Explore the vast range of titles available.

This is a study of a progressive law firm and its three partners.The firm was founded in 1936 and existed until the death of one partner in 1965.The partners were harassed by the FBI primarily for defending labor union members and leaders and the defense of both.

This essay reflects upon the last thirty-five years of public health law. Part One begins by discussing the growth and maturation of the field of public health law since the 1980s. Part Two examines current challenges facing public health law, focusing on those posed by the conservative legal movement and a judiciary that is increasingly skeptical of efforts to use law to improve health and mitigate health inequities. Part Three discusses potential responses to the increasingly perilous judicial climate, including thoughts that emerged from a convening held on the subject by the Act for Public Health Partnership in May 2024.

Context: The legal tools of health care advance planning have substantially changed since their emergence in the mid-1970s. Thirty years of policy development, primarily at the state legislative level addressing surrogate decision making and advance directives, have resulted in a disjointed policy landscape, yet with important points of convergence evolving over time. An understanding of the evolution of advance care planning policy has important implications for policy at both the state and federal levels. Methods: This article is a longitudinal statutory and literature review of health care advance planning from its origins to the present. Findings: While considerable variability across the states still remains, changes in law and policy over time suggest a gradual paradigm shift from what is described as a \"legal transactional approach\" to a \"communications approach,\" the most recent extension of which is the emergence of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, or POLST. The communications approach helps translate patients' goals into visible and portable medical orders. Conclusions: States are likely to continue gradually moving away from a legal transactional mode of advance planning toward a communications model, albeit with challenges to authentic and reliable communication that accurately translates patients' wishes into the care they receive. In the meantime, the states and their health care institutions will continue to serve as the primary laboratory for advance care planning policy and practice.

This memoir recounts the struggle against segregation in St. Augustine, Florida, in the early and mid-1960s. In the summer of 1964 the nation’s oldest city became the center of the civil rights movement as Martin Luther King Jr., encouraged by President Johnson, a southerner, who made the civil rights bill the center piece of his domestic policy, chose this tourism-driven community as an ideal location to demonstrate the injustice of discrimination and the complicity of southern leaders in its enforcement. St. Augustine was planning an elaborate celebration of its founding, and expected generous federal and state support. But when the kick-off dinner was announced only whites were invited, and local black leaders protested. The affair alerted the national civil rights leadership to the St. Augustine situation as well as fueling local black resentment. Ferment in the city grew, convincing King to bring his influence to the leadership of the local struggle. As King and his allies fought for the right to demonstrate, a locally powerful Ku Klux Klan counter-demonstrated. Conflict ensued between civil rights activists, local and from out-of-town, and segregationists, also home-grown and imported. The escalating violence of the Klan led Florida’s Governor to appoint State Attorney Dan Warren as his personal representative in St. Augustine. Warren’s crack down on the Klan and his innovative use of the Grand Jury to appoint a bi-racial committee against the intransigence of the Mayor and other officials, is a fascinating story of moral courage. This is an insider view of a sympathetic middleman in the difficult position of attempting to bring reason and dialog into a volatile situation.

In 2006, the University of Maryland Carey School of Law had the privilege of co-hosting the annual Health Law Professors Conference with the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics (ASLME). Coincidentally, as director of the Law & Health Care Program at Maryland, I had the opportunity to announce the winner of the Jay Healey Health Law Teachers’ Award at the conference. The award is given to “professors who have devoted a significant portion of their career to health law teaching and whose selection would honor Jay [Healey’s] legacy through their passion for teaching health law, their mentoring of students and/or other faculty and by their being an inspiration to colleagues and students.” 1 Healey, a Professor in the Humanities Department at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, was the youngest recipient of the Society’s Health Law Teachers’ Award, which he received in 1990. He was passionate about teaching and had the idea to devote a session each year at the annual conference to teaching health law. It was always a plenary session at which he challenged us to be better teachers. Jay died in 1993, at the age of 46, not long after the Health Law Teachers conference that year, which he attended and which also happened to be held in Baltimore at the University of Maryland School of Law. Thereafter, the award was given in his name.

Every politically sentient American knows that Congress has been dominated by special interests, and many people do not remember a time when Congress legislated in the public interest. In the 1960s and '70s, however, lobbyists were aggressive but were countered by progressive senators and representatives, as several books have documented. What has remained untold is the major behind-the-scenes contribution of entrepreneurial Congressional staff, who planted the seeds of public interest bills in their bosses' minds and maneuvered to counteract the influence of lobbyists to pass laws in consumer protection, public health, and other policy arenas crying out for effective government regulation. They infuriated Nixon's advisor, John Ehrlichman, who called them \"bumblebees,\" a name they wore as a badge of honor. For his insider account, Pertschuk draws on many interviews, as well as his fifteen years serving on the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee that Senator Warren Magnuson chaired and as the committee's Democratic Staff Director. That committee became, in Ralph Nader's words, \"the Grand Central Station for consumer protection advocates.\"

