Part 3 of 7 — U.S. Is Experimentation Nation! FOIA-Proves OWS Covid "Vax" Experiment ILLEGAL - FDA Not Disputing So Far...

under 50 U.S.C. § 1520a, the chain of authority was VOID because DoD violated Congress prohibition on experiments

THE CONGRESS REQUIRED REPORT FOR DOD TO EXPERIMENT LEGALLY IS NONEXISTENT DURING OPERATION WARP SPEED COVID VAX ROLLOUT???

---

TIME TO STOP THE SHOTS… SO DAMN ILLEGAL - NUREMBERG 2.0

---

EXPOSING THE REPORT CONGRESS REQUIRED… BUT NEVER GOT!

Part 3 of 7 — 50 U.S.C. § 1520a, FOIA-confirmed non-compliance, and why the chain of authority collapses when the statutory predicate is missing

Interest of Justice — April 17, 2026 — Citizen Petition Series, Part 3 of 7 — Docket FDA-2025-P-1807 (click to open the public docket)

THIS IS PART 3 OF 7. The full series walks through Citizen Petition FDA-2025-P-1807 section by section. Part 1 — Minimal Risk. Part 2 — Gene Therapy. Part 3 — DoD § 1520a. Part 4 — Warp Speed. Part 5 — Adulteration and SV40. Part 6 — International Law. Part 7 — The Remedy.

---

Read Parts 1 and 2:

Illegal Covid Shots & Their Imminent Removal From Market. What’s inside IoJ's citizen petition FDA will not answer — Part 1, the minimal risk problem

Part 2 of 7 — Why FDA Will Lose - mRNA and adenoviral vector COVID products are gene therapy under FDA’s own definition, and what the classification actually requires - STOP THE SHOTS!

---

FDA has been silent on our petition for 305 days — 125 days past the statutory response deadline under 21 CFR § 10.30(e)(2).

IF YOU’RE NEW HERE

(if you are a reader that is already up to speed just scroll down to the red arrow to start)

IoJ filed a citizen petition — FDA-2025-P-1807 — and the FDA is lagging on it. Hard. They had 180 days to respond. The deadline was December 13, 2025. We are now 305 days in with no substantive answer.

We are about to file a federal mandamus in the U.S. District Court for D.C. to force FDA to answer — and along the way, to demand the Congressional report the Department of Defense was legally required to produce before any bio-agent testing on civilians. That report does not exist. FOIA confirms it.

IoJ is reader-supported. No corporate sponsors, no law firm. The petition runs well over 130 pages of primary filing plus hundreds more pages of exhibits — because FDA itself told petitioners to pack everything into one document. The petition asks the agency to do what it should have done years ago — reclassify mRNA and adenoviral vector products as gene therapy, impose a clinical hold, and fix the record.

This is a seven-part series walking through the petition section by section. Whichever part you landed on, the others are linked at the bottom.

---

Make sure to become a paid subscriber or donor if you are able to support!

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our legal work, consider becoming a monthly donor or paid subscriber.

---

This is a seven-part series walking through the petition section by section. Whichever part you landed on, the others are linked at the bottom.

Congress wrote a really important statute. It is on the books. 50 U.S.C. § 1520a prohibits the Department of Defense from conducting any test or experiment involving a biological or chemical agent on a civilian population unless specific steps are taken first. One of those steps is a written report to Congress. The report must describe the agent, the purpose, the civilian population, and the safety measures. The report must be delivered at least thirty days before the test begins. No report, no test.

The statute is plain. The statute is mandatory. And according to FOIA responses we have in hand, the reports were never filed for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, even though the Department of Defense was the operational lead through Operation Warp Speed. It is a VERY BIG DEAL FOLKS! Let’s dig in…

Congress wrote the rule. DoD did not follow it. FDA derived VOID authority from DoD’s pathway. And then WHO derived that same VOID authority from FDA for global rollout!!!

When the predicate collapses, the downstream chain collapses too.

