Human Rights at Home Blog

In Punishing Homelessness, the U.S. Abandons Human Rights

By: Tamar Ezer, Associate Director & Abigail Wettstein, Fellow, Human Rights Clinic, University of Miami School of Law

Everyone needs a safe place to sleep. Yet, as of June 28, 2024, you can face sanctions simply for sleeping in public.

This summer, the Supreme Court overruled Ninth Circuit precedent and took a giant step backwards from human rights norms. In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that laws punishing sleeping in public do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, even when no safe and accessible shelters are available.

Justice Gorsuch, delivering the majority opinion, argued that laws prohibiting sleeping outdoors punished conduct, not status and were thus constitutional. But what do you do if you are unhoused and have nowhere to go?

As Justice Sotomayor recognized in the dissent, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.” Arresting and fining “people with no access to shelter,” in fact, “punishes them for being homeless.” The majority’s decision thus “leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.” According to Justice Sotomayor, “That is unconscionable and un­constitutional.”

It is also contrary to international human rights law. Human rights bodies have consistently found that punishing homelessness and involuntary acts of survival constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as set out in the amicus brief by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, which our Human Rights Clinic had the privilege of supporting. Criminalizing life-sustaining activities further violates the rights to liberty and security of person, life, freedom of movement, and equality and non-discrimination.

In its recent review, the U.N. Human Rights Committee specifically called upon the United States to:

(a) Abolish laws and policies criminalizing homelessness at all levels, and adopt legislative and other measures that protect the human rights of homeless people;

(b) Offer financial and legal incentives to decriminalize homelessness, including by conditioning or withdrawing funding from state and local authorities that criminalize homelessness;

(c) Intensify efforts to find solutions for the homeless, in accordance with human rights standards, including by redirecting funding from criminal justice responses towards adequate housing and shelter programmes.

As highlighted in an amicus brief by social science researchers, punishing homelessness serves no penological purpose and is counterproductive. It disrupts access to services, harms people’s health, and results in fines people cannot pay, jail time, and criminal records, further impeding employment and housing. As the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights noted during a visit to the  U.S., “[U]npayable fines and the stigma of a criminal conviction . . . virtually prevents subsequent employment and access to most housing.”

Ordinances criminalizing homelessness thus effectively criminalize the status of being unhoused, along with the many factors that contribute to homelessness, such as racial disparities, mental health conditions, gender-based violence, and discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Moreover, criminalization is expensive. Diverting resources to law enforcement can cost two to three times more than it would to provide affordable housing. When homelessness intersects with mental health conditions, effective responses include supportive housing, community treatment, mobile crisis services, supported employment, and peer support services.

Sadly, here in Florida, the state recently passed HB 1365, modeled on template legislation from the Cicero Institute, which prohibits cities and counties from allowing people to sleep or camp in public spaces or risk legal liability, while not providing any new funding for effective responses. As David Peery, Executive Director of the Miami Coalition to Advance Racial Equity (MCARE) and our partner in this work, stated, “It’s simply making it illegal now to be homeless. And you’re not homeless because of anything you did, you’re homeless because we live in the most expensive housing market in the nation and because the minimum wage is nowhere near enough to afford a living space.”

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor expresses the hope that “someday in the near future, this Court will play its role in safeguarding constitutional liberties for the most vulnerable among us” and “prohibit punishing the very existence of those without shelter.”

On this World Homelessness Day, we echo this hope and call for a human rights approach to homelessness. This September, the City of Philadelphia introduced a resolution condemning the Grants Pass decision and reaffirming a commitment to housing on a human right. We urge other cities to follow suit and all of us to stand up against this backsliding on critical rights.

Please see additional information and resources at https://johnsonvgrantspass.com/.

Event 10/3: Climate Litigation Virtual Summit: Climate Rights Matters

On October 3, 2024, from 1:00-2:00pm EDT, the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources will hold a webinar exploring climate litigation. The program will feature panelists Jessica Simor, Melissa Anne Hornbein, Payam Akhavan, and Sophie Marjanac.

