Amicus Briefs

Gray v. Cummings, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District, No. 18-1303: "Because the [Americans with Disabilities Act] requires accommodating individuals with disabilities (including mental illness) to the extent such accommodations are reasonable, amici submit this brief to describe various resources available to law-enforcement agencies in crafting reasonable accommodations for individuals with mental illness, including during involuntary detention for medical treatment or civil commitment."

Madison v. Alabama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 17-7505: "Executing an individual with severe cognitive impairments caused by vascular dementia constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Mental-health professionals can reliably diagnose severe neuropathology and determine an individual's capacity."

Charles v. Orange County NY, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 17-3506: "Discharge planning is crucial not only for individuals with serious mental illness, but it can also can play an important role in reducing crime and its costs to society."

Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 17-3113: "Access to single-sex facilities that correspond to one's gender identity is a critical aspect of social transition and, thus, successful treatment for transgender and gender dysphoric individuals. By contrast, excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity undermines their treatment; exposes them to stigma and discrimination; potentially harms their physical health by causing them to avoid restroom use; and impairs their social and emotional development."

Dassey v. Dittmann, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 17-1172: "Whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied the Supreme Court’s precedent when it held that a confession made by a juvenile with significant intellectual and social limitations was voluntary—and, if so, whether on de novo review the confession was involuntary."

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, No. 16-1436 and 16-1540: On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 16-1436, 16A1190, and 16A1191: "Health professionals and scientific experts from other countries are rigorously screened, must satisfy strict standards of qualification set by our government, and are addressing compelling needs in our communities. Amici believe that their work to ensure our nation’s health security—through critically needed patient care and cutting-edge biomedical research—contributes to our national security. In doing so, amici rely upon immigration processes to operate fairly and efficiently. Amici are deeply concerned that the Executive Order, and similar actions barring or discouraging health professionals and scientists from coming to the United States, will reduce patient access to care, inhibit medical innovation and biomedical research, and set back efforts to prevent pandemics and other public-health threats to Americans."

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 15-2056: "Access to single-sex facilities that correspond to one’s gender identity is a critical aspect of social transition and, thus, successful treatment of gender dysphoria. By contrast, excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity undermines their treatment; exposes them to stigma and discrimination; harms their physical health by causing them to avoid restroom use; and impairs their social and emotional development."

Volk v. DeMeerleer, Supreme Court of Washington, No. 91387-1: "Amici respectfully request the Court grant reconsideration to clarify the standard for outpatient clinicians for triggering the duty to warn of a patient's potential, imminent dangerousness that does not violate federal health care privacy law."

McWilliams v. Dunn, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-5294: In cases where mental illness is at issue either in the guilt or penalty phase of a criminal trial, an indigent defendant’s access to an independent psychiatric expert is essential to a fair trial.

Regents of the University of California v. Rosen, Supreme Court of California, S230568: "Universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities."

Moore v. Texas, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 15-797: "The diagnosis of intellectual disability in capital cases should be based on the diagnostic consensus of mental health professionals, which requires the comprehensive assessment of intellectual and adaptive functioning using contemporary standards."

City and County of San Francisco, California, et al., v. Teresa Sheehan, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 13 -1412

James Obergefell, et al., and Brittani Henry, et al., v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al., Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574

Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. State of Alaska, Supreme Court of State of Alaska, Nos. S-15010, 15030, 15039

Ferguson v. Crews, Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 13-5507, 13A116: In Support of Petitioner on Petition for Writ of Certiorari, joined by Florida Psychiatric Society

The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-534: "This Court should make clear that the actions of duly established state regulatory boards and their members are immune from the federal antitrust laws even if those boards are made up of market participants--as they have been for over 150 years."

Hall v. Florida, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 12-10882: "the diagnosis of intellectual disability in capital cases should be based on a comprehensive assessment of intellectual and adaptive functioning, including the appropriate standard error of measurement and confidence interval associated with standardized tests."

