Authors:Wilson Baer Abstract: Around the country, juveniles are brought in by police officers for the purpose of interrogations. Juveniles have the same constitutionally mandated protections as adults do and so they are read the same Miranda rights as adults are (or alternatively a version tailored specifically for juveniles). However, it is generally understood that, due to ongoing brain development, juveniles merit increased protections relative to adults. Generally, the solution to the problem has been to add an advocate for the child in the interrogation room. Usually, states have accomplished this by mandating parent presence, and some have mandated attorney presence. While these individuals do have the capacity, in theory at least, to protect the child, these measures do not actually protect the constitutional rights that Miranda warnings were designed to serve. Those rights secured by Miranda are autonomy rights or the right to make one’s own decision. Miranda warnings exist to ensure that any waiver of those rights is made knowingly and voluntarily. So, the core matter is to ensure that valid consent is given. When reevaluating the generally recognized ongoing brain development of children, something that people tend to agree upon, it becomes clear that children are not actually capable of providing knowing and voluntary consent to a Miranda waiver. If that is the true problem, then a commensurate solution must be reached. This note proposes that that commensurate solution is one that removes the need for consent in the interrogation room altogether. Further, this note proposes that statutes should be passed in jurisdictions around the country that render juvenile interrogations inadmissible as evidence. PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:51 PST
Authors:Talia L. Balakirsky Abstract: Text messaging is now one of the predominant modes of communication. Because of this popularity, businesses and fraudsters alike are now consistently communicating with and targeting consumers by text, leading to an uncountable amount of unsolicited text messages. Courts across the country are grappling with how to remedy a wide range of injuries resulting from these messages. As outlined in Article III of the Constitution and later clarified by the Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins, to bring a case in federal court, plaintiffs must assert standing. With unsolicited text messages impacting millions of Americans, adequately asserting standing proves to be a significant hurdle. This note argues that plaintiffs will find the best success through use of the public nuisance doctrine’s special injury rule. The special injury rule allows plaintiffs who experience injuries similar to those suffered by the general public to recover so long as they can show that their injury differs from the injury to the general public in a specific way. Not only will this solution provide aggrieved plaintiffs with a route toward recovery, but it will also ensure that the federal court system continues to run smoothly in a time where unsolicited text messages are becoming increasingly harmful. PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:51 PST
Authors:Brenda D. Gibson Abstract: This article takes you on a journey through concept to practice where minoritized populations are often judged less than—less competent, less intelligent—and pushed to society’s margins because they do not speak or write “the Queen’s English.” This practice is particularly pervasive and handicapping to diversity efforts in the legal profession, beginning in law school classrooms. To make any headway into the legal profession’s lack of diversity, a better understanding is required of the undeniable connectedness of how our biases show up in our informal and formal assessment of the speech and writing of those whom we encounter. While it is not a new concept, implicit bias, as discussed specifically in this article by way of linguistic profiling and accent bias, is yet another mechanism by which those of minoritized status are further relegated to the margins of society. So many people read the literature and examine the studies but miss the connection to their own behavior. This article, however, connects the literature and those studies, along with our biases, to the brain and the resultant implications of its flawed processing. To that end, this paper begins broadly in Part I, discussing implicit bias and some of its most common types as they relate to legal education and law practice. Part II discusses specifically how implicit bias informs accent bias and linguistic profiling, often resulting in lower grades and harsher feedback for minorities. In Parts III and IV, the article discusses what this all (implicit bias, specifically, linguistic profiling and accent bias) means in the law school classroom and in the profession, respectively. Finally, in Part V, the article considers some solutions to this conundrum, discussing what should be done about our implicit biases, viewed through the lens of linguistic profiling and accent bias, so that diversity and inclusion is possible in the legal classroom and the legal profession. PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:50 PST
