Title: The incorrectly decided preliminary injunction prohibiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: Sherley v. Sebelius
Authors: Tyler Short
Addresses: Saint Louis University School of Law, 12801 Brighton Woods Dr., St. Louis, MO 63131, USA
Abstract: The recent decision of Sherley v. Sebelius has temporarily stopped federal funding for research conducted on embryonic stem cells (ESCs) with the preliminary injunction issued by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth. This paper will focus on: 1) the background of ESCs; 2) why ESCs are important for medical advancement; 3) an analysis of why the District Court|s decision should be overturned. The Court considered four factors in order to determine that a preliminary injunction should be issued: 1) likelihood of success; 2) irreparable injury; 3) balance of hardships; 4) the public interest. An analysis of these four factors will show that the District Court incorrectly determined there should be a preliminary injunction and therefore there should be federal funding for ESC research.
Keywords: embryonic stem cells; stem cell research; R&D; research and development; medical research; preliminary injunctions; National Institutes of Health; NIH guidelines; James Sherley; Kathleen Sebelius; case law; law reports; appropriation bills; United States; US Congress; USA; legislative amendments; Jay Dickey; Department of Health and Human Services; appropriated funds; government departments; embryo creation; human embryos; Roger Wicker; Barack Obama; US presidents; legal decisions; incorrect decisions; fund prohibition; federal funding; ES cells; judges; judiciary; Royce Lamberth; medical advancements; District Courts; success likelihood; irreparable injury; hardships balance; public interest; Washington; District of Columbia; public law; public policy.
International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 2011 Vol.1 No.1, pp.23 - 48
Received: 08 May 2021
Accepted: 12 May 2021
Published online: 15 Aug 2011 *