Hollingsworth v. Perry, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 12-144: "Proposition 8 is an instance of institutional stigma. It conveys the government’s judgment that, in the realm of intimate relationships, a legally united same-sex couple is inherently less deserving of society’s full recognition than are heterosexual couples. ... By devaluing and delegitimizing the relationships that constitute the very core of a homosexual orientation, Proposition 8 compounds and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality. This Court has repeatedly recognized the unconstitutional nature of stigmatizing legislation based on stereotypic classifications."

United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 12-307: "DOMA is an instance of institutional stigma. It conveys the government’s judgment that, in the realm of intimate relationships, a legally married same-sex couple is inherently less deserving of society’s full recognition through the provision of federal marriage-linked benefits than are heterosexual couples. By devaluing and delegitimizing the relationships that constitute the very core of a homosexual orientation, the Act compounds and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality. Indeed, this effect of the statute condemns it quite apart from its denial of tangible financial benefits to married same-sex couples, for the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the unconstitutional nature of stigmatizing legislation based on stereotypic classifications."

Delling v. Idaho, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11 -1515: “A central significance of the insanity defense . . . is the separation of nonblameworthy from blameworthy offenders. ... The need to effect such a separation by excusing from criminal responsibility those who cannot rationally appreciate that their conduct was wrong is deeply engrained in Anglo-American tradition and contemporary law. To deprive a defendant of a defense to criminal punishment in such circumstances violates due process.”

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 11-345: Respondents."Given the persistence of health disparities among minority communities and the unconscious bias that contributes to that problem, amici strongly believe that it remains necessary in 2012 for institutions to continue to take action to ensure diversity in the admissions process."

Miller v. Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 10-9646, 10-9647: "there is no reason why the reduction in culpability associated with adolescence should vary according to the severity of the offense. Indeed, the best available research indicates that even serious juvenile offenders are far more likely than not to desist from criminality as they mature, and that it is equally true of the most serious offenders that “expert psychologists [cannot] differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.”

Ryan v. Gonzales; Tibbals v. Carter, Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 10-930 & 11-218: "District courts can and should use that stay authority – consistently with venerable common law principles – to assure the reliability and integrity of habeas proceedings. That assurance is much needed when prisoners who have been sentenced to death are prevented by mental disorder or disability from necessary communication with counsel."

Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger, et al., vs. Governor, State of Florida in the United States Court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case No. 12-14009-FF): "... the Act inhibits physicians from communicating with their patients about issues which may become relevant to their patients’ health and safety. It also inhibits physicians from making a reasonable, inoffensive notation in their patients’ medical records, even though such notation would cause no legally recognized harm to the patient (or anyone else) and might protect the physician against a claim of medical malpractice. Any benefits that might be attributable to the Act, to the extent they may exist at all, are far outweighed by the burdens the Act imposes on the First Amendment rights of physicians and their patients."

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.; Hara, Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, and 10-2214: "evidence supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality that is not chosen, that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects, and that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of opposite sex parents. ... discrimination by the federal government between married same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples in awarding benefits unfairly stigmatizes same-sex couples."

United States v. Jared Lee Loughner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 11-10339: "... the requirement for a judicial hearing [regarding involuntary treatment or medication] builds an inordinate delay between diagnosis of a condition posing a danger to the health and safety of the inmate and others and treatment for that condition."

Hope Clinic For Women v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, No. 1-10-1463: "the Act’s [Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995] premise that abortion causes “serious and long-lasting” negative “medical, emotional, and psychological consequences” for minors—and that parental notice laws such as the Act protect against these consequences—is contradicted by the weight of scientific authority."

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 10-16696: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

Schwarzenegger v. Plata, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 09-1233: "... the understanding of experts in correctional mental health that adequate mental health care demands adequate physical and human resources as well as adequate access for inmates to those resources in a reasonable period of time. The evidence that overcrowding renders resources and access inadequate thus supports the ruling below."

Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 08-7412, 08-7621: "sentencing an immature and less culpable juvenile to die in prison, particularly for the non-homicide offenses at issue here, is a grossly disproportionate punishment."