In this webinar, climate rights litigators will discuss cases brought around the world in which they assert that international and domestic law imbue people with rights to climate mitigation and adaptation, including in Australia (Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia), Oceania, Switzerland, and international and regional courts (Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law and Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications and Others). The discussion will feature the cases, strategies, and goals for litigators for future climate rights litigation, as well as highlight and contrast international litigation relative to U.S. cases such as Held v. Montana. Panelists will also discuss the legal frameworks enabling claims of climate rights globally compared with in U.S. law.

Register for the event here. CART services will be available for deaf or hard of hearing attendees.

New Article: Deprivation of Liberty as a Last Resort: Understanding the Children's Rights Law Mandate for Youth Justice

Lauren Meeler, Jonathan Todres, Deprivation of Liberty as a Last Resort: Understanding the Children's Rights Law Mandate for Youth Justice, 60 Stan. J. Int'l L. 1 (2024). Abstract below.

International law is consistent in affirming that the deprivation of liberty should be a “last resort” for children. This norm is affirmed by the extensive evidence that detention is detrimental to the wellbeing and healthy development of young people. Yet while it is broadly understood that detention of children and youth should be uncommon, there is much less clarity around what the “last resort” mandate means in practice—that is, under what circumstances is detention permissible and what, if anything, must states do prior to considering the detention of a young person. Drawing on scholarship on criminal justice and human rights, the work of international treaty bodies, and other human rights sources, this Article explores the meaning of “last resort” under international law, focusing in particular on the use of arrest, detention, and imprisonment in the youth justice context. The Article then proposes a framework for operationalizing the “last resort” mandate so that governments can respond in a more rights-affirming manner to children who are in conflict with the law.

Available at SSRN.

Historic Montana Environmental Rights Case on Appeal In State Supreme Court

By A. Bashar Zaheer, 2L at Saint Louis University School of Law.

On August 14 2023, the First Judicial District Court of Montana in Held v. Montana, found that two Montana laws restricting state action addressing climate change were unconstitutional infringements of the plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment.

In recent years, environmental groups across the world have asserted the right to a healthy environment as a basic human right, culminating in the 2021 decision by the UN Human Rights Council to enshrine the right to a healthy environment. Additionally, several countries have begun to enshrine these rights in their constitutions, including in India, where the Supreme Court recently found that that the climate crisis was a threat to citizens right to life. In the U.S., efforts to assert environmental rights have often been led by youth groups, arguing that the government has a duty to act now to mitigate climate change, as it represents a present threat to their life and liberty. In Montana, such a right is already enshrined in the state constitution in Article IX, maintaining that the "state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations," as well as Article II, Section 3 which maintains that “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment…”

In Held, sixteen youth residents of Montana, represented by the non-profit Our Children’s Trust, seek to enforce this constitutional right to challenge a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act prohibiting the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions in deciding whether to issue permits for energy projects, as well as a related section of the State Energy Policy. The District Court found that these permitting limitations were in violation of the state constitution, and the defendants have since appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

This follows a previous similar case, Juliana v. United States, where the Ninth Circuit Court dismissed plaintiff’s attempts to assert that the Federal Governments inaction against climate change violated the constitutional rights of young people. The Juliana case was initially brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, also represented by Our Children’s Trust, against several federal agencies arguing that government inaction regarding climate change threatened their due process rights to life, liberty, and property. Ultimately, the Juliana case was dismissed by a 2-1 vote of the Ninth Circuit, citing a lack of Article III standing, stating that it was beyond the Court’s power provide remedy. In dissent, Judge Staton found instead that the majority was shirking its responsibility to rectify the constitutional wrong brought by the plaintiffs.

