University of Baltimore Law Review

High Prescription Drug Prices Are Slowly Gaining Attention From the Government. What is Being Done and Is It Enough?

*Billy Cadogan

I. Introduction

The United States began to spend significantly more on prescription drugs per capita compared to the rest of the world in the mid-1990s.[1] The increase in prices and the business practices within the prescription drug industry have gotten so out of hand that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the three biggest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for anticompetitive practices and market manipulation, alleging the PBMs steer patients toward more expensive drugs and exclude cheaper alternatives from their formularies.[2] The FTC filed suit against the three largest PBMs on September 20, 2024 for engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebate practices which have led to artificially inflated prices and limited access to lower-priced alternatives.[3] The suit and FTC investigation have potential to bring transparency and fairness to the prescription drug market.[4]

Risking the Game: The Dangers of a Long-Lasting Title IX Injunction for Student Athletes.

*Alexa Thomas

I. Introduction

Team USA’s women athletes dominated the 2024 Paris Olympics, bringing home sixty-seven of the United States’ 126 total medals[1] Women’s Olympic participation has grown significantly since women first competed in the Olympics over a century ago,[2] finally reaching gender parity during the 2024 Paris Olympics.[3] Though more women around the world are participating in the Olympics,[4] Team USA’s women athletes consistently reign over the Olympic stage.[5] Team USA’s domination in women’s athletic events largely stems from Title IX, legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.[6] As the number of young athletes continues to rise,[7] a federal court’s recent enjoinment of the Department of Education’s amended Title IX regulations — an overbroad remedy that deprives many student athletes of vital anti-discrimination protections both on and off the field — threatens women athletes’ progress. [8]

A Broken Shield or a Double-Edged Sword?: The Fall of Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases

*John Osborne

I. Introduction

A 2024 Supreme Court decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. sent shockwaves through the bankruptcy law community and the vast network of opioid crisis victims.[1] The Supreme Court heard Harrington to decide one important issue: whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to issue an order “extinguishing vast numbers of existing claims” against a non-debtor third party without the consent of some affected claimants.[2] Unraveling a hard-fought $4.3 billion settlement between Purdue Pharma L.P. (Purdue) and victims of the opioid crisis, as well as state, local, and tribal governments,[3] the Court found that the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize the lower court to issue nonconsensual release or extinguishment orders for non-debtor third parties.[4]

Gold Medals & Tainted Burgers: The Dope on Olympic Doping

*Alex Robinson

I. Introduction

The 2024 Summer Olympics performance may be firmly in the public’s rearview mirror, but the United States is not done with tension-filled showdowns on the international stage.[1] The 2021 and 2024 Summer Olympics featured dozens of Chinese swimmers who tested positive for banned substances but were ultimately cleared to compete by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) under suspicious circumstances.[2] As a result, the swimmers played a crucial role in China’s tie with the United States for the most gold medals in Paris.[3] Frustrated by WADA’s decisions to clear the swimmers and the acquiescence of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Congress[4] and the Department of Justice (DOJ) took action.[5]

Disability Accommodations: Only Workin’ 9–5?

*Melissa Bosley

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that employers make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual.”[1] At times, qualified individuals with disabilities may find physically commuting to the job site difficult. For example, an employee with a vision-distorting condition may require magnifying equipment to successfully complete her job functions,[2] yet even when the employer provides her magnifying equipment, the employee still must commute to work.[3] The employee cannot drive herself to work because her vision is distorted and her driving would be unsafe.[4] In a world after the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when remote work became normalized and return-to-office mandates made headline news, employees with disabilities face a new question: does the employer have to make accommodations for an employee’s commute to work?[5]