Columbia Law Review

Most states have laws prohibiting corporations from owning healthcare practices or employing physicians, collectively forming the corporate practice of medicine doctrine (CPOM). CPOM laws were designed to ensure that licensed professionals, not corporate laymen, decide patient treatment.

Large corporations and private equity firms routinely circumvent CPOM laws by creating subsidiary companies that ostensibly “manage” healthcare practices.[...]

Both emerging claims of constitutionally protected cognitive liberty and expanding state efforts to address alleged psychological harms associated with technology use necessitate deeper thinking about state interests that might be sufficient to justify regulation of constitutionally protected cognitive activity. Drawing from precedent recognizing state interests in other contexts, this Piece suggests a research agenda of five challenging questions[...]

Among the most powerful barriers to relief under § 1983 is Monell v. Department of Social Services—the Supreme Court decision recognizing that municipalities can be liable for constitutional violations by their officers but setting an exceedingly high standard for such claims. This Essay suggests a litigation strategy that sidesteps several challenges posed by Monell: Plaintiffs should pursue Monell claims based on[...]

Freedom of thought has long been revered as a fundamental right, yet its doctrinal contours have remained underdeveloped. Two recent Supreme Court decisions—National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis—suggest a nascent but expansive free thought jurisprudence, one that increasingly shields religious actors not just from government interference in belief but also compliance[...]

The home is the most protected space in constitutional law. But family regulation investigators conduct millions of home searches a year. Under pressure, parents nearly always consent to these state agents’ entry into the most private areas of their lives.

This Article identifies the coercive forces—not least the threat of family separation—that drive parents to consent to home searches. Drawing on primary sources and case law examining[...]

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court’s adoption of the history and tradition test required analysis of historical gun and abortion regulations that produced two unacknowledged problems. First, history and tradition analysis revealed opposing historical traditions but implicitly required the Court to affirm a singular tradition. Second, because[...]