Está en la página 1de 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------No. 2015-2016
--------------Cassandra Williams and Jeffry Ho, Petitioners-Appellants
vs.
The State of Olympus, Respondent-Appellee
----------------------------------------------------------On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------ORDER OF THE COURT ON SUBMISSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that counsel appear before the Supreme Court to
present oral argument on the following issues:
1) Whether the 2015 Health and Effective Action Law (H.E.A.L.) poses an undue burden on
parents of quarantined juveniles in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution?
2) Whether the 2015 Health and Effective Action Law (H.E.A.L.) violates the free speech
rights of health care providers under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution?

*This entire case is the property of the Duke Undergraduate Moot Court Association. It cannot
be used without the permission of DMC.

Factual Summary
On October 29, 2014, the Olympus State Legislature passed the Health and Effective Action Law
(H.E.A.L.). The purpose of H.E.A.L., according to its two legislative cosponsors, is to protect the
health and wellbeing of Olympus communities from the threat of contagious bacterial diseases.
Medical professionals played no part in the authorship process.
H.E.A.L. has three provisions: 1) any licensed physician in the state of Olympus may diagnose
and prescribe treatment for bacterial infections, even if they lack specialized training, 2) ten days
after diagnosis, patients with certain infections defined by the law as contagious must be
quarantined for one month of intensive treatment involving mandatory antibiotic medication, 3)
all Olympus medical providers are prohibited from practicing, recommending, or referring to any
alternative treatments for bacterial diseases (see Appendix A). The provisions of the H.E.A.L.
override any conflicting regulations established by the Olympus Department of Health.
On April 18, 2015, Ms. Williams brought her juvenile son, W.B., to the Olympus City Public
Hospital for his regular check-up. Dr. Jeffrey Ho, a general physician without specialized
training in infectious diseases, performed the examination. During the check-up, Dr. Ho became
concerned that W.B. might have contracted luqeenta stramelenus, a pathogenic mycobacterium
that has been known to cause serious, contagious infections (see appendix B).
W.B. displayed nearly all of the symptoms of luqeenta, including skin sores, low blood pressure,
a receding hairline, aggressive coughing, and a high internal body temperature of 101.5 F. Based
on these symptoms, Dr. Ho diagnosed W.B. with a luqeenta infection. He then informed Ms.
Williams that, under the Health and Effective Action Law, her child needed to be placed in a
zero-access quarantine unit for one month of intensive antibiotic treatment.
Ms. Williams refused to place her son in quarantine and asked if any other medical options
existed. Dr. Ho replied that alternative treatments might be possible, but, under the 2015
Olympus Health and Effective Action Law (H.E.A.L.), he was prohibited from discussing them
with her. Ms. Williams suggested that they meet outside of the hospital while Dr. Ho was off
work. The doctor agreed.
The next day, Ms. Williams and Dr. Ho met again at a coffeeshop. Ms. Williams repeated her
request for alternative treatment. Dr. Ho responded that he ran an alternative treatment clinic that
provided assistance for victims of luqeenta through the mind-body treatment process. This
process consists of a combination of mental meditation and herbal, homeopathic remedies. These
remedies include the consumption of certain bacterial strains and coating the body in lotions and
scrubs composed of plant based ingredients. Dr. Ho stated that the mind-body treatment has been
proven effective in combating bacterial infections in the past. He provided no specific examples
or evidence in support of this statement.
Ms. Williams took her son to Dr. Hos clinic and began the mind-body treatment. Ten days after
W.B.s diagnosis, administrators at the Olympus City Hospital reported Ms. Williams to the
police department for failing to comply with the mandatory quarantine requirement of H.E.A.L.

The administrators promptly fired Dr. Ho and asked the police department to shut down his
alternative treatment clinic.
Ms. Williams sought an immediate injunction from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Olympus to retain custody of her child. The district court denied an injunction. W.B. was placed
in mandatory quarantined treatment for one month, after which period his symptoms
disappeared. During the one-month treatment process, medical examiners conclusively
confirmed that W.B. had contracted the intestinal variety of luqeenta in its active stage. No
medical examiner was able to definitively conclude that the antibiotic treatment or quarantine
contributed to W.B.s recovery. During the month that W.B. was in quarantine, W.B.s grades
dropped and he missed an opportunity to take the SAT.
After the treatment process, Ms. Williams filed suit in the District Court, claiming that the
mandatory quarantine/treatment requirement violates her parental rights under the 14th
amendment due process clause.
Dr. Ho also filed suit, claiming that Section 4 of H.E.A.L., which provided the basis for his
dismissal from the hospital, violated his right to freedom of speech under the 1st amendment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 14th Circuit consolidated the cases and ruled in favor of
respondent. In November 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Appendix A: The Health and Effective Action Law (H.E.A.L.)


