In Part III, the thesis of the paper will be argued: that full-body scanners and enhanced pat-downs, both on their face and in their application in today’s airports, constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and an unconstitutional invasion of a traveler’s right to privacy. Further, it will be argued that the airport search becomes unreasonable when federal airport screeners classify a passenger as “suspect,” forcing the passenger to endure an invasive “enhanced” pat-down procedure simply because s/he refused to submit to a full-body scan.

The paper also discusses how public opinion and the media have impacted the discussion over these security techniques. Finally, suggestions are offered on identifying a compromise that will provide passengers with an increased level of comfort regarding FBS while allowing TSA to continue to provide security services at a level appropriate to protecting the nation’s air transportation network.

Unlike past environmental regulations in China, which typically targeted specific business sectors or polluter types, this policy directly affects everyone nationwide and requires that every individual take economic and environmental responsibility for his plastic bag use. For China, using this type of individualized policy approach to confront an environmental challenge is novel, creative, and—if successful—potentially prescient of a new Chinese approach to fighting the battle against pollution.

It is the thesis of this article that, while the ACAA is a well-intended law that provides some protections to the disabled air traveler, the lack of a private right of action and an association clause render its protections inadequate. This article will describe the Act’s statutory protections for travelers with disabling conditions, as well as the remedies afforded passengers when incidents of discrimination occur.

The article will briefly recapitulate the legislative history of the ACAA and the subsequent case law, highlighting the deficiencies that remain. Throughout this article, the ACAA is compared with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Finally, the article will suggest changes that are needed both to existing laws and to airline employee practices in order to bring the ACAA in line with its original spirit and purpose, the protection of the civil rights of air travelers with disabilities.

By restricting public adjusting activities to members of the bar, policyholders are obliged to pay higher fees for legal representation where the services of a non-attorney adjuster would be sufficient, if not preferable. In addition to being unwise policy, such prohibitions also run afoul of current trends in UPL regulation and, arguably, the United States Constitution and federal antitrust laws. This Article advocates a case-by-case approach to determining whether public adjusters have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

As China's role in the global economy becomes more prominent, American companies are finding that doing business in China is necessary to retaining a competitive edge. As the number of transactions between American and Chinese companies increases, however, the number of potential disputes increases correspondingly. Unique legal and practical circumstances in China require a China-specific approach to managing such disputes.

The paper identifies one such approach – the use of a contractual dispute resolution clause – and discusses the options available to U.S. parties with regard to the legal validity of such a clause, the practicality of enforcing the clause and any judgments or awards that may ensue, and a forecast of likely future trends.

To address these concerns, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) appointed the Work Group on Resident Duty Hours and the Learning Environment in September 2001 to establish guidelines for appropriate resident work hours. At about the same time, bills establishing federal statutory restrictions on resident work hours were introduced in Congress, and a Public Citizen petition requesting the promulgation of federal regulations restricting resident work hours was submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA).

When the ACGME adopted its guidelines for resident work hours in 2003, Congress and OSHA deferred to the ACGME’s “expertise” and tabled the proposals for federal regulation of resident work hours that were before them. Since 2003, however, questions remain as to whether the federal government should regulate resident work hours despite the existence of the ACGME guidelines. In this Comment, Clark J. Lee argues that this question should be answered in the affirmative. Part I presents a general background on the issue of restricting hospital resident work hours in the United States, including the attitudes of the medical establishment, medical educators, and hospital residents toward the issue. Some of the published scientific research on the effects of long work hours and sleep deprivation among residents is also reviewed. Part II reviews in detail the history behind the only state-level regulations of resident work hours currently in existence, i.e., the New York regulations promulgated in 1989 in the aftermath of the Libby Zion case. The impact of these regulations on the medical community, political community, and general public in New York State and nationwide are also considered. Part III reviews the immediate legacy of the Libby Zion case, including compliance issues with the New York State regulations that have arisen since their promulgation. Part IV examines recent proposals for federal regulation of resident work hours. Part V examines the ACGME accreditation standards implemented in July 2003 and the reaction of the medical and graduate medical education communities to this attempt at self-regulation. Part VI reviews the findings of various studies on compliance with and attitudes toward the ACGME and New York State resident work hour restrictions in recent years. Part VII advances the argument that the federal government should regulate resident work hours rather than the states or the graduate medical education community because the federal government is better suited to implementing and enforcing such regulations successfully. Some suggestions for future federal legislation are also presented in this part. In conclusion, Part VIII gives some consideration to the likelihood of federal regulation of resident work hours in the near future.