Do you believe that public health legal interventions (regulation, tort reforms, etc.) should be limited to those instances where a threat to public health presents a "clear and present danger", or is the appropriate scope of public health law broader than that standard allows? In answering this question, it might be helpful to discuss some specific public health issues that would, or would not, be subject to regulation based on the "clear and present danger" standard.

What are opinions on the Chevron doctrine - how much deference should be given to regulatory agencies in defining the terms of their own statutes?

Respond to the following prompt in your document:

For the past several decades, the City of Port Charles has provided temporary residence for homeless individuals and families at a set of shelters funded, owned, and operated by the City. Citing budget concerns and other spending priorities, the recently elected mayor Helena Cassadine, and the complicit City Council, recently cut the shelter program and shuttered all of Port Charles' city-operated shelters. Stone Cates and his wife Robin Scorpio, both citizens of Port Charles, were residing on a semi-permanent basis at the Elm Street Pier Shelter. Both were evicted from the shelter with no notice when it closed on a frigid December night.

Having nowhere else to turn when put out of the shelter, they began living on the streets of Port Charles where not long Mr. Cates tragically died of exposure. Robin Scorpio is suing Mayor Cassadine and the shelter manager, Mr. Cesar Faison. Ms. Scorpio's suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges Mayor Cassadine and Mr. Faison deprived her late husband of his Constitutional rights: specifically, the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

What would be the likely outcome of this case?

pur-new-sol

Related Questions