Authors:Hayley Bork Abstract: High-speed police chases are a deadly tactic used and abused by the police to apprehend motorists who flee from traffic stops. Police departments around the country routinely escalate stops for mere traffic infractions into dangerous high-speed pursuits, resulting in death and injury to those involved. Moreover, Black Americans represent a disproportionate number of those stopped, chased, and killed by police, making high-speed chases, like many police-citizen encounters, highly racialized. However, for motorists injured by high-speed chases, maintaining a successful lawsuit against the responsible officers remains incredibly difficult under current excessive force jurisprudence. Although police department policies limiting when and why officers may initiate a pursuit might mitigate the abuse of this police tactic, heightened judicial scrutiny of high-speed chases is what is needed to provide survivors of police brutality with meaningful redress for the harm they have suffered. This note calls for a shift in excessive force jurisprudence that would allow plaintiffs to argue what is plainly true: that it is inherently unreasonable for officers to engage in high-speed pursuits PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:50 PST
Authors:Nantiya Ruan Abstract: The racial pay gap in the US is staggering. Wealth disparities between Black, Latinx, and white households reflect the compound negative effects of discrimination, inequality, and lack of opportunities experienced by communities of color. One understudied way to address racial pay equity and the wealth gap is to examine how to widen career paths of high-paying, stable careers for people of color. Career paths are not equal. Some jobs are dead-end, minimum wage-paying, with little to no hope of promotion into a salary that catapults an earner into the next socioeconomic class. Others have growth potential, comfortable wages, and important employee benefits, like health care and retirement. In the corporate sector, with robust salaries and a growing number of jobs, the doors to high paying careers and promotional paths to leadership for people of color are too-often closed tight. This article theorizes that to combat racial pay inequity, and narrow the racial wealth gap, the corporate sector—especially the financial sector—must reexamine and realign their hiring, retention, and promotion practices to ensure success for the people of color that work for them. By relying upon socio-legal research and scholarship on the barriers facing workers of color in financial firms, analyzing the waves of structural reform efforts of employment discrimination class litigations, and providing a blueprint on how financial firms can disrupt bias and remedy racism and discrimination in their workplaces, this article hopes to spur a broader conversation on how to move the needle in racial pay equity. PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:49 PST
Authors:Roger Michalski Abstract: This article is the first to identify, name, and empirically measure the pro se gender gap. Drawing on a massive dataset of all federal civil dockets spanning ten years, it finds a 2-to-1 gender imbalance. For every federal woman pro se litigant there are two males. This finding is robust and stable. It holds true for plaintiffs, defendants, and other parties. It is also true across most subject areas, time, length of litigation, and across states, districts, and circuits. The study excludes prisoner-rights and habeas petitions–including them would widen the gender gap even further. This gender gap reveals a troubling disparity in who has effective access to justice, whose stories are heard, who shapes the development of the law, and whose rights are vindicated by federal courts. Labeling and measuring the pro se gender gap also provides a benchmark to test the efficacy of future policy interventions. As such, this article lays the empirical foundations for a new wave of doctrinal work on the procedural foundations and consequences of gender disparities. It also provides a methodology that can be extended to study litigation gender disparities in state courts, tribal courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings. PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:49 PST
Authors:Alicia R. Jackson Abstract: Structural racism is deeply rooted in our nation's history and often manifests as discrimination and inequality in critical facets of life in the United States, including education. This Article explores the impact of structural racism and bias on discipline in the K-12 public school setting. Discriminatory bias-based decision-making and school discipline policies have led to the disproportionate punishment of Black children, causing them to be excluded from classroom learning and creating a separate and unequal education structure. US Department of Education data shows that Black K-12 students are 3.8 times as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white students in the same grade. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court held that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. When Black students are disciplined more harshly than their white counterparts, this too is inherently unequal and violates the constitutional right to an equal education. PubDate: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 12:03:48 PST
Authors:Kelli Conway Abstract: This note explores a circuit split between the Second and Seventh Circuits regarding whether landlords and property owners can be held liable for postacquisition, tenant-on-tenant discrimination. This issue is one of first impression in recent years, resulting in divergent holdings. To address conflicting judicial approaches to an increasingly prevalent civil claim, this note argues for the necessity of a Congressional amendment to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the law which generally governs housing discrimination. Specifically, the proposed amendment would recognize postacquisition discrimination as an actionable claim and append a test to the FHA for postacquisition liability as employed by the Seventh Circuit in Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community. By amending the FHA, Congress will not only resolve this judicial conflict, but, more importantly, will define a property manager’s duty to tenants experiencing discrimination or harassment in their homes and provide them with a clear avenue for legal recourse. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:06 PST