This is Part 3 of a series walking through Citizen Petition FDA-2025-P-1807 — section by section, in public, with citations — because FDA has been silent on the petition for 305 days and 125 days past the statutory response deadline under 21 CFR § 10.30(e)(2). Part 2 showed why mRNA products meet FDA’s own gene therapy definition. Part 3 is about the statute underneath the entire regulatory chain — the one Congress wrote specifically so this would not happen.

A. WHAT § 1520a ACTUALLY REQUIRES

Here is the statute, structured the way Congress actually wrote it.

Let’s EXPLAIN it! Read carefully below - it’s really important to get it right & understand this mess!

Subsection (a) is the lock. The Secretary of Defense may not conduct — directly or by contract — any test or experiment involving a chemical or biological agent on a civilian population, or any other testing of a chemical or biological agent on human subjects. That is the default rule. No means no. When Congress says NO they mean it.

Subsection (b) is an exception or conditional key. It unlocks the door for three categories — peaceful purposes related to medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity; defense against toxic chemicals or biological weapons; and law enforcement including riot control.

But — the part that DoD would rather you did not read — subsection (b) opens with “Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e).” The exceptions are not handed out unconditionally. They are conditioned on the subsections that follow.

Think about what that means. The key to experiment on us all only works if DoD also satisfies (c), (d), and (e). The exception is not a shortcut past the rules or Nuremberg Code. The exception depends on them being applied first and at all times.

Subsection (c) — informed consent. The Secretary may conduct a test or experiment under the (b) exception only if informed consent was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. Every single subject. In advance. No exceptions.

Subsection (d) — prior notice to Congress. Not later than 30 days after the date of final DoD approval of plans, the Secretary must submit a full accounting of those plans to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. The experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date those committees receive the report. Two separate 30-day clocks. Both mandatory.

The exception in (b) is not a shortcut around (c) and (d). The peacetime medical vaccine exception depends on them.

Without the Armed Services Committee report, the statute was violated — whether or not the peaceful-purpose exception applies at all.

And subsection (d) is the one that collapses DoD’s whole story. DoD will absolutely claim Operation Warp Speed was “peaceful pharmaceutical research” under (b)(1). Fine. Let them claim it.

The (b)(1) exception still requires a (d) report.

FOIA confirms no report was ever filed with the Armed Services Committees. There is no paperwork. There is no 30-day waiting period. There is no “full accounting” on any congressional desk.

That means — whether Warp Speed qualifies for the peaceful-purpose exception or not — the statute was violated.

The exception does not save DoD. It requires exactly the paperwork DoD skipped.

The statute defines “biological agent” — and the COVID products fit as a biological agent…

Section 1520a defines its own terms. The statutory definition of biological agent covers “any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiae, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance.”

The parallel federal statute does the same work from a different angle. 18 U.S.C. § 178 — the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act’s definition used across federal law — defines biological agent as any such micro-organism, pathogen, or component “capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism.” That is the federal definition. That is the language Congress uses.

“capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human”. Yikes!

Read that slowly. The COVID-19 mRNA and adenoviral vector products are synthetic nucleic acid sequences delivered by lipid nanoparticles that instruct human cells to produce a spike glycoprotein. That is exactly what § 1520a means by “any bioengineered or synthesized component” of a pathogen. And the “capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction” criterion in § 178 is not theoretical.

VAERS adverse event reports associated with COVID-19 products run orders of magnitude higher than reports for any prior vaccine in the system’s history. FDA’s own briefing documents — referenced in the petition — acknowledged anticipated deaths before authorization. FDA admits a minimum 10 dead children from the shots.

The spike glycoprotein the products instruct cells to produce has documented cardiovascular, neurological, and thromboembolic effects in peer-reviewed literature. Dr. Michael Yeadon’s expert declarations address the mechanism. Dr. Janci Lindsay’s toxicology findings address the genomic integration risk from SV40 promoter sequences that appear in every vial tested. Sudden adult deaths, myocarditis in young athletes, pregnancy loss clusters, and persistent neurological injuries are in the public record.

“Capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction.” That is how federal statute defines a biological agent. The COVID products meet the definition. The public record already establishes the harm.