Maryland State Board of Physicians v. Harold I. Eist, M.D., Circuit Court of Montgomery County, No. 00329

Indiana v. Ahmad Edwards, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 07-208: "Whether a State may adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial."

Aid for Women, et al., v. Nola Foulston and Paul Morrison (District Attorney, 18th Judicial District of Kansas; and Attorney General of the State of Kansas), U.S. Court of Appeals For the Tenth Circuit, Nos. 06-3187, 06-3188 and 06-3202: “[I]t is critical that adolescents who are sexually active receive appropriate confidential health care and counseling.”

Scott Louis Panetti v. Nathaniel Quaterman (Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justic, Correctional Institutions Division), U.S. Supreme Court, No. 06-6407: "[A] prisoner is not competent to be executed if he has a mental disorder or disability that significantly impairs his or her capacity to understand the nature and purpose of the punishment, or to appreciate the reason for its imposition in the prisoner's own case."

Clark v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-5966

Maryland State Board of Physicians v. Harold I. Eist, M.D., Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 110

Aid for Women, et al. v. Nola Foulston, District Attorney, 18th Judicial District of Kansas (No. 04-3310): "... under the Attorney General’s interpretation of the Reporting Statute, all consensual Sexual Behavior – including behavior that is not, in the determination of the Professional, abusive – must be reported to the State by Professionals. The acknowledged harmful health effects associated with the loss of confidential health communications under the Attorney General’s interpretation are in fact unnecessarily and unfairly borne by Adolescents. If the District Court’s decision is reversed and the Attorney General’s interpretation enforced, the unintended consequence will be that the health of Adolescents in Kansas, the group the Reporting Statute intends to protect, will be compromised."

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eengland, No. 04-1144

Eric Michael Clark v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-5966

Hawaii v. Aiwohi, Hawaii State Supreme Court, No. 26838

United States v. Georgia; Goodman v. Georgia, Nos. 04-1203, 04-1236

Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633: The Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids the execution of offenders who committed their crimes at the age of 16 or 17.

Aetna Health Inc. et al. v. Davila; Cigna Healthcare of Texas v. Calad., Appellate Brief, Nos. 02-1845, 03-83

Coleman v. Wilson

Grutter v. Bollinger, No. 02-241: "The First Amendment, in combination with the deference historically given to educational decisions, counsel against any broad and sweeping judicial decision to prohibit undergraduate and professional schools from implementing race- and ethnicity-conscious programs designed to promote and obtain diversity. This is true with respect to all post-secondary educational institutions. However, there is heightened urgency in the context of our Nation’s medical schools and their ability to produce, in aggregate, a cohort of graduates who are culturally and technically competent to address the health care needs of our increasingly multicultural society."

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, No. 02-102: "Whether Texas’ “homosexual conduct” law, Texas Penal Code § 21.06, which prohibits certain forms of private, consensual sexual activity only between persons of the same sex, violates the Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Eist. v. Maryland State Board of Physician Quality Assurance, Civil Case No. 240300: "The Board has undermined the therapist-patient privilege and threatened the ability of therapists to effectively treat patients by unlawfully circumventing judicial supervision of its administrative subpoena power."

McKnight v, South Carolina, No. 02-1741: This brief argues that the prosecution of Ms. McKnight will make thousands of South Carolinian women suffering from a stillbirth vulnerable to homicide charges if they engage in any conduct during their pregnancy believed to be harmful to the fetus – whether or not that conduct is illegal. The brief explains that this kind of prosecution flies in the face of recognized protocols for treating mothers who suffer stillbirths – to provide physical and psychosocial support for dealing with the resulting grief and feelings of self-blame – by subjecting them to criminal investigation. ... [T]his was an irrational prosecution based largely on the drug hysteria that has historically driven South Carolina’s policies towards pregnant women who use drugs.

