By Some Other Means : Considering the Executive Role in Fostering Subnational Human Rights Compliance

The broad realization of human rights domestically requires strong partnership among all levels of government. Indeed, international and domestic law support an important role for state and local governments in implementing the United States’ human rights treaty commitments, with the federal government retaining ultimate responsibility. While the federal government’s responsibility is clear, its options for fostering and facilitating subnational compliance have not been fully explicated. United States’ human rights treaty ratification practices and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence primarily constrain the Executive’s ability to compel state and local compliance without congressional authorization. In the absence of such congressional action, the Executive nevertheless is empowered to, and has a vital interest in, engaging other, non-coercive measures to bring subnational governments, and thus the United States, into human rights treaty compliance. An exploration of the doctrinal, functional, pragmatic and normative concerns, interests and needs particular to federalism and domestic human rights implementation, and an examination of relevant instances of cooperative federalism in other contexts, reveals several core non-coercive federal Executive functions. Specifically, by setting standards, collecting and disseminating information, and incentivizing compliance, the Executive, in cooperation with Congress, can maximize state and local human rights treaty compliance and positively impact the United States’ ability to fulfill its human rights commitments

Seeking Redress for Gender-Based Bias Crimes- Charting New Ground in Familiar Legal Territory

This Essay will analyze how courts have defined gender-motivation, focusing on the Civil Rights Remedy cases decided before the law was struck down, in an attempt to cull from those cases the standards federal courts have used to assess gender-motivation. The article will first provide an overview of existing and proposed laws that offer some form of redress for gender-motivated crimes. It will then analyze cases decided under the Civil Rights Remedy, focusing on two key issues that have arisen as policymakers struggle with whether and how gender-based bias crimes fit in the rubric of hate crimes legislation. The first of these issues is how courts have assessed whether claims of domestic violence reflect discriminatory motivation, and what type of evidence they have found useful in that context. The second issue is how courts treated VAWA civil rights claims based on allegations of sexual assault, and what, if any, evidence, in addition to allegations of sexual assault, they found to indicate gender-motivation

Using Human Rights Mechanisms of the United Nations to Advance Economic Justice

As a growing number of social justice lawyers employ human rights standards and strategies to advocate for their clients. human rights mechanisms of the United Nations have become a promising way for lawyers to work toward economic justice. These mechanisms are not only an alternative to traditional litigation and administrative advocacy but also unique opportunities for collaboration among U.S. civil society groups and engagement with policymakers. Because they are grounded in international human 1ights norms. human rights mechanisms have the potential to deal with social and economic issues beyond the reach of traditional domestic protections. By strategically using these mechanisms. legal aid lawyers can make a larger case within local communities, with government officials, and on the international stage for their clients\u27 concerns. Building upon previous Clearinghouse Review articles and several appearing in this issue, we draw a primer on the U.N. human rights system as a means of complementing domestic advocacy efforts on behalf of low-income and poor communities and individuals.\u27 First, we give an overview of the U.N. mechanisms that monitor and promote human rights compliance in the United States. Second, we cite examples of how social justice organizations have engaged these mechanisms to broaden access to justice and deter violence against women, and we suggest opportunities for future engagement on a range of issues confronting clients of legal aid programs

No One Could Say: Accessing Emergency Obstetrics Information as a Prospective Prenatal Patient in Post-Roe Oklahoma

This report by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, and Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice raises concerns about pregnant patients' ability to access life-saving obstetric care in states where abortion is banned

Bridging the Federalism Gap: Procedural Due Process and Race Discrimination in a Devolved Welfare System

As recent Supreme Court decisions limit the power of the federal government to legislate and the federal courts to provide redress in areas such as civil rights, Congress is devolving significant power to states and localities to create and implement poverty-related programs. The discretion and authority that is further devolved to local caseworkers and administrators can be tainted with racial bias, raising the risk of and resulting in a disparate impact on people of color. Individuals may thus face a greater risk of race discrimination within the welfare system with fewer statutory protections available to challenge such discrimination. This article examines the effects of federalism on poor and low-income people of color and explores whether, in this context, Constitutional procedural due process protections, which historically have been used to guard against the unfair administration of government benefits, may provide an effective tool to curb race discrimination in the welfare system