Whether or not the agency calls these products “vaccines” in press releases, under the operation of the statute they are biological agents — micro-organism-derived synthetic nucleic acid components that are demonstrably capable of causing death, disease, and other biological malfunction in humans.

DoD does not get to argue their way out of the definition. The statute wrote itself to cover this.

B. IoJ’s FOIA CONFIRMS NON-COMPLIANCE

Interest of Justice has filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests with the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and associated federal agencies seeking the § 1520a reports for the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The FOIA responses are part of the petition record. They confirm that no § 1520a report was filed with Congress covering the deployment of COVID-19 mRNA or adenoviral vector products under Operation Warp Speed. No report appears in the Federal Register. No report was transmitted to the House or Senate Armed Services Committees in the required thirty-day window prior to civilian administration.

The FOIA responses are not speculation. They are agency admissions. The reports Congress required were not produced, because the reports were never drafted, because the statute was simply ignored.

---

HHS Says Our FOIA Request Is "Unusual & Will Need More Time" For The Covid-19 Vaccine Reports Regarding The Military Plans To Rollout Experimental Countermeasure [non]Vaccines.

FOIA'S Regarding The Department of Defense Use Of Human Subjects For Testing Of Covid-19 Vaccine Biological Agents.

FOIA To HHS Regarding DoD Use Of OTA For Covid Vaccines

---

Operation Warp Speed was announced publicly on May 15, 2020. First Emergency Use Authorization for an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was granted on December 11, 2020. That is a seven-month operational window in which DoD planned, executed, and delivered a mass civilian bio-agent deployment.

In that window, zero § 1520a reports were produced. The statute was not amended. The statute was not repealed. The statute was simply not obeyed.

---

Covid “vaccines” under Operation Warp Speed were obviously really damn illegal, like Nuremberg 2.0 levels of serious illegality here.

---

DoD & HHS Went Into Hiding After IOJ Appealed A FOIA. They Are Hiding Reports Needed By Freedom Fighters To Uncover Key Covid Vaccine Information That Would Prove The Rollout Was ILLEGAL FROM DAY ONE

C. WHY THIS MATTERS FOR EUA LEGITIMACY

Here is the chain the agency would rather not have drawn out in public.

DoD led Operation Warp Speed as a military expedited program.

BARDA — the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority within HHS — coordinated with DoD on the product development and manufacturing contracts.

FDA issued the Emergency Use Authorizations based on the DoD/BARDA product pipeline.

Each downstream authorization assumes that the upstream predicate was lawful.

If DoD’s participation in Operation Warp Speed required § 1520a compliance — and the statutory text makes clear that it did — and if DoD failed to comply, then the entire upstream pathway was unlawful from inception. FDA’s Emergency Use Authorizations rest on a predicate the law declared void from the start. The downstream authorizations inherit the defect.

This is the void chain argument the petition preserves for judicial review and which the mandamus about to be filed will finally require FDA to address.

The doctrine is not exotic. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), holds that executive action taken without statutory authorization is void. When Congress has spoken specifically — as § 1520a does — and the executive acts in a way the statute prohibits, the executive action is a nullity. Each downstream action that depended on the invalid predicate carries the defect forward.

D. THE VOID CHAIN — WHY THE EUAs DO NOT SURVIVE ONCE THE PREDICATE FAILS

Federal agency action that lacks statutory authority is not merely incorrect. It is ultra vires — beyond the agency’s lawful power — and subject to being set aside under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes reviewing courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” That is the statutory hook. It does not require a finding of bad faith. It requires a finding that the agency acted outside the authority Congress granted.

The petition lays the predicate defect out and asks the Secretary of HHS — whose oversight duty over FDA the petition invokes under 42 U.S.C. § 262 — to correct the record, revoke the defective authorizations, and implement the remedial framework Part 7 of this series will lay out in detail. The Secretary has plenary authority to take the corrective action. The D.C. Circuit held in Cutler v. Hayes, 818 F.2d 879, 894 (1987), that when a statute uses the mandatory “shall,” it creates “a consequential obligation on the agency, barring textual or contextual indications to the contrary.” 42 U.S.C. § 262(a)(2)(A) uses “shall.” That is the duty.