Authors:Juliana M. Lopez Abstract: A Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings is a written notice served on noncitizens that, among other things, alerts them that they must appear in immigration court for a hearing. In 2018, contrary to statute and common sense, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) admitted to issuing almost all NTAs without the accurate date, time, and place of the initial proceeding. In response, the Supreme Court, in Pereira v. Sessions, clarified that an NTA without the date and place of the hearing is statutorily defective and cannot be used to bar noncitizens from cancellation of removal. However, DHS circumvented Pereira by issuing NTAs with “fake dates” and using a two-step notice process, whereby a second notice with the date and place cured an initial defective NTA. In April 2021, the Court sought to address the problem of the issuance of defective NTAs and its consequences once and for all. In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, the Court held that DHS must serve a “single and comprehensive notice,” with the date and place of the proceeding, on noncitizens to trigger the stop-time rule for purposes of cancellation of removal. This note argues that the Niz-Chavez holding has implications beyond the stop-time rule and soundly contests the jurisdiction of immigration courts when they have commenced proceedings with a defective NTA. Removal proceedings should be terminated because Niz-Chavez (1) foreclosed the two-step notice process; (2) affirmed the supremacy of a statute’s clear text over self-serving regulations; and (3) recognized the serious and far-reaching implications of commencing removal proceedings against a noncitizen. To further clarify this stance, this note proposes an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act confirming the statutory requirements for the issuance of NTAs and asserting that jurisdiction only vests in immigration courts if those statutory requirements are met. The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the government from changing the procedural and jurisdictional framework of removal proceedings to serve its shifting interests, thoughtlessly ruining the lives of noncitizens and their families. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:05 PST
Authors:Emily Joshi-Powell Abstract: The urgent need to cool the atmosphere and slow the effects of climate change is evident all around us. However, half of Congress and large swaths of the American public are still not on board, and the highest Court in the land just knee-capped the EPA’s power to regulate effectively. This note looks at the implementation and amendment of the Clean Air Act and subsequent deviation from the Act’s bipartisan roots to its current highly political polarizing status. It then reviews twenty-first century caselaw affecting climate policy to highlight statutory and judicial barriers to progress. Culminating with the recent Supreme Court opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, and its substantial step to curtail administrative response, and the likely effect on President Biden’s climate agenda in the wake of the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. After thorough analysis of present barriers to climate progress, this note offers a two-part solution to effectuate lasting change. First, it concludes that amending the Clean Air Act is necessary to prevent endless court battles and rectify the damage done by the grandfather clause for existing power plants. Second, it proposes a political canvassing solution to work in tandem with the government’s clean energy initiatives in hopes of healing the partisan divide and making the road to amendment passable. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:05 PST
Authors:Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer Abstract: The framers of the United States Constitution and those who developed the early common law were no strangers to printed media. They could not, however, have anticipated the widespread ability of average people to communicate instantaneously with large audiences via platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Despite this new technology, courts have primarily relied on pre-social media precedent, rules of law, and the Constitution for guidance when confronted with civil and criminal social media misconduct. On the one hand, relying on existing law is a good thing; it reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to precedent and stare decisis. On the other hand, relying on precedent-adopted pre-social media prevents courts from furthering social media norms. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:04 PST