Sell v. United States, No. 02-5664: [On] whether a government can justify involuntary medication to restore a criminal defendant’s competence to stand trial. The APA’s view is that the government broadly can justify such medication on several conditions, most importantly that such medication is medically appropriate for the individual, i.e., warranted on the normal medical grounds balancing the benefits of the medication to the patient against the risks of side effects.

Tennessee v. Lane, No. 02-1667: "... Congress properly exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of Title II of the ADA, and Title II represents a congruent and proportional response to the longstanding pattern of State constitutional violations."

Horn v. New York Times

McCarver v. North Carolina, Supreme Court of North Carolina, No. 00-8727: "Due to their disability, individuals with mental retardation cannot attain the very high level of personal culpability of balmeworthiness that they must have to be punishable by death. ... A blanket prohibition against the execution of individuals with mental retardation is workable, because mental retardation can be identified using time-tested instruments and protocols with proven validity and reliability."

Kansas v. Crane, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 00-957: In regard to the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, "[t]he APA and its members have a strong interest in ensuring that psychiatric hospitalization be reserved for proper care and treatment of patients, not as a means of preventive detention that simply substitutes for the criminal justice system."

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Debra C. Moran and Illinois, US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 01-1021: Argues that provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) do not preempt the right of states to enact laws requiring independent review of the medical-necessity determinations of HMOs acting as insurers. "...[I]ndependent review laws lie at the heart of the traditional state regulation of insurance and health care and have many benefits for patients, physicians, and society as a whole."

United States v. Gomes, AKA Lamont Keaton, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 01-1143: "... on whether a government can justify involuntary medication to restore a criminal defendant’s competence to stand trial, [t]he APA’s view is that the government can justify such medication, in cases like the present, as long as such medication is medically appropriate for the individual, i.e., warranted on the normal medical grounds balancing the benefits of the medication to the patient against the risks of side effects."

California Dental Association v. Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 97-1625: Refutes the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) authority to challenge the ethical rules of a nonprofit, professional association. The ethical statements of professional associations satisfy antitrust requirements. They are intended to carry out the historic role of the professions to regulate themselves in the public interest.

Lewis v. Kmart Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 98-2719: Demonstrates that differential benefit caps for "mental" versus "physical" disabilities under a long-term disability insurance policy constitute disability based discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Pegram, et al. v. Herdrich, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 98-1949: "The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ... was designed to protect beneficiaries of employee welfare plans from abuses by plan fiduciaries. Congress has never suggested that ERISA's protections do not apply to the millions of Americans who rely on employer-provided managed-care health plans."

Olmstead, Commissioner, et al. v. L.C. and E.W., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 98-536: "Depriving an indivual of the important behefits of community integration, unless such a setting is inappropriate for the individual according to reasonable professional judgment, is discrimination under the ADA." Financial burden is not cause for public entities to fail to provide community alternatives for "Congress clearly understood that 'the integration of people with disabilities will sometimes involve substantial short-term burdens, both financial and administrative'--justified by the prospect that 'the long-range effects of integration will benefit society as a whole' (H.R. Rep. 485, Part III, at 50)."

Swidler and Berlin v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 97-1192: "The privileged nature of patient communications is a basic tenet of psychiatry. APA's members, and their patients, have a strong interest in ensuring that the Jaffee privilege not be weakened by disclosures after a patient's death, which would upset patients' expectations and impair the important purposes served by the privilege. ... The court of appeals' decision that the absolute attorney-client privilege does not survive the death of the client is unprecedented and contrary to the settled understanding of the bench and bar. ... [A]n absolute rather than qualified posthumous privilege is necessary to serve the time-honored purpose of the attorney-client privilege: to facilitate legal representation by encouraging complete candor and truthfulness on the part of clients."

Vacco, Attorney General of the State of New York, et al. v. Quill, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 95-1858: The case reviews the ban on assisted suicide of New York State.

State of Kansas v. Hendricks, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 95-1649, 95-9075: The Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act provides for the confinement of individuals who are not mentally ill under the normal standards justifying civil committment.

State of Washington v. Glucksberg, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 96-110: "This Court's due process jurisprudence does not provide a basis for finding a constitutional liberty interest in obtaining a physician's assistance to commit suicide."

