Mental Health

FDA Involvement in Off-Label Drug Use - Event Video

Southwestern Student Chapter
Ryan Abbott, Richard A. Epstein, Susan Prager March 19, 2014

On January 13, 2014 the Southwestern Law School Federalist Society student chapter hosted a debate about the FDA's role in regulating off-label drug use featuring Professor Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU and the Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Ryan Abbott, Associate Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and Visiting Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.


  • Prof. Ryan Abbott, Southwestern Law School
  • Prof. Richard Epstein, NYU Law School
  • Moderator: Dean Susan Prager, Southwestern Law School

Southwestern Law School
Los Angeles, CA

Metrish v. Lancaster - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 6-12-13 featuring Richard Broughton
Richard Broughton June 12, 2013

J. Richard BroughtonOn May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Metrish v. Lancaster.  The question in this case was whether a petitioner was entitled to federal habeas relief when, in his retrial for murder, Michigan courts relied on an intervening state supreme court decision to deny petitioner’s attempt to reassert the same diminished capacity defense he had raised (unsuccessfully) at his original trial.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief, because the retroactive application of a state supreme court decision eliminating the diminished capacity defense was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

To discuss the case, we have J. Richard Broughton, who is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

[Listen now!]

Health Care Decision: NFIB v. Sebelius - Podcast

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast
David B. Rivkin, Jr., Dean A. Reuter June 28, 2012

Health Care Decision: NFIB v. Sebelius - PodcastNFIB v Sebelius, the health care case, has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has determined that the individual mandate exceeds the Commerce Clause power of Congress, but can be upheld under the taxing power. The Medicaid expansion provision was upheld, but the Court ruled that Congress could not take back Medicaid funds from states that decide to not participate in the expansion. Join us as David Rivkin, the litigator who began this important case by filing the lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of numerous states and the NFIB, explains the decision and the dissents. [Listen now!]

Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder

Engage Volume 13, Issue 1, March 2012
Clayton Cramer May 18, 2012

Madness, Deinstitutionalization & MurderFor those of us who came of age in the 1970s, one of the most shocking aspects of the last three decades was the rise of mass public shootings: people who went into public places and murdered complete strangers. Such crimes had taken place before, such as the Texas Tower murders by Charles Whitman in 1966, but their rarity meant that they were shocking... [Read more!]

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 03-30-12 featuring Richard Peltz-Steele
Richard J. Peltz-Steele March 30, 2012

SCOTUScastOn March 28, 2012 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper.  This case involves the Privacy Act, which governs the manner in which executive branch agencies collect, use and disseminate records containing information about individuals.  The Act authorizes an award of money damages to an individual who establishes that government misuse of such records was intentional or willful and resulted in the individual suffering “actual damages.”  The question here was whether mental and emotional injuries qualify as “actual damages” under the Privacy Act.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held by a vote of 5-3 that mental and emotional distress does not constitute “actual damages” under the Privacy Act.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined Justice Alito’s opinion.  Justice Sotomayor field a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Bryer.  Justice Kagan did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.

To discuss the case, we have Richard Peltz-Steele, who is an Associate Professor at the University of Massachusetts School of Law-Dartmouth.