Vaccine policy in the United States is experiencing a period of great change under the direction of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Schedules for young children are being adjusted, access to certain vaccines is being limited, and reporting requirements are being reduced. These changes will certainly impact attitudes and policy for years to come. This topic is the subject of the upcoming Center for Health Law Studies symposium. In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Michael Sinha. Dr. Sinha is a professor in the Center for Health Law Studies and an expert in public health law. The symposium discussing this topic will be held on Friday, March 27. Zoom and in person. MO CLE credits available. Register here: https://www.slu.edu/law/health/speakers-and-programs/symposia.php

The Trump Administration, alongside Iran, deployed targeted airstrikes against high-profile targets in Iran. This comes after weeks of talks between Washington and Iran on the latter's nuclear program. The public and political response has been mixed, with many concerned with the lack of Congressional authority and the regional flashpoints that are likely to ensue. The conflict is complex both politically and historically. To unpack all that is at stake and what it means both here and abroad, we are joined by two of our faculty experts, Professor Gregory Willard and Fr. Afonso Seixas-Nunes, SJ. Professor Willard has a storied history in DC, where he served as President Ford's personal aide. Fr. Afonso is a faculty member in the Center for International and Comparative Law. He is an expert on the law of war, with a special focus on autonomous weapon systems.

The scaling back of federal administrative agencies currently being undertaken by the Trump Administration carries broad implications for the practice, administration, and enforcement of labor and employment law.

 At the most fundamental level, the reality of 200,000 fewer federal employees creates a strong likelihood of much less frequent enforcement of federal labor and employment laws. And this drop-off in federal personnel comes amid judicial reconsideration of the constitutionality of the federal statutes and administrative agencies that animate the federal structure.

It is hard not to imagine that all of this rollback will produce federal vacuums. And because nature abhors vacuums, these spaces are likely to be filled. Perhaps with state law. Perhaps with new amalgams of federal and state law that will replace the surprising and often underappreciated amalgams that have existed up to now. In this episode, we are joined by Professor Michael Duff. Professor Duff is the director of the William C. Wefel Center for Employment Law and the organizer of this year's Saint Louis University Law Journal symposium cohosted by the Center. For more information on the symposium, visit https://www.slu.edu/law/employment/events.php

This year's United States Supreme Court session has had a particular impact on health care access across the country. From the Skrmetti decision affirming a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, to the Planned Parenthood decision that allows states to bar access to federal Medicaid funding for that provider regardless of the procedure, and the Braidwood case that concerns preventative care mandates in the Affordable Care Act, there is much at risk. To help us break down the decisions and the implications for health care access, we are joined by Kelly Gillespie. Professor Gillespie is the director of the Center for Health Law Studies. She is a registered nurse and holds both a JD and a PhD in Health Care Ethics.

The United States has a maternal mortality issue. In 2021, the U.S. ranked 55th in the world for maternal mortality, by far the worst of any higher-income country. Even more concerning, Black women are disproportionately impacted and experience maternal mortality 2.6 times the rate for White women. Beyond the lack of access and ongoing systematic racism, a wave of hospital mergers has increased consolidation in the hospital industry, leaving vulnerable populations with no access to quality maternal care. Joining us today is Professor Theodosia Stavroulaki, who joined the Center for Health Law Studies Faculty in 2024. Professor Stavroulaki’s research has uncovered the overlooked impact of hospital mergers on maternal mortality and how antitrust law can influence the outcomes. Thank you for joining us today.

The United States appears to be poised to make one of the most substantial changes in foreign policy with the pause on funding to Ukraine amidst the third year of the conflict with Russia. To break down this change and reflect on the role of President Zelensky and President Trump, we are joined by Professor Monica Eppinger. Professor Eppinger is a member of the Center for International and Comparative Law. She is a former diplomat who was stationed in Ukraine during the formation of the nation. She is an expert on Ukraine and has been traveling the world speaking and writing on the topic.

The Electoral College is a system unique to the Unites States democratic experience. And it has been a major topic of discussion for the last few elections with some calls to do away with it entirely. As we approach an election which could potentially be decided by just one electoral vote or even with the winning candidate losing the popular vote, the Electoral College is more consequential than ever. To discuss the history of the Electoral College and the implications for this year’s election, we are joined by adjunct professor Greg Willard. Greg served as White House Staff Assistant and personal aide to President Gerald R. Ford. He teaches a seminar on the American presidency. He is also a frequent guest on St. Louis’ KTRS 550.

In a session that was seemingly aimed at severely limiting long standing precedent and restraining the powers of the administrative state, there were five cases focused on administrative law. From the Chevron Doctrine to the SEC and the EPA, the high court touched on many parts of the administrative state. For this episode, we are joined by Professor Doug Williams. Professor Williams is an expert in administrative and constitutional law as well as urban and environmental law.

Two years following the Dobbs decision, the country’s highest court is grappling with the aftereffects. This year the Supreme Court handed down two related cases regarding the use of mifepristone and the application of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in states where abortions are banned. To discuss these cases, the implications, and we can expect in the future we are joined by Professor Jamille Fields Allsbrook. Professor Fields Allsbrook is a member of the Center for Health Law Studies faculty and focuses her research and scholarship on advancing gender and racial health equity. She was recently named a senior fellow for health justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families as well as a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress.

In a watershed ruling regarding executive powers, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Trump v United States that presidents should be immune from prosecution for official actions they took while in office. While historically presidents have enjoyed some level of immunity, this ruling expands that greatly. To discuss this monumental ruling and the implications for the future of the presidency, we are joined by Professor Anders Walker. Professor Walker is an expert in constitutional law and American legal history.

Each June delivers some high-profile decisions from the United States Supreme Court. One notable case this year is Vidal v Elster where the Court rejected an attempt to force the Patent and Trademark Office to accept the registration of “Trump too small” as a trademark for t-shirts mocking the former president. In this episode, we are joined by Professor Yvette Liebesman to discuss the case, the decision, and the implications going forward. Professor Liebesman is an expert in patent and trademark law and is the faculty advisor for the law school’s intellectual property concentration.