Dalton Primeaux

Volume 27.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

Many public safety advocates have called for the use of police body cameras to document the interactions between officers and the public. In light of the documented incidents of police violence and misconduct, some advocates and policy experts have urged law enforcement to use body cameras to discourage future wrongdoing and create a record of when such incidents do happen. In some states, body camera footage is considered public record and can be obtained upon request. Most policies concerning requests for the release of body camera footage require the chief of police to grant permission for sharing the video with parties outside of the police department, but there is little guidance regarding if and when distribution should be allowed. As a result, victims are at risk of complete exposure during incredibly vulnerable moments in their lives. Protecting the privacy of victims and others captured in footage is one concern undergirding resistance to expanding such programs.

Continue reading →

Sayid R. Bnefsi

Volume 27.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

The access to justice movement broadly concerns people’s ability to resolve legally actionable problems. To the extent that individuals seek resolution through civil litigation, they can be disadvantaged by their unmet need for legal services, particularly in high-stakes cases and complicated areas of law. In part, this is because legal services and litigation are cost-prohibitive, especially for indigent plaintiffs. As a result, these individuals are priced out of litigation and, by extension, unable to use law to seek justice.

Continue reading →

Roni Amit

Volume 27.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

Marginalized individuals are largely excluded from making rights claims in the courts because their stories of rights violations fall outside of prescribed legal categories. Framing this exclusion as a lack of knowledge and access, proponents of the access to justice movement have sought to improve outcomes for unrepresented and marginalized litigants through measures that help them understand and navigate the system. The access to justice movement seeks to make the justice system more accessible to these litigants by focusing on procedural fairness. This Article draws on empirical data and observations from Tulsa’s eviction court to consider the limits of access to justice measures focused on process, including representation. It calls for an expanded understanding of access to justice that incorporates the rights claims of marginalized individuals. Asking how lawyers representing marginalized clients can best advocate for their clients’ rights and achieve social change, it draws on the law and social change literature around legal mobilization.

Continue reading →

Tolu Lawal and Al Brooks

Volume 27.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

The Character and Fitness process is the last major institutional hurdle that aspiring attorneys must overcome to gain licensure to the legal profession. A process held out to determine “moral” character, the Character and Fitness often goes uninterrogated, instead flattened into just a quotidian and inconvenient aspect of the profession’s admission procedures. However, the normalization of both the process and existence of the Character and Fitness obscures the reality that this unscientific process neither has particularized, inherent value to the profession nor is an accurate tool of determining the moral or ethical principles of potential attorneys. Instead, the advocacy of racial justice organizers and the scholarship of critical legal theorists in recent years have exposed the true nature of the Character and Fitness as a tool of exclusion, which molds the legal field and law in the White man’s image.

Continue reading →

Rachel Marandett

Volume 27.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

Under a world order defined by nation-states, having one’s rights and dignity protected is inexorably tied to being a citizen of somewhere. Stateless people, who are citizens of nowhere, are thus left without the safeguards of a nation responsible for them. Today, there are over 200,000 stateless people living in the United States. Because the American immigration system is built upon the premise that everyone is a citizen of somewhere, stateless people are consistently trapped in a ceaseless legal limbo. In fact, the majority of stateless people in the United States have already gone through removal proceedings and have final orders of removal. These orders, however, cannot realistically be executed as most states will not accept stateless people. Thus, most stateless people are forced to live out their lives in the United States under Orders of Supervision. Trapped in this legal limbo, stateless peoples must perpetually endure limitations on their movement, persistent surveillance, no pathway to citizenship, and an ever-looming risk of prolonged detention or deportation to somewhere entirely unfamiliar. This ineffective system is as inhumane as it is unsustainable.

Continue reading →

Brenda D. Gibson

Volume 26.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

This article enters the conversation about Black poverty in a new way—discussing the phenomenon of the heirs’ property ownership model as an impediment to Black wealth. Though heirs’ property seems a rather innocuous concept in property law, juxtaposed with the history of Black people in the United States, particularly through the lens of the South Carolina Low Country and American systems that have birthed and nurtured incalculable inequities for us, it becomes clear that heirs’ property ownership is much more. It is both cause and effect: cause as it was birthed out of America’s racial caste system; and effect in that it has led to continued Black land loss, which ultimately threatens the culture of America’s slave descendants.

The article begins with an overview of property law’s Estates Systems, discussing the rather antiquated manner in which property rights are enjoyed in America, generally, before moving to the history of Black property ownership in America. This discussion necessarily begins with slavery, a dark but relevant period in this country’s history, as it informs the way Black people, specifically those in the South Carolina Low Country, enculturated themselves and exist to this day. In Part II, the article unpacks the systemic manner in which American institutions have coalesced to impede Black wealth and explains why the loss of Black land and the consequent wealth gap persists in America today. Particularly, Part II discusses the loss of Black-owned land in the Low Country and the threatened loss of a unique Gullah-Geechee culture that exists there. Finally, Part III of the article, considers several solutions to the prolific loss of Black land and the resulting impediment to Black wealth.