The petition is not an invitation to debate. It is a statement of non-discretionary duty. The Secretary is required, by statute, to engage on the merits. Silence is not a lawful option.

E. THE PARALLEL VIOLATION UNDER 10 U.S.C. § 1107

If § 1520a was the Congressional guardrail for civilians, 10 U.S.C. § 1107 was the guardrail for service members. Section 1107 requires informed consent before administration of any investigational drug or drug unapproved for its applied use to members of the armed forces. The only way to waive § 1107 consent is through a Presidential waiver on a specific statutory finding.

Under Operation Warp Speed, approximately 8,700 service members were involuntarily separated from the armed forces for refusing COVID-19 vaccination. The § 1107 consent framework was not satisfied for the uniformed population — the product was under Emergency Use Authorization, which by its own statutory terms (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III)) preserves the option to accept or refuse administration. Involuntary separation for exercising that option is not consistent with the statute.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s April 24, 2025 memorandum expressly acknowledged the issue. The memorandum directed the Pentagon to expedite reinstatement of discharged service members, described them as “warriors of conscience,” and referred to the products as “experimental COVID-19 vaccines.” The word experimental is a term of art. Applied to a biologic administered under Emergency Use Authorization and now the subject of a citizen petition demanding gene therapy reclassification, it is a partial admission of the statutory problem.

---

The Hegseth memorandum does not close the case. It opens it further. If the Secretary of Defense characterizes the products as experimental, and if the statutory framework for experimental biological agent testing on civilians is § 1520a, and if § 1520a was not satisfied, then the executive branch now contains two officials holding the same position on the facts — that the products are experimental — but reaching different conclusions on whether the existing authorizations survive that characterization. Only one of those conclusions is consistent with the statute.

F. THE HUMAN COST

The agency has maintained that questions like these are administrative. They are not. The statutory framework existed to prevent adverse outcomes that the regulated population could not consent to in advance and could not evaluate in real time. When the framework was not followed, the agency lost the ability to surface the outcomes it was designed to catch. Dr. Janci Lindsay’s toxicology team identified SV40 promoter sequences in the finished product. Dr. Michael Yeadon’s declarations address the spike protein toxicity. VAERS data shows adverse event reports orders of magnitude higher than for any previous vaccine. The petition lays out the evidence. FDA has not engaged it.

This is not an argument about whether one death or another was caused by the product. This is an argument about whether the statutory framework Congress wrote to surface exactly these questions was followed. It was not. It’s the easiest way we can all win!

THE QUESTIONS FDA MUST ANSWER

1. Does FDA contest that 50 U.S.C. § 1520a applied to DoD-led biological agent administration under Operation Warp Speed? If so, on what statutory ground?

2. Has FDA obtained copies of the § 1520a reports (for informed consent) DoD was required to file with Congress prior to civilian COVID-19 vaccine administration? If so, where are they in the administrative record? If not, on what predicate did FDA’s Emergency Use Authorizations proceed?

3. How does FDA reconcile its Emergency Use Authorization decisions with the Secretary of Defense’s April 24, 2025 memorandum characterizing the products as “experimental COVID-19 vaccines”?

4. Under Youngstown and Loper Bright, what independent statutory authority supports the existing authorizations if the § 1520a predicate failed?

5. If FDA takes the position that § 1520a was satisfied, will the agency identify — by Congressional committee, date, and Federal Register citation — the reports that satisfied the statute?

6. What remedial action, if any, does FDA intend to take with respect to the approximately 8,700 service members involuntarily separated for refusing a product the Secretary of Defense has now characterized as experimental?

DID YOU KNOW

• 50 U.S.C. § 1520a was enacted in 1977 in response to documented instances of Department of Defense chemical and biological agent testing on civilian populations without consent. Congress passed it specifically to prevent the kind of pathway-bypass that was used during Operation Warp Speed.

• The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General has jurisdiction over violations of § 1520a. No public DoD IG report has been produced on Operation Warp Speed § 1520a compliance.

• Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. The void chain predicate is a duty owed. That is what IOJ’s federal mandamus petition will ask the D.C. District Court to enforce.

• Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s April 24, 2025 memorandum is on file with DoD Public Affairs. The use of the word “experimental” was not accidental. The memorandum was reviewed by DoD General Counsel before signature.

THIS WEEK — YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED

This is the fundraising week that carries this series to the federal courthouse. We need paid subscribers and we need monthly or one-time donations. This effort is 100% reader-supported, on a deadline, no corporate sponsors, no law firm behind us.

If this work matters to you, this is the week to show up!

YOU can help make this happen!

1. Become a paid subscriber — keeps the research, the publishing, and the filings funded.

2. Donate to the mandamus — Every dollar goes to court costs, printing, postage, process service, and the operational cost of prosecuting our next critical federal case.

3. Share this series with a doctor, a lawyer, a reporter, a member of Congress, a state AG. The petition is public at regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2025-P-1807. The argument is on paper. The record is already there.

If you can pray on this one, pray. If you can fund it, please help IoJ fund it. If you can share it, share it. Whatever you can offer, offer — we need FDA to answer, and we need the products off the market until the agency can defend them on the merits. This will take law and serious effort to fix. Your donations keep the mission going full steam ahead!

— Interest of Justice

interestofjustice.org | interestofjustice.substack.com

---

Part 4 is drafted. The Warp Speed Authority Problem. Public Law 115-92 authorized military-expedited review. The OTA framework was for military research contracts. Neither was designed for civilian mass deployment. Part 4 walks through what the authority actually was, and why the civilian application was ultra vires on its face.

See you tomorrow with part 4.

Make sure to become a paid subscriber or donor if you are able to support!

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our legal work, consider becoming a monthly donor or paid subscriber.

---

Thoughts? Leave them in the comments! Let’s discuss this horrorshow!

---

RELATED READING

The citizen petition itself

• First Citizen Petition — FDA-2022-P-2411 (September 2022 + January 2023 amendment)

• Consolidated Petition — FDA-2025-P-1807 (June 17, 2025)

Unethical US State Department Brags About Exporting "Safe and Effective" Covid Vaccines To 117 Countries, Deceiving Billions Into Undue Experimentation Violating Nuremberg Code

Our impending federal mandamus & quest for justice

• BREAKING — IoJ is Taking FDA, HHS and DoD to Federal District Court After FDA’s Delay on Petition

• Three-Day Countdown For U.S. To Sue The WHO — IoJ Suing WHO, FDA, HHS, DoD

• Six-Day Countdown For U.S. To Sue The WHO — Nuremberg Hearing Project

• What Happens When You Actually Legally Win — Judicial Testimony Under Oath

• Justice Plans Delayed and Resuming BIG TIME Now

Gene therapy classification and FDA

• BREAKING!! FDA Issues Gene Therapy Guidance While Refusing to Answer if mRNA is Gene Therapy

• FDA Demands Big Pharma Prove Flu Vaccines Work — While Refusing to Answer If mRNA Is Gene Therapy

• FDA Confirms COVID Vaccines Killed American Children — Myocarditis Deaths the Government Never Disclosed

Department of Defense, FOIA, Operation Warp Speed

• FOIAs Regarding The Department of Defense Use of Human Subjects for COVID-19 Vaccine Biological Agents

• HHS Says Our FOIA Request Is Unusual and Will Need More Time — Military Rollout of Experimental Countermeasure Non-Vaccines

• Part 1 — SECRET VACCINE CONTRACTS — Judicial Watch FOIAs Confirm CDC Worried About Protecting Secret Agreements

Adulteration, SV40 and DNA contamination

• Crimes Against Humanity Case Phase 1 — DNA Integration Into Ovaries Chromosomes 19 and 12 Confirmed

• HUGE! Regulator Health Canada Confirms Undisclosed DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot

• Undercover — Pfizer’s Principal Scientist Admitting They Skipped Ten Years of Safety Testing

