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, U.S. 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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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

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

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.”

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.”

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).”

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.