University of California Hastings College of the Law
UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (University of California, Hastings College of the Law)Not a member yet
18514 research outputs found
Sort by
“Legally Magic” Words: An Empirical Study of the Accessibility of Fifth Amendment Rights
No full textFifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using “explicit,” “clear,” and “unambiguous” statements—or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using “legally magic” words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.
With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than do courts. Statements that courts have deemed too ambiguous (e.g., “I’ll be honest with you, I’m scared to say anything without talking to a lawyer.”) are perceived by a large majority of survey respondents as invoking the right to counsel. With respect to the right to silence, the survey results suggest that people overwhelmingly believe that remaining silent for several hours constitutes invocation of the right to silence and expect that their silence cannot be used against them—including in situations where, in fact, it can be. Across an array of fact patterns and demographic subgroups, respondents consistently set the bar for invoking Fifth Amendment rights lower than courts.
The stark disconnect between what the public takes as sufficient to invoke these rights and what courts hold as sufficient suggests that the rights to counsel and silence are largely inaccessible to ordinary people. Notably, standard Miranda warnings do not include instructions regarding how one must speak in order to invoke those rights. We conclude that when courts set the threshold for invocation above where the average citizen believes it to be, they effectively place key procedural rights out of reach
How American Society and Law Continue to Undermine People with Disabilities Seeking Education and Employment
No full textOur Founders specifically identified education as necessary to economic success and full participation in our democracy and society. However, the Supreme Court held in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that education in America is not a constitutional right; instead, it is a commodity that few can afford. Then, in 2023, Biden v. Nebraska exposed the direct result of that ruling: the average American––regardless of their disability status––struggles to pay back their student loans, even when they have a well-paying job. The student debt crisis significantly impacts the economic future of students with disabilities, who make on average sixty-six cents on the dollar even if they complete their education and do secure employment. I attribute this gap to decades of judicial and legislative actions– –from Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. to the convoluted language of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973––that have entrenched ablism and stigma in our educational system and workspaces, forcing people with disabilities to work twice as hard to fare half as well. These systemic barriers have made the promise that education will guarantee economic security a false promise for hardworking people with disabilities. By failing to protect people with disabilities and their communities, we have not only prevented qualified people with disabilities from attending our top-ranking schools and accessing the myriad of professional and personal opportunities that come with that experience, but these systemic inequalities have also held all of us back from achieving our full potential as individuals and a nation. We have been actively undermining the Founders’ vision for decades by increasing the cost of education and exclusivity of our job market to the detriment of all, particularly those with disabilities. But, we have the tools to right our wrongs if we have the courage to use them.
In this Article, I identify how the evolution of education in America entrenched the “able-body standard” in our society, disability jurisprudence, and legal system as a whole. I advocate for everyone––from lawmakers and judges to educators and employers––to embrace theories championed by the disability activist community so that all people, with and without disabilities, can, in short, attain the American Dream
Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Long Range Campus Plan Update and 201 Golden Gate Avenue Mixed-Use Project
No full text
Politicians the Founders Warned You About
No full textMany articles have explored the Founders’ intentions regarding the constitutional text. Much less attention has focused on the Founders’ ideas regarding the traits needed of the leaders in a constitutional republic. The Constitution focuses on governing structures, many of which relate to the electoral process. The Constitution does not spell out the ideal traits of the leaders elected pursuant to those processes. Nonetheless, the Founders possessed clear views about the virtues and qualifications that ideal political leaders required. Indeed, the Founders issued warnings about certain archetypal political figures who, because of their flagrant disregard of the ideal virtues and qualifications, threatened the nation’s political health. This article examines the warnings issued by the Founders about four types of political figures who threatened the integrity of our republic: partisans, demagogues, ambitious, and tyrants. After exploring the Founders’ warnings about these dangerous leadership traits, this article looks at contemporary political culture and actors to consider how those very archetypes are manifesting. Finally, the article turns to a consideration of how ignoring the Founders’ warnings to allow these dangerous archetypes to take root can undermine the health of the American republic
Campus Housing Finance Authority Board of Directors Meeting - Notice and Agenda 04/17/2024
No full textThe Disproportionate Burden on Vulnerable Communities in the Trade of Plastic Waste: How Environmental Justice Should be Integrated into the United Nations Treaty on Plastic Pollution
No full textThe United Nations Environment Assembly passed a resolution to end plastic pollution with a legally binding treaty in response to growing international concern over the destruction of the environment and human health from plastic pollution. Plastic waste disposal is currently regulated under the Plastic Waste Amendments of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Basel Convention), which subjects it to prior informed consent (PIC) and the environmentally sound management of waste (ESM). Unfortunately, the increasing amount of plastic production and limited number of recycling facilities around the world have rendered the Basel Convention ineffective in limiting the environmental harms caused by plastic pollution. Environmental justice communities suffer disproportionate burdens caused by the improper disposal of plastic waste. In 2018, China closed its borders to receiving plastic waste, which used to account for more than half the world’s plastic waste disposal. This action led to an influx of plastic waste into Global South countries which lack the technical and financial resources to accept such waste. As a result, more than 70 percent of plastic waste ends up in landfills or open-burning pits, which are often located in the communities of the poor and people of color. The United Nations’ proposed binding treaty is premised on the need to address the full life-cycle of plastic and a call to curb the overall production of plastic. It also reinforces some of the key principles of the Basel Convention. However, environmental justice is not mentioned explicitly in the resolution, nor are any recommendations to provide remediation measures to communities in damage. This Article first provides a background on the disproportionate burden of plastic waste disposal on environmental justice communities, principles of environmental justice, and how they are reflected in international law. Then, it provides an overview of how the Basel Convention regulates plastic waste and analyzes how it fails environmental justice communities. Finally, this Article recommends how the United Nations’ new binding treaty must integrate environmental justice by including binding targets on plastic production, mitigation and enforcement measures for illegal waste disposal, and effective capacity building for developing economies. These Associate changes can help environmental justice communities by both addressing current harms being suffered, and by offering a roadmap for protecting them in the future