Nuremberg Code, Costa Rica, and the international accountability proceeding

• Judge Orders Nuremberg Public Hearing — Interest of Justice v. State of Costa Rica

• One Year Ago Today — Nuremberg Hearing November 11, 2024

• The Court Victory That Shattered WHO’s Global Authority — Next Step Nuremberg Hearing Project

• VP and Health Minister Answer Judges About Safety After Promoting Yearly mRNA

• Achieving Global COVID Justice — Conversation With Interest Of Justice and Dr. Ana Mihalcea

WHO, IHR amendments, pandemic treaty, global governance

• Interest of Justice Has Established Strict Limits For The WHO

• We Are W.H.O. Recognized Stakeholders, But IOJ Was Not Invited To Davos

• Six Days Coming Up — Everything HORRIBLE About The WHO’s IHR Amendments and Pandemic Treaty

• NEW ZEALAND Officially REJECTS WHO’s International Health Regulations

• Two Governments Exit WHO and Call It Sovereignty — Pandemic Treaty Is Near Dead

• Hey Ho The WHO Have To GO — with James Roguski

• Dear Tedros — What The Hell Does Equity Mean in the IHR Amendments and Treaty?

• Sign Now — 50 Persistent Risks In WHO Proposed Pandemic Agreement

• Today Is World Health Day — But The WHO Runs A World Health Experimentation Program

Amsterdam, Gates, Bourla, and the European accountability proceeding

• Today in Amsterdam — Gates and Bourla Are Being Held To Account In Court

• Appeal Against Gates and Pfizer CEO Filed — To Hear Bioweapon Witnesses Evidence In Court

• Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Lawsuit Follow-Up — What Actually Happened in Court on March 9

• Pfizer Can’t Find Volunteers — Their Massive COVID Vaccine Trial Just Collapsed — Amsterdam Court Decides If Dr. Mike Yeadon Can Testify

Expert voices — Dr. Yeadon, Dr. Lindsay, Sasha Latypova

• Dr. Yeadon — We Are All Under Assault by Deranged People

• Dr. Yeadon Explains For First Time How COVID Tests Cannot Detect Proteins Like WHO Purports

• Dr. Mike Yeadon About To Go Live From Vienna — Blowing The Lid On Vaccine Injuries

• Dr. Yeadon — There Is No More Important and Urgent Cause Than This

• Kevin McKernan — independent sequencing replication of SV40 findings

Pfizer accountability and the broader pharma record

• Do Not Let Pfizer Get Away With The Biggest Crime In History — DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis

• The Covert Killers and Their Secret Plans For You and Your Families

• Sketchy Door-to-Door COVID Vaccine Sweeps in Costa Rica

Primary sources — statutes, regulations, case law

• 21 CFR § 10.30 — FDA citizen petition regulations

• 21 CFR § 600.3(h)(5) — FDA’s gene therapy regulatory definition

• 21 CFR Part 50 — FDA informed consent regulations

• 21 CFR § 312.42 — FDA clinical hold authority

• 21 U.S.C. § 351 — federal adulteration standard

• 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 — Emergency Use Authorization statute

• 42 U.S.C. § 262 — Public Health Service Act biologics regulation

• 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d — PREP Act liability framework

• 50 U.S.C. § 1520a — prohibition on DoD bio-agent testing on civilians

• 10 U.S.C. § 1107 — military informed consent statute

• 10 U.S.C. § 2371 — Department of Defense Other Transaction Authority

• 28 U.S.C. § 1361 — federal mandamus jurisdiction

• 5 U.S.C. § 706 — Administrative Procedure Act judicial review

• Public Law 115-92 (December 12, 2017) — military expedited review

• Cruzan v. Director, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)

• Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)

• Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)

• Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) — post-Chevron framework

• Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)

• West Virginia v. EPA (2022) — major questions doctrine

• Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014)

• Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

• Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) — TRAC factors

International law and bioethics

• ICCPR Article 7 — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 20

• Nuremberg Code — full text (NEJM)

• UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics (2005)

• WMA Declaration of Helsinki

• Convention Against Torture (OHCHR)

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our legal work, consider becoming a monthly donor or paid subscriber.