Section 1: DEFINITIONS. In this act the following terms are employed:
A. Health care provider: any person(s) in the state of Olympus rendering medical care,
including physicians, nurses, specialized practitioners, physical assistants, and others
B. Licensed physician: a doctor of medicine authorized to practice by the State of
Olympus and performing within the scope of their practice as defined by State law
C. Contagious disease: Any disease, infection, or other biological malady that is
transmissible (can be spread from a carrier to a non-carrier) through physical contact,
second degree contact with secretions, objects, or bodily fluids, or airborne contact. A
disease that is conditionally contagious in certain situations is considered contagious for
the purposes of this law.
D. Alternative treatment: Any treatment process not approved by the Olympus
Department of Health, including homeopathic remedies, naturopathic medicine, or
meditative or aerobic practices.
Section 2: All licensed physicians in the state of Olympus have the authority to diagnose and
prescribe treatment for bacterial and/or viral diseases, pursuant to the correct medical procedures
established by the Olympus Department of Health. Specialized training or expertise in infectious
diseases is no longer required to make such diagnoses.
Section 3: Any person diagnosed with a potentially-fatal contagious disease, infection, or other
biological malady must submit to an intensive antibiotic treatment process for a period of one
month. During the treatment process, the patient must be quarantined in an isolated medical unit.
Patients have ten days from the point of diagnosis to begin the quarantined treatment.
Section 4: Health care providers in the state of Olympus are prohibited from practicing,
advocating for, and referring to alternative treatments for any bacterial or viral infection in an
official or personal capacity. This section applies in all contexts, even if providers are asked
about alternative treatment.
Section 5: In the event that one or more provision(s) of the H.E.A.L. conflicts with preexisting
state statutes or regulation, the body of this act is considered controlling.
Section 6: In the event that one or more provision(s) of the H.E.A.L. is determined to be
unenforceable, the act as a whole will not be deemed unenforceable.

Appendix B: Factual Summary of Luqeenta Stramelenus


The luqeenta stramelenus is a pathogenic mycobacterium that has been known to cause serious
infections. Symptoms of a luqeenta infection include blood thinning, high fevers, violent
coughing, nausea, hair loss, and skin sores. According to the World Health Organization, 1% of
such infections result in death or permanent disability.
Luqeenta stramelenus can be either slightly contagious or noncontagious, depending two factors.
First, in order to be contagious, the infectious bacteria must attack a specific somatic region. In
65% of cases, luqeenta strains target the lungs. In 25% of cases, luqeenta strains target the liver.
In 10% of cases, luqeenta strains target the intestinal tract. Only strains affecting the intestinal
tract are contagious. Second, in order to be contagious, the bacteria must be in their active
developmental phase. Luqeenta bacteria spend 70% of their growth cycle in a latent phase
(during which time they cannot spread) and 30% in an active, contagious phase. In the case that a
strain of luqeenta bacteria is contagious, the bacteria can be spread through direct contact with
bodily fluids, including mucus, sweat, and saliva.
The medical community agrees that it is nearly impossible to determine the developmental phase
and somatic region of a luqeenta infection by looking at external symptoms. The medical
community does not agree, however, on what the proper form of treatment is. The Olympus
Department of Health has officially recommended a 15-day treatment of antibiotics, but there is
substantial debate in the medical community about the efficacy of this proposed treatment.

Available Caselaw

14th Amendment


1) Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health 186 U.S. 380
(1990)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/186/380

2) Jacobson v. MA (197 11 (1905)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html

3) Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html

4) Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us510

5) Newmark v. Williams N Del. Sup. Ct., 588 A.2d 1108 (1991)
http://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/supreme-court/1991/588-a-2d-1108-5.html

6) Custody of a Minor, 393 NE2d 836 (Mass 1979).
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2083285/custody-of-a-minor-no-3/

7) In Re D.R., 20 P3d 166 , 169 (Ct App Okla 2001).
http://www.leagle.com/decision/200118620P3d166_1180/IN%20RE%20D.R.

8) In Re Hofbauer, 47 NY2d 648 (1979).
http://www.leagle.com/decision/197969547NY2d648_1624/MATTER%20OF%20HOFBAUER

1st Amendment

1) Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/













2) Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Pub. Serv. Commn of N.Y., 447 U.S. 530 (1980)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/530/

3) Fla. Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/618/

4) Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9thcircuit/1343211.html

5) Stuart v. Loomis, 1:11-CV-804, 2014 WL 186310 (M.D.N.C. 2014)


http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/11cv804_163moo.pdf

6) Sullenger v. SETCO Northwest, Inc 74 Or.App. 345 (Ct. App 1985)
http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1985/702-p-2d-1139.html

7) Murphy v Board of Medical Examiners 1 CA-CV 95-0327 (Ct. App. 1997)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1134683.html

8) Tallahassee Memorial v Cook No. 96-2227 (11th Cir. 1997)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1385309.html