Erin Daly, Paul Stanley Holdorf, Kelly Harnett, Jane Doe, and Domonique Grimes

Volume 26.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

Staff sexual abuse is rampant throughout the American prison system. This is true despite a federal law—the aspirationally titled Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”)—that has been in place for 20 years and despite the rare conviction of prison officials who are found guilty of rape or sexual abuse of people who are incarcerated. Sexual contact between prison staff and incarcerated people is by definition illegal because the power imbalance between people in custody and those who are under their control makes consent impossible as a matter of law. Staff-on-prisoner sexual abuse takes many forms, including sexual humiliation, sexually degrading language and threats, and various forms of rape. The harm of sexual violence in prison is commonly compounded by violations of privacy and by retaliation against those who speak out. To better understand the pervasiveness and profound harms of staff-on-prisoner sexual abuse, this article—co-written by two survivors who were also jailhouse lawyers—examines the harms and demonstrates the inadequacy of the current legal regime to protect women who are incarcerated. It then proposes that understanding prison sexual abuse as a violation of women’s inherent human dignity and applying the law of dignity rights to cases of staff-on-prisoner sexual abuse would better protect women who are vulnerable to abuse inside and help to end the culture of sexual abuse that pervades American prisons and jails.

Elizabeth Butterworth

Volume 26.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

In Care Work: Dreaming Disability Justice, Leah L. Piepzna-Samarasinha asks a series of questions to illustrate how disability rights law fails to address the needs of those who experience multiple systems of oppression, including: “What if you’re disabled and undocumented?” This article draws on research from across disciplines, with a focus on personal narratives, to reflect on and respond to Piepzna-Samarashinha’s question, specifically with regard to the experience of immigrants who are disabled, undocumented, and Latinx. As such, it centers disability justice analyses and describes how ableism and white nationalism are mutually reinforcing bedrocks of immigration law, and how the immigration system interacts with disability law to restrict disabled and undocumented Latinx immigrants from accessing services and exercising rights.

The article begins by establishing the disability justice framework and its critique of the disability rights movement as both insufficiently intersectional and insufficiently transformative. The article then examines the multiple ways that the immigration system is ableist and disabling: from categories like public charge that have always explicitly valued and devalued individuals based on ability/disability, to restrictions that force immigrants to make an often-disabling journey from Central America to the southern border, to white nationalist rhetoric and policy that deter immigrants from seeking healthcare. The article turns to disability law, and explains how the interaction of an immigration system (which punishes accessing services) and disability law (which often frames access to services as either an end goal of, or a core component of, disability rights) work together to maintain ableist oppression. At the same time, the article centers narratives of Latinx immigrants across multiple contexts that highlight individual and collective action to secure care and support outside of formal legal frameworks.

In addition to making a theoretical contribution, this article is informed by the author’s experiences in civil legal aid clinics, supporting clients as they run up against multiple legal and practical barriers to accessing services to which the law entitles them. One goal of the article is to open a conversation among civil legal aid practitioners, who often represent disabled and undocumented clients on matters that are explicitly related neither to disability nor to immigration, and pushes them toward a more transformative understanding of their work. To that end, this article is explicitly addressed to practitioners and concludes with a list of suggestions for re-framing approaches to civil legal aid.

Laura Waldman

Volume 26.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

Since the early years of colonization, Native American people have engaged in continuous legal struggles for land and sovereignty, which have exposed the colonial underpinnings and white supremacist worldview that are the root cause of their ongoing subjugation. In modern times, that often takes the form of government-backed corporate control over natural resources. This note traces the historical links from treaty violations by early white settlers for the purpose of usurping plantation land and gold, to recent incursions by companies building unwanted oil and gas pipelines on Native American lands.

Both then and now, using law as a tool of resistance has had varying results. On the one hand, there are countless instances where the law has been used as a weapon against Indigenous sovereignty, for example allotment leveraged property law to further divide Native American lands, as well as Native American people from their land. The European conceptions of how property ought to be used, enshrined in laws that require land claims to be exclusive, have consistently deprived Native American nations of decision-making over their lands. On the other hand, some treaties have been successful in ensuring enforcement of environmental protections on Indigenous land.

Moreover, the framework that forms the basis for many rights, that tribal membership is a political rather than a racial designation, has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. And, though recent judicial efforts to undermine the protective relationship the federal government has with Native American nations have been successful, there is room for deeper understandings of Native American sovereignty to emerge into law—understandings based on inherent, rather than relational sovereignty.