United States Supreme Court and Psychiatry: A Critical Look

1985 ◽  
Vol 13 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 137-164
Author(s):  
Carl P. Malmquist

The entrance of the United States Supreme Court into the field of mental health law in the last decade has been seen by some as heralding a commitment of the Court to mental health issues. A review of key cases reveals a disjointed approach to the issues with an ambivalence and inconsistency in the viewpoint taken toward the role and efficacy of psychiatry. While some cases have emphasized individual rights, such as incompetency issues, and a newly created right to psychiatric assistance at trial for indigents, other cases have refused to give psychiatric treatment centers the right to administer treatment without at least administrative if not judicial supervision. The cases reveal the lack of an overall jurisprudential viewpoint, and perhaps even a trend to return to the level of letting each state go its own way.

2003 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-131
Author(s):  
Steven R. Shapiro

In 1946, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the declaration of martial law in Hawaii following Pearl Harbor did not suspend the Bill of Rights and did not deprive civilians accused of crime of the right to trial by jury in a civilian rather than a military court. In a concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy wrote.


1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy T. Gilliam

In April of 1873, the United States Supreme Court rejected Myra Bradwell's claim that the right to practice law should be acknowledged as one of the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship. Thus, the first case of sex discrimination to be heard by the Court was resolved against the woman, as would be every subsequent claim but one for the next ninety-eight years.


1959 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph O. Losos

InTheLight of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, it might appear that the judiciary is currently the most radical branch of the Federal Government. In certain respects circumstances today, present a scene similar to that of 1937. The Court, now as then, is denounced as an unelected, undemocratic group which, under the pretense of interpreting the laws and Constitution, makes a law contrary to the will of the majority of the American people. Only today it is the right that denounces the Court and the left that comes to its defense.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document