Where the Juliana case failed, Held may provide new strategy for legal climate activists in using State Constitutions as a source of environmental human rights. As of 2024, several states have environmental rights enshrined in their constitutions, including Pennsylvania, where in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court used these rights as a basis for declaring bans on local fracking restrictions unconstitutional. Many more states also have movements to establish constitutional rights to a clean environment, and one such movement was successful in amending the New York State Constitution to include the “right to clean air and water, and to a healthful environment,” in 2021.

On July 20, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court heard arguments for the State’s appeal of the decision. While not discounting the reality and effects of climate change, state attorneys argued that the court should avoid the issues at hand as political questions and should focus on the specific permitting decisions discussed and asserted that the plaintiff’s claims are weakened by a lack of a clear remedy. The Montana Supreme Court has not yet released their ruling on the appeal.

While Juliana mostly failed to assert environmental rights on the federal level, environmental rights may be more enforceable on the state level, and it is likely that environmentalist groups will continue to bring more litigation on these grounds in the future.

Read the full District Court verdict for Held v. Montana here.

September-October 2024 Deadlines: Calls for Inputs by Human Rights Mechanisms

The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in September-November 2024 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission:

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights  - Call for inputs to inform the Office’s next thematic report on the rights of persons with disabilities and digital technologies and devices, including assistive technologies. Deadline September 1, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform a comprehensive report on mental health and human rights. Deadline October 4, 2024. Read more. 

Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent – Call for inputs to collection information for the 35^th public session of the Working Group focusing on Principles, Provisions and Pathways to Reparatory Justice for Africans and People of African Descent. Deadline October 7, 2024. Read more. 

Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity – Call for inputs to inform a report on indigenous peoples and international solidarity. Deadline November 1, 2024. Read more. 

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform a report on combating discrimination, violence and harmful practices against intersex persons. Deadline November 20, 2024. Read more.  

This information was compiled from https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input-listing.

Subscribe to the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog

I know that many of you have lamented that we no longer have the feature that used to automatically send you an email notification for every new blog post. However, we have finally figured out a workaround! You can now have the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog automatically delivered to your computer, tablet, or smart phone once again. 

 

Sign up for Feedrabbit by following this link. Be sure to select Human Rights at Home Blog, then enter your email address and click “Sign Up.” If you have not already created a Feedrabbit account, you should receive an email asking you to activate your account and create a password. Once these steps are completed, you should receive an email notification for every new post. Thanks!

Why we filed a federal complaint over unnecessary and cruel immigration detention at Moshannon Valley

By Vanessa Stine, Senior Staff Attorney, Immigrants’ Rights at ACLU Pennsylvania 

& Sarah Paoletti, Founder and director of the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania's Carey Law School

 

This blog post is crossposted with permission from the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Blog

No person should be detained while they await the outcome of their immigration proceedings. Unfortunately, the massive immigration detention machine in the United States means that on any given day, tens of thousands of immigrants are held in ICE detention. 

What’s worse, the conditions in many immigration detention centers are downright horrific. That’s the case in the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, where those in detention have endured insufficient medical and mental health care, grossly inadequate access to non-English language services, and rampant discrimination.

That’s why ACLU-PA teamed up with Legal Services of New Jersey and the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Carey Law Transnational Law Clinic to file a federal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties over the conditions at Moshannon.  

The complaint includes the detailed accounts of eight participants. One participant describes how he did not receive medical treatment for painful tumors. 

Another participant attempted suicide due to depression and an untreated medical condition that worsened while detained. 

ICE and GEO staff similarly denied medical care to other participants, often bouncing individuals back and forth between ICE and GEO medical staff, each persistently trying to shift responsibility for needed medical care to the other. 

The women participants in the complaint describe how they are particularly vulnerable at Moshannon. They  live in cells surrounded by a majority-male population that they cannot interact with, resulting in limited movement outside of their housing unit. Access to menstrual products is extremely restricted, and preventive medical care, like mammograms, are not accessible.

While these conditions are alarming and disturbing, they are not unique to Moshannon. 

