Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
No Room At the Inn: Despite Open Beds, D.C.\u27s Homeless Children Turned Away From Shelter
No full textHumanitarian Aid is Never a Crime? The Politics of Immigration Enforcement and the Provision of Sanctuary
No full textIn September 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the federal criminal conviction of humanitarian Daniel Millis for placing water for migrants crossing the United StatesMexico border in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.1 In 2008 Mr. Millis, an activist with the Sierra Club and the Tucson faith-based organization No More Deaths/No Mas Muertes,2 had been found guilty of “Disposal of Waste” pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 27.94(a), in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.3 No More Deaths, along with other faith-based organizations in Southern Arizona,4 have adopted the slogan “Humanitarian Aid is Never a Crime” in support of their mission to leave water for migrants crossing the desert near the United States-Mexico border.5 Although the district court rejected Mr. Millis’ defense that “leaving full jugs of life-sustaining water for human consumption does not constitute littering,6 two judges on the threejudge panel of the Ninth Circuit that heard Mr. Millis’ case found that the term “garbage” in the regulation under which Mr. Millis was prosecuted is ambiguous, and vacated his conviction on those grounds. 7 The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Millis was lauded by immigrants’ rights groups, border activists, humanitarian and faith groups as a victory for Good Samaritans and peaceful protestors of federal immigration policy.8 This Article argues that the unprecedented increase in the enforcement of immigration law—on both the border and the interior— and the politics surrounding comprehensive immigration reform has given rise to a renewed need for the provision of sanctuary for undocumented immigrants, and surveys the different forms of action that can constitute sanctuary
The Plural Of Anecdote Is Not Data: Teaching Law Students Basic Survey Methodology To Improve Access to Justice In Unemployment Insurance Appeals
No full textThis project has its origins at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC). In March 2008, UDC hosted a meeting between the Pro Bono Committee of the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings, and clinical professors and pro bono coordinators from several law schools in the District of Columbia. At that meeting, the Pro Bono Committee initiated a dialogue about how to better meet the needs of self-represented individuals who appear before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and extended an invitation to attend some OAH hearings. Professor Mullen accepted that invitation and between March and September 2008 attended more than forty hearings. Initially, the purpose of attending hearings was to identify case types that might be suitable for the law students enrolled in the General Practice Clinic at The Catholic University of America law school. It soon became clear to Professor Mullen that a large number of individuals who appear before the OAH are self-represented, and that many of them would benefit from having legal representation or at least more legal information about the hearing process
Expert Evidence in Gender-Based Asylum Cases: Cultural Translation for the Court
No full textThis article examines the use of country conditions experts in gender-based asylum claims, with a focus on African women and girls facing gender-based violence in their countries of origin. Using anonymous case examples from the work of the Tahirih Justice Center’s African Women’s Empowerment Project, the article explores the role of experts and the critical bridge that experts can provide in asylum claims adjudicated at the asylum office and in immigration court. A brief overview of U.S. asylum law and procedures sets the stage for a deeper look at expert evidence
Feminist Legal Realism
No full textThis Article begins to rethink current conceptions of two of the most significant legal movements in this country1—Legal Realism and Feminist Jurisprudence. The story of Legal Realism has been retold for decades. Authors have dedicated countless books,2 law review articles,3 and blog posts4 to the subject. Legal and other scholars repeatedly have attempted to define better the movement and ascertain its adherents. Although the usual suspects— Karl Llewellyn, Roscoe Pound, and Jerome Frank—are almost always a part of the conversation, surprisingly few agree on the totality of Realism’s personage or parameters. The lists of those considered realists— and there are many—are constantly expanding and contracting. The movement’s teachings and implications are ever-evaluated. In all of this alleged evolution, however, one thing has remained constant: male-centered descriptions of Legal Realism have occupied the center of the discussion