I think I’m less confident than Kevin Lee seems to be that Catholic social thought and the words of Pope John Paul II speak to the AMP v. USPTO case, which was argued Monday in the Federal Circuit (summary of the issues here). I think one can agree with John Paul that the “biological cannot be separated from the spiritual, family and social dimensions” of the person without coming to any firm views about the correct understanding of the Patent Act’s limitations on patenting “products of nature,” which involves some thorny issues of statutory interpretation and striking the right policy balance between encouraging competition while also properly incentivizing biotech research. There is also the troubling fact that DOJ’s current position is a significant departure from the longstanding position of the USPTO and the National Institutes of Health on the patentability of isolated DNA. Finally (and nicely following on earlier posts about the Supreme Court’s standing decision on Monday in Winn), it appears doubtful that the plaintiffs in AMP v. USPTO meet the controversy or particularized harm requirements for standing because they have no legal interests adverse to the patent holder. While I can hardly disagree with Pope John Paul II that “man goes beyond the sum of his biological characteristics,” I’m reluctant to trample the Article III limitations on standing or the settled expectations of scientific researchers to make the point.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Doubts about CST and Gene Patents
Friday, April 1, 2011
Opening Day in Philly
It's snowing this morning in Philadelphia, but the Phillies are opening their season at 1:05pm at Citizens Bank Park against the Astros. Hope is a theological virtue in the Christian tradition, and in this instance it's aided by the best pitching rotation in baseball.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Connick v. Thompson
Villanova Law grad Gordon Cooney and his Morgan Lewis partner Michael Banks have long represented a Louisiana man, John Thompson, who spent 18 years in prison but was acquitted on retrial after a crime lab report that the prosecution had failed to disclose was discovered a month before his scheduled execution (Philadelphia Lawyer story here). The Morgan Lewis lawyers (including my friend and former White House colleague Allyson Ho) subsequently represented Thompson in a §1983 case against the Orleans Parish DA's office for the Brady violation, arguing that the Brady violation was caused by the DA's office’s "deliberate indifference" (the §1983 standard under Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989)) to the requirement to train its prosecutors properly. The jury awarded Thompson $14 million, but today the Supreme Court ruled that the DA’s office cannot be held liable under §1983 for the Brady violation.
On the merits of the decision, I defer to those such as my colleague Teri Ravenell who know more about §1983 litigation. As a mere torts teacher, I thought one interesting aspect of the case was the view advanced by the Alliance Defense Fund and the Cato Institute in an amicus brief for the plaintiff (Thompson) that government entities’ liability under §1983 should follow common law respondeat superior principles and arguing that Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), should be overturned, though there were a host of state and local government interests lined up as amici on the other side (understandably) resisiting such an expansion of § 1983 liability. A sentence in footnote 12 of Justice Thomas's majority opinion settles that particular question: "We stand by the longstanding rule—reaffirmed by a unanimous Court earlier this Term—that to prove a violation of §1983, a plaintiff must prove that 'the municipality’s own wrongful conduct' caused his injury, not that the municipality is ultimately responsible for the torts of its employees."
Regardless of the outcome in the §1983 case, congratulations to Gordon, Allyson, Michael Banks, Ted Cruz, and the lawyers at Morgan Lewis for their persistent and courageous representation of Mr. Thompson over many years.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Happy to Be Here and Jeremy Waldron at Princeton
Thanks to Rick and company for including me. I first came across Mirror of Justice when I was a young associate at Williams & Connolly and have followed it ever since, so it's a delight to be part of the discussion finally. As Rick mentioned, I regularly teach at Villanova, but I'm spending the current academic year as the Forbes Visiting Fellow in the James Madison Program in the Politics Department at Princeton University.
Speaking of which, Jeremy Waldron is with us for several days delivering the Madison Program's Charles Test Lectures, and his topic is religion and the foundations of international law. (Details here.) I'm an admirer of Waldron's earlier book on the foundations of equality in Locke and his recent work on public reason and religion, and these lectures look to be extending a broadly similar and exciting argument to international law. Stay tuned.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