Moshannon is operated by GEO Group, a for-profit corporation that contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to manage detention centers across the country. Many of these facilities have been exposed to have similarly horrific conditions as we have found in Moshannon. 

Our complaint asks the department to open a formal investigation and hold GEO Group and ICE accountable for the conditions at Moshannon. 

While ICE detention is cruel, unnecessary, and should not exist, to the extent ICE continues to keep people behind bars, they must do so in a way that adheres to the most basic standards of dignity and rights. 

The department’s Office of Civil Rights and Liberties is charged with investigating civil rights abuses in ICE detention. It is critical that they take a meaningful and robust approach to this investigation, not only because the detailed accounts from the participants illustrate the serious and pervasive issues that exist at Moshannon but also because they are some of the same issues that the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties identified in their June 2023 recommendations regarding Moshannon. 

Despite those recommendations, our complaint is the first time that the public has the full picture of the horrific conditions at Moshannon. That’s because the department does not make their recommendations public where ICE does not not agree with them. This lack of transparency is why our complaint asks the department, at the conclusion of their investigation, to provide a full and public record of the findings and recommendations. 

Our clients in detention have endured unfathomable horrors. As one of our client’s, Jose, shared, “I wouldn’t wish on anyone what I went through at Moshannon because of the conditions there, the way I was treated, and the racism I experienced. Even though I am in ICE detention, I am a human being.” 

ICE detention should not even exist. There is no good reason to keep a person locked up while they navigate the U.S. immigration machine. But while it does, our clients and the thousands of people who are detained everyday by ICE around the country deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

This blog post is crossposted with permission from the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Blog

IACHR Hearing on Michael Brown's Case and Police Violence in the U.S.

On July 10, 2024 (tomorrow), almost a decade after Michael Brown’s murder at the hands of Ferguson police, the Brown family will appear before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) for hearing on Brown’s case. Featuring testimony from Brown’s mother, Lezley McSpadden, as well as attorneys and activists from Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and Howard University’s Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center, the hearing will provide an opportunity for public accountability in Brown’s killing. The hearing, which will be conducted virtually and is open to the public, represents the first time in history that the Inter-American Commission will hear an individual case about police violence in the United States.

Following the hearing tomorrow, the IACHR will publish a report outlining their findings on the case and issuing recommendations to the United States government. Representing Ms. McSpadden, RFK Human Rights and Howard University have requested that the IACHR recommend an independent investigation into Brown’s death; a public apology to Brown’s family; and the implementation of key U.S. legislation such as the BREATHE Act and the recently reintroduced Helping Families Heal Act, which would expand mental health services for communities harmed by police violence. A full list of proposed remedies can be found here.

The hearing will be livestreamed on Wednesday, July 10, 2024, at 4:00pm ET. Visit https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/ to watch.

New Article: Advancing Human Rights Education in the United States: A Call for Action in the Public Education System

Conroy, Shannon M., Advancing Human Rights Education in the United States: A Call for Action in the Public Education System, Immigration & Human Rights Law Review: Vol. 5, Iss. 2, Article 4 (2024). Abstract below:

Human rights education is education about, through, and for human rights. In 2004, the United Nations General Assembly implemented the World Programme for Human Rights Education. The World Programme provides global coordination for human rights education and promotes a common understanding of human rights education. Over the last twenty years, the United States failed to implement either federal or state human rights education programs. This article examines the academic and international discussion about human rights education for students in the United States, and argues for the need for stronger human rights education in public primary, secondary, and higher education institutions in this country.

Rahimi: Success for Abuse Survivors

By Margaret Drew, Associate Professor at UMass Law School

On June 21, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Rahimi case.  Mr. Rahimi, who was subject to a civil protection order, was arrested for possession of firearms as forbidden by 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8).  The Court, in an 8-1 vote, upheld the statute. “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Only Justice Thomas dissented.

There is a history of governments withholding firearms from those they considered dangerous.  While these laws were often used against classes of people, such as Native Americans and Blacks, the history of government limitations supported the ban.

Not all courts ban the possession of firearms, despite the federal law at issue.  One hope by advocates is that post-Rahimi more states will suspend the possession of guns and ammunition from abusers.  According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, most intimate partner homicides are committed with firearms. In addition, abuser’s access to a gun increases the risk of intimate partner death by 1000%

Mr. Rahimi was hardly a sympathetic litigant.  He had a cache of firearms when he was arrested.  And his arrest was not related to any action toward his former intimate partner.  Mr. Rahimi, it appears, is a generally violent man.

I suspect that future lawsuits will parse the meaning of “temporary” prohibitions.  Even for those states that enter “permanent” restraining orders, typically a hearing mechanism is provided to address whether the restrained party may be exempted from the firearms possession ban.  

Victories for intimate partner violence survivors are rare enough. Let’s take time to rejoice in this decision.

Podcast: From the Frontlines: Reflections on Decades of the Racial Justice Movement

On the May 15, 2024, episode of the Harvard Carr Center’s podcast, Justice Matters, “From the Frontlines: Reflections on Decades of the Racial Justice Movement” co-hosts talk with Prof. Gay McDougall, distinguished scholar in residence at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham University School of Law and member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Prof. Mc Dougall discusses her decades of experience in the racial justice movement, as well as the function of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, her youth in Jim Crow’s Georgia, her work with Nelson Mandela, George Floyd’s murder, the Biden Administration’s policies concerning race, and the upcoming 2024 US Presidential election.

Access the full episode here.

Housing, Not Punishment to Address Homelessness

By: Tamar Ezer, Acting Director, Human Rights Clinic, University of Miami School of Law

Can you be punished for sleeping? The U.S. Supreme Court is considering this very question in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a seminal case with critical implications for homelessness. The Court is deciding whether the 8^th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment protects against laws punishing people for sleeping outside when there is no alternative shelter.

An increasing number of U.S. cities have sought to make homelessness invisible by criminalizing and fining activities people experiencing homelessness must engage in stay alive, such as sleeping, eating, or lying down. According to a 2019 survey of 187 cities, 55% have laws prohibiting sitting and or lying down in public; 72% have laws prohibiting camping in public places; and 60% laws prohibiting loitering, loafing, and vagrancy.

However, punishing homelessness is counterproductive. At best, it merely shuffles people to different parts of the city, disrupting social networks. More often, it results in fines people cannot pay, jail time, and criminal records, further impeding access to employment and housing. As the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights highlighted in his visit to the U.S., “[U]npayable fines and the stigma of a criminal conviction . . . virtually prevents subsequent employment and access to most housing.”

Moreover, criminalization is costly. Diverting resources to law enforcement can cost two to three times more than it would to provide affordable housing. As David Peery, the Executive Director of the Miami Coalition to Advance Racial Equity (MCARE) states, “Criminalization is an expensive way to make homelessness worse.” Additionally, criminalization has a disparate impact by race.

Punishing homelessness is also a human rights violation. Our Human Rights Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, working with the National Homelessness Law Center, had the privilege of supporting the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights in submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the relevant international human rights law.

The brief asserts that punishing homelessness through the imposition of fines and fees for life-sustaining activities violates international human rights law. Moreover, it argues that a human rights analysis, centered on the international human right to freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, should inform interpretation of “cruel and usual punishment,” which has historically taken “evolving standards of decency” into account.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April. Justice Kagan highlighted, “[F[or  a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public.” And Justice Sotomayor underscored the poignancy of the plight facing people who are unhoused, “Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion-- and passes a law identical to this? Where are they supposed to sleep?”

A decision is expected this month. Please see additional information and opportunities to support on social media at https://johnsonvgrantspass.com/.

June 2024 Deadlines: Call for Inputs by Human Rights Mechanisms

The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in June 2024 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission:

Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s forthcoming thematic report, specifically to provide an initial assessment of the status of the implementation of the right including the most important advances, challenges, and opportunities for its effective implementation, as well as to advance the understanding of the impact of implementation through an intersectional lens. Deadline June 18, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s forthcoming report on gender, peace, and security, particularly analyzing progress made on responding to trafficking of women, as well as recognising the gendered impact of conflict insecurity, including to LGBTQIA+ persons. Deadline June 20, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs the preparation of the 2024 report of the UN Secretary-General on the implementation of the UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/78/234, with special focus on how to address hate speech, systemic racism, the legacies of slavery and colonialism, and discrimination faced by those of African-descent and migrants/refugees. Deadline June 30, 2024. Read more.

Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity – Call for inputs to inform the Independent Expert’s report on AI and international solidarity, particularly regarding AI’s relationship to international solidarity, how AI is used to process cases/claims, algorithmic discrimination of vulnerable populations, oversight and education regarding AI, and efforts taken to reduce disinformation. Deadline June 30, 2024. Read more.  

The Committee on the Rights of the Child – Call for inputs to inform the drafting of comment No. 27 on children’s access to justice and effective remedies and to help clarify terms, approaches and actions States should take in order to implement the right of all children to access justice and effective remedies. Deadline June 30, 2024. Read more.  

This information was compiled from https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input-listing.

New Article: Protesters’ legal rights are up for debate

Danielle Braff, Protesters’ legal  rights are up for debate, ABAJournal (May, 2024)

With protests continuing to unfold across the country, the legal society turns their spotlight to reemphasize what rights these demonstrators do and do not have.

The First Amendment offers broad protection to freedom of association and expression as long as the forum is in a public space, says Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights lawyer and president of Scarab Rising, a geopolitical risk strategic advisory in New York. This amendment also protects so-called “hate speech,” unless the hate speech is directly threatening violence or if it incites criminal activity. States also have individual hate speech laws, but under the First Amendment overall, you can’t be prosecuted for your beliefs.

This article further explores the complexities surrounding the rights of protesters in the United States, especially in light of recent demonstrations on various issues like police brutality and pro-Palestinian activism. It highlights the balance between free speech, protected under the First Amendment, and actions that may cross into harassment or incitement of violence.

Read the full article here.

May – June 2024 Deadlines: Calls for Inputs by Human Rights Mechanisms

The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in May – June 2024 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission:

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s forthcoming report intended to address the risk of unlawful deaths of LGBTQI+ persons worldwide with a view to identifying main issues/challenges, emphasizing best practices, and offering evidence-based recommendations for improved protection of their right to life. Deadline May 10, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s forthcoming report exploring the existing and emerging sexually exploitative practices and abuse against children in the digital environment, as well as the role artificial intelligence plays in facilitating the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children and how states and other child protection stakeholders can respond to this problem. Deadline May 15, 2024. Read more.

Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s forthcoming report, specifically information on promising initiatives and positive or good practices; and on obstacles, challenges and lessons learned in ensuring access to justice, accountability, and redress for excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officials against Africans and people of African descent. Deadline May 24, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs for contributions to a Romani Memory Map for the Americas, a crowd-sourced initiative done jointly with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO); Laboratorio de Estudos sobre Etnicidade (LEER /Universidade de São Paulo), Brazil; Gonzaga University, USA; and the Institute of Ethnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, as well as with Roma human rights defenders and Roma civil society organizations throughout the Americas and beyond. Deadline June 15, 2024. Read more.  

This information was compiled from https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input-listing.

Supreme Court of India Recognizes Right Against Adverse Impacts of Climate Change

The Supreme Court of India, in a ruling published on Friday, April 5, 2024, officially recognized the right against the adverse impacts of climate change, saying it is intertwined with the right to life and equality that are embedded in the Indian constitution.  

The case at issue was regarding the conservation of two endangered bird species – the great India bustard and the lesser florican. The Supreme Court of India reversed a 2021 blanket ban against overhead powerlines over an area of 99,000 square kilometers covering parts of the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan that had been put in place to protect the birds. The court said that only allowing underground power transmission cables in such a large area, which also has an incredible potential for clean energy such as wind and solar, will severely impact the country's clean energy shift that is necessary to attain its climate goals. By doing so, it will impede global efforts against climate change, thereby threatening fundamental rights of Indians, such as the right to life, equality, access to energy, among others. 

Read portions of the decision here.  

Event 4/24: The Surge In Child Labor: Conventions, Laws, and Challenges

On April 24, 2024, from 1:00-2:00pm ET, please join the ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice for a webinar exploring child labor. The distinguished speakers will be Zama Neff, Benjamin Smith, and Jessica Leinward, and the event will be moderated by Elizabeth Barad. 

The recent rise of children at work is due to the increase in inflation and the cost of living, and in the United States, lessening of state protective laws and the use of migrant children. The International Labor Organization indicates there are 160 million children engaged in child labor, working in jobs that deprive them of their childhood and harm their mental and physical development. Some of the worst forms of work involve sexual exploitation. The BBC reported a mother forced to put her daughter into sex work to help support the family and survive living costs. In the United States, at least 14 states have rolled back child protection laws, and the NY Times reported that migrant children are employed in brutal work all across the U.S. Despite the International Labor Organization's prohibitive child labor laws, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the U.S. Department of Labor's laws, these practices persist. Our expert panelists will propose possible solutions.

This event is free and open to the public. Register for this event here.

New Article: False Promises of Protection: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and The Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Human Rights

Kylie Rhoton, False Promises of Protection: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales and The Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Human Rights, Immigration & Human Rights Law Review: Vol. 5, Iss. 1 (2024). Excerpt below.

Speaking in front of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Jessica Gonzales highlighted her struggle to get answers and justice after her abusive ex-husband’s murder of her three daughters. The United States’ justice system brought her no recourse. She was first failed by her local police department and then by the highest court of the United States which refused to recognize that Gonzales had any Due Process entitlement to having her restraining order enforced against her abusive ex-husband. Jessica Gonzales’ struggle encapsulates the United States’ systemic and continuous failure in adequately addressing the human rights issue that is domestic violence.

Women and War Crimes

By Margaret Drew, Associate Professor of Law, UMass Law School

Women have been raped and otherwise assaulted during war as far as memory can reach.  Domestic abuse also increases during war, with women being the primary targets.

Sexual abuse of women and girls is tactic of war, not a byproduct of war.

As Jewish women have been attempting to tell the world, the female Hamas captives and other victims suffered horrific sexual and other gender-based abuse.  A New York Times investigation found that rape was not an isolated offense, but part of a pattern of gender-based violence by Hamas.  There is no reason to hide the graphic details.  Women for generations have attempted to call attention to their suffering during war only to be unheard.  Following the October 7th attack, bodies of women were found with legs splayed and clothing torn.  Women alive and dead were found with genital injuries.

One survivor gave a detailed account of sexual abuse of women during the attack as reported by the New York Times:

“The first victim she said she saw was a young woman with copper-color hair, blood running down her back, pants pushed down to her knees. One man pulled her by the hair and made her bend over. Another penetrated her, Sapir said, and every time she flinched, he plunged a knife into her back.  She said she then watched another woman “shredded into pieces.” While one terrorist raped her, she said, another pulled out a box cutter and sliced off her breast.  “One continues to rape her, and the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road,” Sapir (the survivor) said.  She said the men sliced her face and then the woman fell out of view. Around the same time, she said, she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.” 

Some Jewish women blame other women for the lack attention to their plight.  #Me TooUnlessYou’reaJew particularly addresses the failure of United Nations Women to immediately recognize and condemn the slaughter and abuse of women.  On December 1, 2023 UN Women finally issued a statement that recognized Hamas’ actions but was without detail and was without an action plan other than encouraging women from Israel and Gaza to report abuse.