Authors:Robert Ellis Stengel Abstract: In 2011’s Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court redefined the contours of corporate personal jurisdiction, radically curtailing the “doing business” jurisdiction that previously predominated. Since then, corporations are only subject to general jurisdiction where they are “fairly regarded as at home,” a domicile test effectively limited to two locations: (1) the state in which the corporation is incorporated and (2) the state in which the corporation has its “principal place of business.” However, the Supreme Court has never explicitly defined the term “principal place of business” for personal jurisdiction purposes. The Court has addressed this topic in the context of diversity jurisdiction, in 2010’s Hertz Corp. v. Friend, finding that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is its “nerve center,” usually its corporate headquarters. This note finds that the federal courts, lacking explicit guidance from the Supreme Court, have largely applied the Nerve Center test for personal jurisdiction purposes as well. This is the wrong approach. The Nerve Center test, when applied for personal jurisdiction purposes, unjustifiably limits plaintiffs’ access to convenient forums, shielding defendants from suit in forums to which they are closely connected, and is in deep tension with the Court’s long-standing precedent from International Shoe Co. v. Washington that general jurisdiction must emanate from a defendant’s “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state. Using the Boeing Company and its deep connections to the state of Washington as a guiding example, this note argues that the proper test to apply in the context of personal jurisdiction is a modified version of the Total Activities test, under which a corporation has its “principal place(s) of business” at both its “nerve center” and its “locus of operations,” the location at which the bulk of the corporation’s actual activity occurs. This test resolves serious policy concerns raised by mechanically applying the diversity-derived Nerve Center test in the fundamentally different context of personal jurisdiction, and harmonizes potentially conflicting strands of Supreme Court general jurisdiction jurisprudence. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:04 PST
Authors:Bernie Gabrielle Toledano Abstract: Millions of individuals in the United States maintain both personal and business accounts on social media platforms, a handful of which dominate the market for online content. However, if one of these platforms removes an account without cause, the affected user has little recourse because most platforms’ Terms of Service contain clauses allowing them to terminate user accounts for any reason. Nevertheless, as the power imbalance between platforms and users grows, scholars and judges are starting to believe that there is a need for greater regulation of these platforms. This note explores the ramifications of the social media regulatory gaps for users whose accounts are terminated without cause. Such users may suffer serious financial harm if they use the platforms to advertise or monetize their content, as well as emotional damage relating to the loss of content in which they had invested for years. While platforms used Section 230 in the past to escape liability, in recent years, users have increasingly been able to move their cases past the initial motions to dismiss on breach of contract theories. That said, there is no consistent standard for US courts to use when they encounter users suing platforms for wrongfully terminates accounts. This note posits that a legislative solution be enacted to provide a singular standard to assess such claims. The proposed law will prevent social media platforms from making arbitrary decisions regarding user accounts by requiring them to document the reasons for removing an account and hold them accountable as algorithms play a larger role in the way that platforms monitor content. By removing platforms’ unilateral right to terminate accounts without cause, this solution will help address the ever-growing power gap between platforms and their users. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:04 PST
Authors:Noga Blickstein Shchory et al. Abstract: Recent years have seen exponential growth in the use of voice shoppers – artificial intelligence–based algorithms installed on digital voice assistants, such as Alexa and Google Assistant, that buy products based on verbal requests received from consumers. This game-changing switch to semi-automated shopping is shaking up markets by reshaping consumer–supplier relationships, as well as the business models of suppliers and search services. Voice shoppers benefit consumers by offering speedier and more sophisticated transactions while reducing search and transaction costs. At the same time, consumers’ voluntary delegation of their search powers and product selection creates what we call a “choice gap,” wherein the voice shopper chooses the product to be offered to the consumer. This gap is distinct from the commonly recognized information gap, which exists when suppliers possess more information than consumers. The choice gap might create a misalignment between consumer preferences and the products actually sold, which harms consumers as well as the function of markets. Yet market forces cannot be relied upon to remedy this market failure. Despite the significant consequences of this market failure, the negative effects of the choice gap are currently undertreated. Consumer protection and antitrust laws are ill-suited to the task. To remedy this, we suggest that transactions conducted by voice shoppers be reviewed under agency law. Agency law enables the application of fiduciary, performance, and information duties that protect consumers’ interests in the transaction, rather than consumer choice. Such duties can reduce the choice gap, improve consumer welfare, and restore market performance. Our findings and suggestions have relevance well beyond voice shoppers, for technologies which completely automate consumer choice without any human involvement, which are the future of commerce. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:03 PST