Jaffee v. Redmond and Village of Hoffman Estates, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 95-266: The court should recognize psychotherapist-patient relationship under federal rules of evidence.

City of Edmonds v. Washington State Building Code Council, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 94-23

Colorado v. Evans, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 94-1039: An amendment to the Colorado state constitution barred any state or local government action to protect individuals based on their homosexuality. Brief focuses on the research literature on homosexuality.

Madsen, et al. v. Women's Health Center for Choice, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 93-880: Whether the First Amendment prohibits state courts from issuing injunctions regulating the time, place and manner of speech related conduct that has a demonstrable effect on the health and safety of patients at a medical facility and is inimical to the residential privacy interests of health care providers.

Susan Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hospital, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 93-1581: Appellant claims a violation of constitutional rights in the emergency commitment and use of restraint and medication by private physicians in a private hospital.

Godinez v. Moran, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 92-725

Visser v. Taylor, Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Kansas, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 90-3291: Should Kansas be required to provide Medicaid reimbursement for Clozapine (Clozaril) as a 'medically necessary' prescription drug.

Riggins v. Nevada, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 90-8466: Is the State justified in the continued use of antipsychotic medication to maintain competency against the wishes of the defendant?

In re Sion Mitrany United States v. Diamond, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 91 CR 1467: This case concerns the availability of the psychotherapist-patient privilege in federal court cases that are governed by federal law.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, U.S. Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit, Nos. 91-744, 91-902

Rust v. Sullivan, State of New York v. Dr. Louis Sullivan, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392: Whether the Secretary's regulations violate the first amendment's proscription against viewpoint discrimination.

Perry v. Louisiana, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 89-5120: This brief addresses the question whether the state court order directing the petitioner be involuntarily medicated for the purpose of restoring his competence to be executed is consistent with the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

Foucha v. Louisiana, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 90-5844: Should a state have the right to commit indefinitely an insanity acquittee who is no longer mentally ill based on his dangerousness.

Perry v. Louisiana, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 89-5120

Turnock, M.D., MPH, Director of the the Illinois Department of Public Health v. Ragsdale, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 88-790: Right to abortion, right to privacy.

California Association of Psychology Providers v. Rank, Director, Department of Health Services, Supreme Court of California, No. S002524: Allowing psychologists to diagnose and to formulate and implement treatment plans for hospitalized patients is inconsistent with sound health care practice.

State of Minnesota v. Hodgson, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 88-805, 88-1309: Whether a state can burden a minor's constitutional right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy by requiring in every case that one or both parents be notified of her decision without providing an effective~ confidential and expeditious alternative procedure that does not require parental notification.

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, et al., U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 88-805, 88-1309: Whether a state can burden a minor's constitutional right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy by requiring in every case that one or both parents be notified of her decision without providing an effective~ confidential and expeditious alternative procedure that does not require parental notification.

Wilkerson v. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. Court of Appeals for the third Circuit, No. 1989: Although once thought to be a voluntary condition for which disability benefits ought not be paid, alcoholism is now recognized in the law to be a potentially disabling disease without other impairments, and despite medical and legal opinion that alcoholism standing alone can be disabling, the Secretary continues to apply regulations that effectively require a showing of end-organ damage before benefits are awarded.

Zebley v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 87-1692: Whether the Secretary has violated the Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 by Refusing to promulgate new children's disability listings, and whether children's mental impairment listings are arbitrary and capricious, based as they are, on outmoded medical and scientific concepts of disability assessment.

Jane Doe v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 88-7388: A previous court decision (9th Circuit Court) erodes confidentiality and undermines the patient-therapist relations.

Washington v. Harper, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 88-599: Circumstances in which antipsychotic medications may be administered to objecting prisoners in a prison - run mental facility.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 88-605: Right to privacy in medical treatment decisions.

United States v. Michael Charters, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 86-5568: Administration of antipsychotic medication to objecting patients involuntarily hospitalized who are incompetent to stand trial.

Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services v. Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 86-648: Should the physician decide whether an individual should be admitted for inpatient services and determine length of stay?

Ford v. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Corrections, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-5542: Are the Florida procedures for determining competence to be executed flawed?

Smith v. Sieloff, Virginia Department of Corrections, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-5487: Psychiatrists as expert witnesses, confidentiality.

Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. New York City, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 84-1923: Denial of benefits to the mentally ill using "covert policy."

Thornburgh v. American College of OBGYN and Eugene Diamond v. Charles, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 84-495, 84-1379: Right to privacy.

Allen v. Illinois, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-5404: Whether 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination applies to proceedings under the Illinois sexually dangerous persons act.

Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 83-2136: Whether a limitation in the medicaid law on the use of federal funds to reimburse states for the care of patients in 'institutions for mental disease' should be confined to traditional mental hospitals or should be extended to cover newly developed 'intermediate care facilities' that serve residents with mental conditions calling for a lesser level of care.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 84-468: There should be 'heightened judicial scrutiny' to eliminate discrimination against the mentally retarded.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Massachusetts, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 84-325: Does the state have the authority to regulate the content of health insurance policies to ensure that that they provide adequate levels of health coverage?

Jamison v. Farabee, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. C-78-0445-WHO: (Statement on proposed consent decree.) Advising the court that evidence will be presented to modify settlement in a 'right to refuse medication' civil suit.

Ake v. Oklahoma, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 83-5424: Whether an indigent defendant is entitled to a psychiatric expert at state expense to rebut the prosecution's use of psychiatric testimony to prove future dangerousness.

New York (state) v. Uplinger and Butler, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 82-1724: "May the state punish an individual...in which he solicited another adult to engage...in private sexual conduct..."

United States v. Leatherman, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 83-2057: A committed person's right to refuse medication.

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, and Akron Center for Reproductive Health v. City of Akron, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 81-746, 81-1172: Issues related to Akron ordinances requiring physicians to recite statements to women requesting abortions as overly intrusive and in violation of patient and physician rights.

Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City v. Missouri, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 81-1255, 81-1623: Right to abortion, freedom of choice.

Project Release, Green v. Prevost, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 82-7943: Whether due process permits the mentally ill to be committed only upon proof of a recent overt act, whether the state may give medication to committed patients~ even without their consent, whether due process requires hearings?

Harris v. Pulley, Warden, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 82-5246: Should psychiatric testimony be excluded because appellant was denied his 5th amendment rights when he submitted to a psychiatric exam without receiving special warnings or consulting with a lawyer.

Rogers v. Mills, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-2995: Whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he ruled that the psychologists who testified were not competent to give medical opinion or position.

Barefoot v. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 82-6080: Prediction of long-term dangerousness in capital punishment cases in Texas.

Byers v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 78-1451: To set forth APAs view regarding the role and responsibilities of a psychiatrist who examines a defendant in a criminal case involving the defense of insanity.

Youngberg v. Romeo, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 80-1429: Judicial intervention in the day to day operations of a mental facility, right to treatment, least restrictive alternatives.

Mills v. Rogers, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 80-1417: Whether a state having validly committed a mentally ill patient is then constitutionally disabled from treating his illness with medication unless he consents.

Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 79-1380: Are supplemental social security benefits denied unfairly to patients in mental health facilities?

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 79-1404, 79-1408, 79-1414, 79-1415, 79-1489: Do the mentally retarded have the right to the least restrictive habitation under the DD act?

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 79-1404, 79-1408, 79-1414, 79-1415, 79-1489

Rennie v. Klein, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of New Jersey, Nos. 79-2576, 79-2577: Patient's right to refuse medication in non-emergency situations.

Rubie Rogers v. Robert Okin, M.D., U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 79-1649: Right to refuse medication and stay in the hospital.

Rubie Rogers v. Robert Okin, M.D., U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 79-1648: Involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, need for protection from liability for administration of medication of seclusion actions.

