9873 research outputs found
Sort by
“That’s Not My Name”: The Linguistic Violence of Misnaming Parties in Court Proceedings
No full textThis Article calls attention to the harms done when parties are misnamed in legal proceedings. Misnaming, which many might initially consider trivial, is properly understood as a form of linguistic violence that can inflict dignitary harms as well as have material consequences. Misnaming takes on a different valence when it is done by the state. This Article focuses on the misnaming of Indigenous, Asian, and Latine people, beginning first with the way misnaming is done by the administrative state. The authors then discuss misnaming as it has operated in legal proceedings, providing both historical and contemporary examples from federal and Washington state proceedings. The Article then describes the dignitary harms and material consequences when the state misnames parties. The problem is particularly acute for Latine people because state actors are inconsistent in how names are recorded. As a result, many Latine people accumulate AKAs or aliases based on inconsistent recording of accented letters or inconsistent recording of patrilineal and matrilineal surnames. These AKAs or aliases may impact police encounters or trial court determinations of pretrial release. The material consequences extend beyond the legal system and can impact hiring decisions by employers or leasing decisions by landlords who may regard the applicant with suspicion when they learn of the AKAs or aliases through the ubiquitous use of background checks. The Article closes with suggestions to address misnaming by the state and in legal proceedings
From the Bench to the Feed: Conflict Between Public Official Accounts and the First Amendment
No full textImagine one day waking up, opening Facebook, and discovering that the official White House account blocked you because you left a comment expressing a viewpoint. In this case, your First Amendment right to free speech would most likely be violated. However, what happens if your local official blocks you or deletes your comments? Are your First Amendment rights violated? Well, it depends.
Historically, public officials have used public forums such as town halls to meet with citizens and answer questions. However, as social media platforms like X and Facebook have become increasingly crucial tools for communication, the distinction between personal and official social media content has blurred. These issues can fall under First Amendment violations, as seen in the Supreme Court ruling in Lindke v. Freed, which held that a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action only when it is carried out under actual or apparent governmental authority. The response to Lindke underscores the growing significance of social media platforms as modern public forums for First Amendment expression.
This Comment argues that the Lindke Court should have provided clearer guidelines to lower courts on distinguishing between personal and official accounts. Furthermore, social media platforms should implement transparent and neutral content moderation policies to balance the free speech rights of public officials and citizens. Finally, Washington State should adopt statutes that clearly define public officials’ social media use and when their actions could be classified as official
Involuntary: How a Lack of Analysis of Age Under the Fifth Amendment Highlights the Intersectionality of Age and Race
Full text linkIn the wake of Miller v. Alabama and its progeny, there has been a wider acceptance that juvenile’s need more protections in our judicial system. This is a result of a growing body of research stating that young people’s brains do not fully develop until the age of twenty-five. States across the country are trying to implement this science to protect juvenile rights, especially when it comes to sentencing. However, it has yet to be incorporated in other respects, such as juveniles relinquishing their Fifth Amendment rights. Little attention has been paid to whether a juvenile’s statement in police custody was given voluntarily under the Fifth Amendment. Looking at six different jurisdictions’ analysis of juveniles relinquishing their Fifth Amendment rights (and the voluntariness of their statements), any protections that have been added vary in their effectiveness. Further examination of states with a legislative approach and the cases that result from those jurisdictions indicate courts have less meaningful consideration of youth. Such lack of consideration has left juveniles in these jurisdictions more susceptible to adultification as compared to jurisdictions that consider youth within the body of law, such as within a Miller analysis or within the totality of the circumstances analysis. This Comment proposes that states like Washington that have delegated this analysis to the legislature should incorporate a Miller analysis in court enforcement to prevent further adultification of young people by meaningfully grappling with the characteristics of youth
“ANY BLACK MAN WILL DO”: A TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK FOR EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION IN THE FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY ERA
Full text link
Facial Recognition Technology and Wrongful Arrests in the Digital Policing Era
Full text linkThis Essay examines the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) by law enforcement agencies, the implications of such use, and the disproportionate impact the use has on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. Law enforcement officers are increasingly using FRT for the purpose of identifying suspects. Essentially, law enforcement officers will take a “still image” of a suspect, upload this image into a database, and find a potential match, which the officers then use to identify an individual. This Essay argues that legislatures must enact law that limits the use of FRT by law enforcement agencies, especially when the agency fully depends on the technology’s identification of a person. This kind of software is biased from its development, particularly in its inability to accurately identify women and BIPOC individuals. Washington State has recently taken the lead by attempting to regulate the use of stingrays and drones and should take the lead once more in further protecting BIPOC communities against the disproportionate and harmful impacts of racially biased and inaccurate FRT. This Essay concludes by proposing legislation for Washington State that would limit the use of FRT by law enforcement agencies
Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars for the Advancement of Children\u27s Constitutional Rights and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas in Support of Respondents, Mahmoud v. Taylor, U.S. Supreme Court (No. 24-297)
Full text linkAmici are members of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and United States legal scholars of children and the law, education law, family law, and anti-discrimination law.
Students Engaged in Advancing Texas is a nonprofit organization founded by young people to develop civic leadership and belonging and represents students of various faiths and identities who have an interest in the outcome of this case.
Amici draw this Court’s attention to the constitutional harms that public school students and LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ parents would bear should the Court grant Petitioners’ injunctive relief