Authors:Stacy L. Brustin Abstract: Over the last four years, the US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in four immigration bond review cases. The sheer number of cases the Court has recently considered underscores the significance of this area of immigration law. Each case centers on whether the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Constitution mandates a bond review hearing after prolonged detention. Yet these cases leave unresolved the issue of whether initial bond hearings themselves meet the due process threshold required of civil confinement proceedings. Federal circuit and district courts have addressed aspects of this question and found procedural due process violations. However, most jurisdictions continue to adhere to these arguably unconstitutional practices. Until 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented enforcement guidelines prioritizing certain categories of individuals for arrest and detention. Those with serious criminal convictions were targeted whereas legal permanent residents or undocumented individuals with families were not unless they had serious criminal convictions. On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order abolishing these enforcement priorities and instituting sweeping enforcement guidance instructing DHS to arrest and remove noncitizens with any criminal conviction, as well as individuals with pending charges or those who committed an act that could be chargeable as a criminal offense such as crossing the border without documentation. The numbers of noncitizens arrested and detained increased exponentially and many of those detained from 2017 – 2020 either had no criminal record or had arrests or pending charges but no convictions. At the same time, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began routinely denying bond rather than setting reasonable bonds or conditionally releasing noncitizens even though effective alternative methods for ensuring return to court existed. The case backlog in immigration courts increased as a result. These policy changes and practices laid bare the due process deficiencies inherent in the current civil immigration bail system. They also revealed the dangers of granting DHS unfettered discretion to detain as well as the dire consequences of civil imprisonment for noncitizens. This article analyzes the state of procedural due process in the immigration bail system and compares initial immigration bond hearings to involuntary mental health commitment and child support contempt hearings – two proceedings in which civil court judges have limited authority to temporarily confine litigants. The comparison reveals the danger of using administrative law standards to govern immigration bond proceedings when questions of fundamental liberty interests are at stake. Courts and legislatures have required trial court judges to exercise great care and caution before taking the extreme step, in a civil proceeding, of involuntarily committing or incarcerating an individual to induce compliance with a court order or to protect the individual or community from harm. Yet that same level of protection is not required when determining whether to continue to detain noncitizens or release them on bond. This article proposes statutory, regulatory, and court rules reforms to ensure fundamental fairness in initial immigration bond proceedings. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:03 PST
Authors:Annie Brett Abstract: The rapid rise in aerial drone use and the future deployment of self-driving cars have both spurred extensive legal and social debate. Autonomous vessels on the ocean, on the other hand, have largely escaped detailed scrutiny, even as they are reshaping the landscape of human interactions with the ocean and creating novel challenges for national and international legal regimes. Autonomous vessels are being captured while spying on other countries, raising concerns about national security and surveillance regimes. The Coast Guard is using enforcement loopholes to justify abandoning many of their autonomous vessels at sea, in flagrant violation of national and international environmental laws. Even the most basic threshold questions, like whether autonomous vessels should be legally considered vessels, are unsettled. In short, the regulatory landscape governing autonomous vessels is a mess. Updating autonomous vessel regulations is essential for supporting the $1.5 trillion global maritime economy. This article evaluates the advent of autonomy at sea and proposes principles for regulating autonomous vessels moving forward. By looking broadly at the diverse ways in which autonomous vessels are changing ocean uses, this article shows how autonomous vessels are challenging existing regulatory frameworks and exploiting governance gaps. While the US and international communities are in the early stages of major new efforts to regulate robotics at sea, these efforts are primarily focused on paving the way for large autonomous cargo ships to be deployed in the 2030s and 2040s. In the meantime, a wide array of smaller autonomous vessels are already common on the world’s oceans, and, in many cases, operating in governance gaps that implicate major environmental, safety, and surveillance concerns. This article proposes concrete principles for regulating autonomous ocean-going vessels moving forward, drawing on analogous regulatory processes developed to govern aerial drones and other types of robotics. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:02 PST
