From Stigma to Statute: A Historical and Legal Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Commitment Laws in Idaho

A lesser-known area of law in Idaho concerns the involuntary civil commitment process, a process by which thousands of people per year are committed to hospitals around the state. These laws, specifically in Idaho, govern the criteria which must be met for a person to be placed on an involuntary hold, detained in a hospital setting awaiting proceedings, or potentially committed. Understanding the evolution of mental illness and the role of involuntary commitment – including successes, failures, and challenges – is essential to navigating reform. This Comment provides a brief history of mental illness, including key cultural events and cases that changed the landscape of involuntary commitment, and examines how the involuntary commitment process occurs in Idaho. It will also discuss the legislative history and most recent amendments to the process in Idaho, and explore whether Idaho is sufficiently protecting the rights of its involuntary patients. Finally, this Comment will briefly consider California’s involuntary commitment process, including recent legislative changes, and conclude with a normative argument on the state of Idaho’s current laws in comparison

Preserving Rural School Districts from the Threat of Vouchers and Charters

School vouchers and charter schools are primed to grow at a time when public school systems are experiencing a precipitous decline in enrollment. Unfortunately, for many rural school districts, this challenging environment may endanger their very existence, to the detriment of the students and the communities they serve. To guard against this potential harm, this article calls for state legislatures to designate certain classes of rural districts as “education preserves.” This article also explains how states can create education preserves in a manner that can withstand Free Exercise Clause challenges

A Case for Idaho and Other Western States Owning Their Own Land

Idaho and other states in the western United States have struggled with federal ownership and management of public lands for decades. Since 1976, when the Federal Land Management and Policy Act was enacted and the Homestead Act was repealed, states in the west have challenged the constitutionality and legal authority of the BLM to hold onto and manage western lands in a myriad of ways. This article discusses some of the most recent challenges to this system, including a lawsuit filed by the State of Utah in August of 2024. This article expands on these challenges, citing legal and political arguments for western states gaining control and ownership of BLM lands within their borders. This article concludes that many of the problems that arise under federal ownership and BLM management could be solved by transferring ownership and management to the states

Facing the Accused: The Confrontation Clause and Protecting Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides individuals the right to confront witnesses testifying against them. For decades, Idaho case law has grappled with the delicate balance between protecting victims of sexual assault and upholding defendants’ rights to cross examine their accusers. This delicate balance is further exacerbated when sexual assault cases involve minors, particularly in deciding whether victim statements implicate the Confrontation Clause. The Idaho Supreme Court considers the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a defendant’s right to confront a witness has been violated, but the standard for when the Clause is triggered remains unclear. This Note seeks to explore the evolution of the Confrontation Clause and how its evolution has impacted Idaho law. Additionally, it seeks to highlight how subjective information should be part of an evaluation that considers the totality of the circumstances. The Note will explore where the Confrontation Clause is not implicated by young children, and review dual-purpose interviews and the importance of distinguishing between an interview’s primary purpose and its sole purpose. Additionally, the Note will explore ways in which Idaho courts can follow controlling authority while providing appropriate avenues where children and their families can seek justice. In particular, this Note will advocate for the implementation of a new, explicit hearsay exception in Idaho that takes a declarant’s age and the harm they suffered into consideration when admitting statements into evidence

Invisible in the Storm: Disasters and the Disability Divide

“Sometimes it takes a natural disaster to reveal a social disaster.

What\u27s the Matter With Lozada: How the Board of Immigration Appeals Coerces Immigration Lawyers to Breach Legal Ethics

In general, if an attorney makes a mistake, they can cure it by notifying the forum and filing the appropriate remedy. Immigration law, by contrast, stands alone by requiring the client (or a new attorney) to corroborate any mistake by filing a bar complaint against the first attorney. This requirement was established in a 1988 case, called Matter of Lozada. Much has been written on how the Lozada rule is unnecessary (a mistake does not need to be corroborated by a bar complaint and state bars are complaining about a deluge of unnecessary complaints for negligence) and harms the immigration practitioner (immigration law is difficult enough without the added possibility of having a bar complaint filed against a lawyer who had been helping a client to the best of their ability). As much as this is true, this article adds to the conversation by illustrating how the Lozada requirement is an egregious violation of legal ethics. Lozada requires an attorney to turn against their former client and reveal (and weaponize) secrets, confidences, and communications in an adversarial forum that the Board of Immigration Appeals, and government attorneys themselves, use against the non-citizen. The Lozada rule is a chimera of justice, a means not to cure attorneys’ mistakes but to weaponize attorneys against their clients and separate lawyers from a population who critically need representation. Whether intended or not, these consequences of the Lozada rule are compelling reasons to abandon the bar complaint requirement to determine if a former attorney made a mistake

Immigration Federalism in the Second Trump Administration

This Article explores the ongoing transformation of state and local engagement in immigration-related rulemaking in the United States during the Second Trump Administration. The Article examines the myriad ways in which federal executive actions and state responses to those actions, alongside independent state actions and the federal government’s responses to those actions, are upending long established immigration law doctrines and shifting the borders of American federalism. The Article discusses legal scholars’ previous understanding of immigration federalism, embodied in United States v. Arizona, and the prior distinctions between permissible “alienage” laws and impermissible “immigration” laws, which could not be introduced by state and local governments. It then turns to the resurgence of lawmaking in the immigration arena during the first few months of the Trump Administration, which could be categorized as “cooperative” and/or “uncooperative” federalism. The Article analyzes the doctrinal, constitutional and practical implications of these recent developments, and proposes that increasingly punitive state legislation, coupled with the federal government’s aggressive enforcement operational mandate, poses a significant challenge to both individual immigrants’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and, of equal import, to the structural guarantees of our federal system and to our continued adherence to the rule of law