Families in the United States are rapidly changing, and the normative familial model of two married, monogamous, heterosexual parents with children no longer reflects the majority of U.S. families. Nonetheless, state incentive-based policies and discriminatory family laws continue to enforce heteronormative monogamy. Recent changes to the U.S. legal landscape have produced limited formal recognition and protections for same-sex couples and LGBTQ parents, and even these narrow rights are withheld from other diverse familial configurations including families with polyamorous parents. This article uses the concept of sexual citizenship to frame the analysis of U.S. family courts’ normative construction of family, identifying striking parallels between family courts’ historical and contemporary prejudicial treatment of LGBTQ parents and the institution’s similar delegitimization and denigration of polyamorous parents today. This paper reviews polyamorous parents’ efforts towards achieving legal and societal legitimatization, finding significant parallels with legal strategies LGBTQ parents utilized to seek legal recognition and protection prior to federal recognition of same-sex marriage. This paper highlights the inadequacies of such a formal sexual citizenship approach, finding that a limited strategy of accumulating specific sexual rights fails to address non-monogamy’s more radical cultural presence as well as the (non-legal) informal aspects of belonging needed to improve the livability of polyamorous parents’ and their children’s lives. This paper concludes with recommendations for improving the treatment of non-traditional families including LGBTQ, polyamorous, and other blended families, both within and outside the legal institution.

(COTPA) to counter the growing societal and health burdens of tobacco in India. The major provisions (Sections 4-7) of COTPA mandate the display of pictorial health warnings on all tobacco product packets and strictly prohibit: smoking in public places, direct and indirect forms of tobacco advertisements, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products, sale of tobacco products to a minor, and sale within 100 yards of any educational institution. However, India continues to have a high prevalence of tobacco consumption and the provisions of COTPA are routinely flouted. The purpose of the study is to analyze the trends in and the prevalence of COTPA violations in a sample test site (Haryana) to develop informed and practical tobacco control policy recommendations. Violations in five districts of the State of Haryana were observed and recorded. The data overwhelmingly show that the most fundamental provisions (Sections 4-7) of COTPA were frequently violated in each of the five districts. All districts had a high rate of noncompliance, with Sites having at least one violation of Sections 4-7 of COTPA, with rates fluctuating between nearly 70 and 90 percent. Such violations however, were unequally distributed between Sections 4-7 within the five districts with some districts having a higher frequency of Section 4 violations (Panipat and Jhajjar) and other districts with higher violation frequency of Section 5 (Mewat and Kurukshetra). However, all five districts had relatively low numbers of Section 7 violations (i.e., the required display of pictorial health warnings on all tobacco products). The study highlights the challenges of the tobacco control policy in India including: engagement of state and district level enforcement officials for effective enforcement of existing legislation, encouragement for civil society to partner and complement governmental efforts in monitoring progress and reporting violations of COTPA, and the need for supply-level controls on tobacco (e.g., pictorial health warnings and increased taxation) to reduce tobacco consumption.

This article examines how efforts at legal legibility acquisition by gender diverse litigants result in problematic (e.g., narratives counter to self-identity) and, at times, erroneous discourses on sex and gender that homogenize the litigants themselves. When gender diverse persons approach the court with a rights claim, the narrative they present must necessarily limit itself to a normative discourse that the court may understand and, therefore, engage with. Consequently, the everyday lived experiences of gender diverse persons are often deliberately erased from the narrative as litigants mould themselves into the pre-existing normative legal categories of gender and sex. As a result of such mechanisms, the article finds that gender diverse litigants face epistemic injustice in the courts as their legal legibility is constructed within a constraining gender binary paradigm of judicial discourse. The article explores the trajectory of transgender rights in India, through an analysis of case law prior to and post the landmark NALSA decision, to understand how the approach to transgender rights and identities has been shaped by and shapes, in turn, normative conceptions of gender. The article argues for the incorporation of temporal pluralism into the law that would allow courts to hear gender diverse litigant accounts premised on contemporary gender diversity beyond the binary (rather than incontestable prior understandings based in past precedent), which would better account for such social injustices.