For the past three decades, we have written on the history of occupational and environmental health, authoring books and articles on lead poisoning, silicosis, asbestosis, and angiosarcoma of the liver, among other diseases. One book, Deceit and Denial, focused specifically on the chemical and lead industries. Because of the rarity of historians who study this history, we have been asked to testify on behalf of workers who allege harm from these industrial materials and by state, county, and local governments who seek redress for environmental damages and funds to prevent future harm to children. In about 2010, we began testifying in law suits brought by individuals who claimed that they had suffered from cancers, specifically non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, because of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in their bodies. At that time, we wrote a Report to the Court about industry knowledge of the dangers of PCBs to workers and the environment. More recently, we have been approached by attorneys representing government agencies on the West Coast of the United States which are seeking funds to abate PCB pollution in their ports, bays, and waterways. The focus of these lawsuits is the Monsanto Corporation, the sole producer of PCBs in the United States from the 1930s through 1977. Through these law suits, an enormous trove of previously private Monsanto reports, papers, memos, letters, and studies have been made available to us and this paper is the result of our examination of these hundreds of thousands of pages. The documents from this collection (with the exception of privileged materials that Monsanto has not made public, and upon which we have not relied) are available on www.ToxicDocs.org, the website we have developed with Professor Merlin Chowkwanyun of Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. (Almost all of the references that are from this collection can be accessed by readers by clicking on the reference hyperlink.) This monograph is adapted from a report to the court that was originally produced for litigation on behalf of plaintiffs in PCB lawsuits. We are grateful to the Journal of Public Health Policy for publishing this detailed examination of these documents and we hope it will stimulate further research into this important, and now public, archive of industry records.

The “We Card” program is the most ubiquitous tobacco industry “youth smoking prevention” program in the United States, and its retailer materials have been copied in other countries. The program's effectiveness has been questioned, but no previous studies have examined its development, goals, and uses from the tobacco industry's perspective. On the basis of our analysis of tobacco industry documents released under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, we concluded that the We Card program was undertaken for 2 primary purposes: to improve the tobacco industry's image and to reduce regulation and the enforcement of existing laws. Policymakers should be cautious about accepting industry self-regulation at face value, both because it redounds to the industry's benefit and because it is ineffective.

John Patterson, Alabama governor from 1959 to 1963, was thrust into the Alabama political arena after the brutal murder of his father, attorney general Albert Patterson in 1954. Allowed by the Democratic Party to take his father’s place and to complete the elder’s goal of cleaning up corruption in his hometown Phenix City, Patterson made a young, attractive, and sympathetic candidate. Patterson for Alabama details his efforts to clean up his hometown, oppose corruption in the administration of Governor Big Jim Folsom, and to resist school desegregation. Popular on all three counts, Patterson went on to defeat rising populist George Wallace for governor. Patterson’s term as governor was marked by rising violence as segregationists violently resisted integration. His role as a champion of resistance has clouded his reputation to this day. Patterson left office with little to show for f his efforts and opposed for one reason or another by nearly all sectors of Alabama. Stymied in efforts to reclaim the governorship or a seat on the Alabama state Supreme Court, Patterson was appointed by Wallace to the state court of criminal appeals in 1984 and served on that body until retiring in 1997. In 2004, he served as one of the justices who removed the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore for ignoring a federal court order.

Major General Enoch Crowder served as the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army from 1911 to 1923. In 1915, Crowder convinced Congress to increase the size of the Judge Advocate General's Office—the legal arm of the United States Army—from thirteen uniformed attorneys to more than four hundred. Crowder's recruitment of some of the nation's leading legal scholars, as well as former congressmen and state supreme court judges, helped legitimize President Woodrow Wilson's wartime military and legal policies. As the United States entered World War I in 1917, the army numbered about 120,000 soldiers. The Judge Advocate General's Office was instrumental in extending the military's reach into the everyday lives of citizens to enable the construction of an army of more than four million soldiers by the end of the war. Under Crowder's leadership, the office was responsible for the creation and administration of the Selective Service Act, under which thousands of men were drafted into military service, as well as enforcement of the Espionage Act and wartime prohibition. In this first published history of the Judge Advocate General's Office between the years of 1914 and 1922, Joshua Kastenberg examines not only courts-martial, but also the development of the laws of war and the changing nature of civil-military relations. The Judge Advocate General's Office influenced the legislative and judicial branches of the government to permit unparalleled assertions of power, such as control over local policing functions and the economy. Judge advocates also altered the nature of laws to recognize a person's diminished mental health as a defense in criminal trials, influenced the assertion of US law overseas, and affected the evolving nature of the law of war. This groundbreaking study will appeal to scholars, students, and general readers of US history, as well as military, legal, and political historians.