Authors:Kenneth R. Davis Abstract: Title VII recognizes both individual and group disparate treatment claims, which allege intentional discrimination. But Title VII recognizes only group claims for disparate impact. Conspicuously absent are claims for individual impact. The reason for the absence of an individual-disparate-impact claim is a problem of proof. To establish a Title VII claim, a plaintiff must prove that he or she lost a job opportunity was “because of” membership in a protected class. Showing that a single individual lost a job opportunity because of a test score, resume evaluation, or interview does not prove that any of these selection criteria unlawfully discriminated within the meaning of Title VII. A plaintiff would seemingly need a statistical basis to prove that one of these selection criteria would discriminate against the protected class in question. But an individual plaintiff faces the problem that the relevant sample size – perhaps only one – may be too small to support a meaningful inferential statistic. This observation casts doubt on the viability of individual-impact theory. If a group-based statistic is necessary to prove an individual’s case, then no independent theory of individual impact seems tenable. A feasible solution to this problem comes from the framework announced in McDonnell Douglas v. Green. Applied currently to disparate-treatment cases, this ingenious three-step burden-shifting framework provides a means of inferring intent absent direct evidence. If suitably adapted, this framework provides a means to sidestep the difficulty in developing a statistical basis for an impact claim and would permit an inference that an employment practice has a discriminatory impact on a protected class. This approach would rescue individual-impact theory from the dead zone that it now occupies. Such an approach would bring significant benefits. Deserving plaintiffs, previously denied judicial recourse, would have a viable claim. By broadening Title VII protections, such claims would deter employment discrimination. Perhaps most important, such claims would hold employers accountable for unconscious bias that might otherwise escape detection. PubDate: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:12:02 PST
Authors:Deanna Arpi Youssoufian Abstract: In an effort to combat the rise in potentially frivolous lawsuits against professionals, including physicians, attorneys, and journalists, states have passed malpractice legislation requiring plaintiffs to file an affidavit of merit (AOM) attesting to the validity of their claims. However, these AOM statutes may conflict with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which provides that “a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit” unless a rule or statute states otherwise. This is a classic Erie/choice-of-law problem for federal courts sitting in diversity, which are tasked with applying federal procedural law and state substantive law, and now must determine whether these statutes are substantive or procedural in nature. The circuit courts of appeals are split in deciding whether these AOM statutes apply, particularly in light of Rule 11’s silence on whether its exception pertains to both federal and state rules and statutes, or federal rules and statutes only. This note proposes a solution to the circuit split by reading the exception in Rule 11 as inclusive of state rules and statutes, as per precedent and the Supreme Court’s teachings of federal rule construction, thereby permitting their application in diverse federal courts and avoiding the murky substantive/procedural debate. In doing so, courts not only vindicate valid state interests of protecting professionals from lengthy and costly litigation, but also better promote the aims of Erie/choice-of-law doctrine and preserve crucial federalism and separation of power principles underlying our system of governance. PubDate: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:15:52 PDT
Authors:Mickaela J. Fouad Abstract: Pollution is a rampant issue in the United States, ranging from smog-filled air to infertile soil to contaminated water. Yet despite the pervasive nature of pollution, its harms are not equally distributed amongst society. Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) communities disproportionately bear the burden of pollution and consequently suffer more harms because of it. Many of the health consequences from pollution are reproductive in nature: proximity to pollution can compromise fertility, cause difficulty in carrying a pregnancy to term and result in birth defects, disabilities, and reproductive cancers. This note focuses on the reproductive consequences of pollution and relies upon the intersection of the established environmental justice and reproductive justice movements to seek solutions. These movements focus on equity, autonomy, and the uplifting of communities. As such, this note’s solutions, which aim to alleviate the injustices of environmental reproductive harms, are also essential elements for racial justice generally. To mitigate and begin correcting the longstanding harms that stem from the systemic subjugation of BIPOC communities, this note posits that federal acknowledgement, expanded healthcare coverage for fertility treatment, and community-based reparations are essential. These are moneyed solutions in large part because the historic subjugation of minority groups in the United States has resulted in the persistent and worsening racial wealth gap. By providing access to healthcare, essential to a racialized problem, as well as funds that will be invested directly into affected communities at community members’ direction, these solutions can help reinstate autonomy, agency, and power in communities that have been done dirty for generations. PubDate: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:15:51 PDT
Open Access journal
[4 journals]
