Publication:
FDA Enforcement and the Constitution: The Validity of FDA Seizures under the Due Process and Just Compensation Clauses

Thumbnail Image

Date

2002

Published Version

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

FDA Enforcement and the Constitution: The Validity of FDA Seizures under the Due Process and Just Compensation Clauses (2002 Third Year Paper)

Research Data

Abstract

This paper explores the way in which enforcement actions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) interact with certain constitutional rights, and it queries whether the system does its most to protect those rights while preserving the public interest in safety. The paper is essentially an analysis of the intersection of section 304 of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, involving FDA seizures, with the due process and just compensation clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The due process section of the paper relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry. The just compensation section provides a review of select takings cases, including in particular Miller v. Horton and Jarboe-Lackey Feedlots, Inc. v. United States. At the end of each of these sections is a thought section discussing whether the law should be changed. There is also a brief analysis of the relationship of seizure law to the Fourth Amendment. The paper’s conclusion is that the current state of affairs is not a disaster but could be improved.

Description

Other Available Sources

Keywords

Food and Drug Law, FDA, enforcement, constitution, seizures

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories