Human Rights at Home Blog

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.