Search

The article discusses how various U.S. Supreme Court Justices over the years have concurred and dissented in cases without offering written judicial opinions, and it mentions the legal concept of noting disagreement, as well as perfunctory opinions which offer some explanation of an America Supreme Court Justice's views. The history of U.S. case law is addressed, along with several legal cases and the attitudes of the late Justices William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan I, and Hugo L. Black.

What determines state success when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review? We suggest that states can improve the likelihood of securing Supreme Court review by coordinating litigation efforts. This coordination occurs in two ways. First, some states coordinate their appellate litigation efforts internally through the creation of state solicitors general offices. Second, external coordination occurs when states join amicus briefs at the agenda setting stage urging the Supreme Court to grant review in state-filed cases. Using new data on all state-filed certiorari petitions from the 2001-2009 terms, we find that internal and external coordination is associated with an increased likelihood of the Supreme Court granting review in state-filed cases. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were developed in response to a historically demonstrated need for ethical guidance and accountability in research with human subjects. The inhumane and unethical treatment of prisoners of war and underrepresented populations in the pre-IRB era are the antithesis of today's national and international acts, codes, and declarations. Over the last five decades of IRB-reviewed research, several concerns about the IRB process have been raised. In this editorial, we review common concerns regarding the scope and functioning of IRBs. We also review the updated federal Common Rule, effective January 2018, and discuss how some of the reviewed concerns will be addressed in the update. Lastly, we end with recommendations for collaborating with IRBs. These recommendations are not tips on how to circumvent the review process but rather reflective and action-oriented steps to engage the IRBs, which are allies, collaborators, and expert consultants in the research enterprise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]