes and found themselves in our nation's criminal justice system. This Essay argues that combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury at the time of their offenses should not be subject to the death penalty.Offering mitigating evidence regarding military training, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury presents one means that combat veterans may use to argue for their lives during the sentencing phase of their trials. Alternatively, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons offer a framework for establishing a legislatively or judicially created categorical exclusion for these offenders, exempting them from the death penalty as a matter of law. By understanding how combat service and service-related injuries affect the personal culpability of these offenders, the legal system can avoid the consequences of sentencing to death America's mentally wounded warriors, ensuring that only the worst offenders are subject to the ultimate punishment.

DNA plays an indispensable role in modern law enforcement, and courts uniformly find that DNA extraction statutes targeting criminals satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Courts differ on which Fourth Amendment test--totality of the circumstances or special needs--ought to be employed in this context. This Note concludes that courts should apply Samson v. California's less stringent totality of the circumstances test to analyze DNA extraction statutes in order to maintain the integrity of the special needs test.