The failure of the world to act has little to do with the fact that the sexually abused and killed women were Jewish.  I do not know of a war in which there has not been initial or ongoing sexual abuse of women.  The Serbian-Bosnian war is the most recent example of widespread sexual abuse of women during war.  In that case one Serbian motivation was to impregnate Bosnian women so diminish Bosnian ethnicity.  The Serbian military set up “rape camps”.  Bosnian women were released only when they became pregnant. 

UN member states have been aware of the sexual abuse of women in Rwanda for decades. 

We have no reason to believe that Palestinian women are not suffering sexual abuse, as well.  We know that Palestinian women suffer from high rates of domestic violence, which increases during war.  We likely will hear of stranger rape and rape by soldiers as time passes. Only today, as I am wrapping up this blog, the UN issued a press release with reported incidents of abuse of Palestinian women and girls:

“We are particularly distressed by reports that Palestinian women and girls in detention have also been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers. At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence.”

Other reports note that photos of female detainees in degrading circumstances were taken by the Israeli army and uploaded online.

Lack of action to assist Israeli women and other female survivors of war sexual abuse is not because of their religious affiliation. The abuse occurs because they are women.  The world has not raised its collective voice to protect women during war.  The perpetrators, world leadership, and the military share the blame – these are primarily male actors.  Until men prioritize the prevention of female sexual abuse, their abuse within and without of war will not diminish.

March – April 2024 Deadlines: Calls for Input by Human Rights Mechanisms

The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in March – April 2024 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission:

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform the High Commissioner’s report on how climate change can have an impact on the realization of the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl. Deadline March 1, 2024. Read more.

Working Group on Business and Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform the Working Group’s report on respecting the rights of LGBTI people in the context of business activities: fulfilling obligations and responsibilities under the UNGPs. Deadline March 1, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the United States of America, scheduled to take place from 29 April to 10 May 2024, focused on academic freedom and safety at all levels of education and access to public education from kindergarten to 12th grade without discrimination. Deadline March 2, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs on application of digital technologies in the administration of justice, to inform the Secretary General’s report to the General Assembly on human rights in the administration of justice. Deadline March 9, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Call for inputs on the challenges faced by mobile Indigenous Peoples, and the initiatives undertaken by States, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders to recognize and respect their rights, to inform the Special Rapporteur’s upcoming report. Deadline March 15, 2024. Read more. 

Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries – Call for inputs to inform the WG’s 2024 thematic report on financing and mercenaries and mercenary related actors. Deadline March 15, 2024. Read more.

Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries – Call for inputs to inform the WG’s 2024 thematic report on arms trafficking and mercenaries and mercenary related actors. Deadline March 15, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s 2024 thematic report on Pollution Information Portals and strengthening access to information on releases of hazardous substances. Deadline March 22, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing – Call for inputs to inform the forthcoming reports of the Special Rapporteur on resettlement as a human rights issue. Deadline March 31, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery – Call for inputs on the role of workers’ organisations in preventing and addressing contemporary forms of slavery. Deadline March 31, 2024. Read more.

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Committee on Migrant Works – Joint call for inputs to inform concept paper on obligations of state parties on public policies for addressing and eradicating xenophobia and its impact on the rights of migrants, their families, and other non-citizens affected by racial discrimination. Deadline March 31, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs on promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Africans and of people of African descent against excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officers through transformative change for racial justice and equality. Deadline April 1, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s report on violence against women and girls in sport. Deadline April 8, 2024. Read more.

 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform the expert workshop and High Commissioner’s report to the Human Rights Council on the centrality of care and support from a human rights perspective. Deadline April 13, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures – Call for inputs to develop a comprehensive set of Guiding Principles to be used by states, regional organizations, businesses and other actors with regards to sanctions and compliance, and, by that, to minimize negative impact of all types of sanctions, compliance and over-compliance with sanctions on human rights. Deadline April 30, 2024. Read more.

This information was compiled from https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input-listing.