Virginia Academy of Clinical Psychologists v. Blue Shield of Virginia, US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 79-1345: Third party reimbursement, necessity for psychiatric diagnosis, only physicians can diagnose illness and assure appropriate treatment, medical referral and consultation for services by psychologists is necessary and in accordance with requirements.

W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections v. Ernest B. Smith, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 79-1127: Can a psychiatrist predict dangerousness, should a defendant be able to rebut such testimony, can a defendant refuse to participate in a psychiatric examination if it will lead to future testimony?

Forsham v. Califano, U.S. Supreme Court, No, 1118: "Decision in favor of Petitioners resulting in the disclosure of raw data would have a serious and adverse impact on the capacity of colleges and universities to undertake research supported by the Federal Government."

Addington v. Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 77-5992: Whether criteria for civil commitment be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jerome Miller, et al. v. Marcel Youakim, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 77-742: Advocates extending AFDC-foster care program benefits to foster care children placed with relatives.

Parham v. J.L. and J.R., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 75-1690: Whether to exempt from formal hearings those cases in which (1) parents in an intact family wish to admit (2) a pre-adolescent child (3) to an accredited institution.

George R. Caesar, M.D. v. Louis P. Mountanos, Sheriff of the County of Marin, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 76-804: The right to privacy of psychotherapeutic communications is a fundamental constitutional right.

Jack B. Kremens v. Kevin Bartley, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 75-1064: Should there be a blanket rule requiring immediate due process hearings in childhood commitment cases?

Robert Whalen, Commissioner of Mental Health of the State of New York v. Robert Roe and George Patient, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 75-839: Confidentiality and state requirements that names of patients receiving certain prescription drugs be revealed to the state.

Vitaly Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, Supreme Court of California, No. SF 23042: Confidentiality and predicting dangerousness of a patient.

Anonymous v. Henry Kissinger, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 74-690: Right to privacy, violation of the 5th amendment rights.

Ricky Wyatt, by and through his aunt and legal guardian Mrs. W.C. Rawlins, Jr. v. Taylor Hardin, Commissioner of Mental Health and the State of Alabama Mental Health Officer, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, No. 3195-N: Amending the court's standard 9 of the court's order in this case relating to the use of ECT with aversive and other experimental treatments.

Anonymous v. William Rogers, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 73-1141: Right to privacy.

J.B. O'Connor, M.D. v. Kenneth Donaldson, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 74-8: The 14th amendment guarantees a right to treatment to involuntarily committed persons in state institutions, psychiatrists employed at those institutions should be immune from personal liability for non-treatment.

Joan Roe, Peter Poe, and Coe Press v. Jane Doe, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 73-1446: Standards of confidentiality, right of a psychiatrist to publish case histories directed to the general public.

John Legion v. Casper Weinberger, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 73-5467: Does denial of Medicaid benefits to patients in state and county mental hospitals violate the equal protection guarentee in the 5th amendment?

Ricky Wyatt v. Charles Aderholt, Commissioner of Mental Health and State of Alabama Mental Health Officer, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 72-2634: Right to treatment.

Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-18: Right to abortion.

Mary Doe v. Arthur Bolton, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-40: Right to abortion.

United States v. Archie W. Brawner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 22-714: In the Insanity defense, only medical experts can give testimony as to diagnosis, etc.

William L. Maxwell v. O.E. Bishop, Superintendent of Arkansas State Penitentiary, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13: "This brief is filed ... in order to bring before this court some psychiatric views of capital punishment..."

Joseph E. Lifschutz, M.D. v. John Arabian, George J. Arabian and Honorable Frank W. Rose, as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 1843 misc.: Can a state statute waive privilege and confidentiality on the filing of a civil suit. (Note: no brief on file, only the motion to file.)

Ernest McDonald v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 16-304: On the record made in this case, was an instruction on the issues of insanity or criminal responsibility required? (n.b. is mental retardation considered a mental disorder?)

Vincent E. Jenkins v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 16-306: Whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he ruled that the psychologists who testified were not competent to give medical opinion or position.