Articles
Abstract: The Supreme Court of the United States continues to chip away at the protections afforded to factually and legally innocent incarcerated individuals. It is more important than every to modify the way we police to ensure the innocent never get there in the first place. This Comment argues that because disabled people are highly susceptible to coercive police tactics and disproportionately likely to falsely confess or say things that can be used against them when taken out of context, we must revisit the way we interrogate disabled people as the United States reimagines the way it polices. Specifically, Section II of this Comment examines the ADA’s applicability to law enforcement and the constitutionally protected rights to which individuals are entitled during interrogations. It futher analyzes the ways in which disabled people are disproportionately harmed by commonly used coercive police tactics and, consequently, more likely to falsely confess. Section II illustrates these facts through an examination of the cases of Stephen Brodie and Jessie Misskelley Jr., and details the harms of these false confessions on disabled people and society as a whole.
Section III argues that because Title II of the ADA applies to law enforcement, disabled people are entitled to and need comprehensive reasonable accommodation while being interrogated in police custory. This Section explains how not reasonably modifying coercive interrogation tactics is not only facially and directly discriminatory against people with disabilities, but also has a disproportionate impact on them, making it dually ADA-violative. It concludes by offering several suggestions of accommodating custodial interrogation to combat the pervasive impact of the interrogation tactics which disabled people experience. By adopting reasonable accommodation for interrogation of disabled individuals, not only will police comply with the ADA’s non-discrimination mandate, but they also will be less likely to arrest innocent individuals and permit those who perpetrate the crimes to go free.
Abstract: This Essay will explain why the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—overruling the deference afforded regulatory interpretation in the Court’s well-established decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council—should not threaten a core of longstanding disability rights regulations. My goal is to provide a useful resource for litigators facing arguments challenging those regulations in the wake of Loper Bright.
Student Notes
Abstract: Although IEPs are meant to serve students’ best interests, student feedback is rarely incorporated into their development. This lack of student voice would not pose a problem if IEP teams were consistently providing students with plans that appropriately served their needs. However, existing research indicates that this is not always the case. In this note, I argue that IEP teams often struggle to (1) balance necessary accommodations with minimally restrictive learning environments, (2) incentivize student investment in education, and (3) assess mental and emotional disabilities that present more limited physical manifestations. Furthermore, my research indicates that increased opportunities to share student voice in IEP meetings can at least partially remedy these deficiencies.
In Part I of this note, I examine students’ rights in the context of IEP law. I begin by outlining the basic legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I then assess the current state of children’s rights in the United States. After that, I discuss some potential benefits and barriers related to increased participation. In Part II, I describe a series of three student interviews that I conducted to evaluate my hypotheses. I start by outlining my methodology and the demographic data of the three student interviewees. I then describe each student’s interview, along with a related benefit of increased participation, in three separate subparts. Finally, in Part III, I touch on the major limitations of my analysis. I conclude by discussing the structure of a hypothetical, comprehensive study of student participation in the context of IEPs.
Abstract: This paper will explore the history of ableism in immigration, grounds of inadmissibility that affect disabled immigrants with a specific focus on public charge, and other obstacles faced by disabled immigrants, all while emphasizing that eugenics is still ongoing and perpetuated through the American immigration system.
I am both disabled and an immigrant, so this paper is personal. However, I became disabled after immigrating and therefore did not have to navigate the process with a disability. The American immigration system is broken and was designed to exclude disabled immigrants. This is contradictory to the supposed American ideal of welcoming everyone, including the tired, poor and huddled masses mentioned on the Statue of Liberty. The United States needs a major restructure creating a system more aligned with the social model of disability, which would recognize that there is nothing inherent about disability that leads to disabled people becoming a public charge; rather, it is due to society’s ableism.