Rethinking Civil Rights and Gender Violence

Abstract

Advocacy seeking justice for survivors of domestic and sexual violence historically has invoked civil rights law and rhetoric to advance legal remedies and public policy reform. Although many have come to think of a civil rights remedy as a private right of action against an individual, when we think about civil rights and gender violence, we should be thinking more broadly. Neither the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Morrison, nor its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, both of which rejected civil rights-based claims, precludes new civil rights reform. Indeed, a civil rights frame has enduring potential to support needed change by challenging structural inequalities that continue to inform and drive gender violence. This article considers potential civil rights remedies that would address structural and systemic inequalities related to gender violence. It focuses on one area of potential reform: law enforcement accountability. The article urges a shift that views law enforcement accountability for gender violence on the same continuum as other forms of law enforcement misconduct. Popular understandings of police misconduct typically involve over-enforcement, while cases involving gender violence typically involve under-enforcement. However both categories involve misuse of authority and should be thought of in tandem. This shift can reinvigorate existing strategies and can generate new approaches to both law and policy. The article makes recommendations that would contribute to a new generation of progressive reform that advances the principles of equality and liberty for which civil rights long has stood.

GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE UNITED STATES: A New Vision of Equality

“…Julie Goldscheid argues that despite the setbacks in both Morrison and Gonzales, the civil rights framework still has the potential to support needed reform by challenging structural inequalities. 91 My question is, if the Supreme Court rejected civil rights remedies in 2000 and again in 2005, why would they suddenly accept them in 2015? While Justices Sotamayor and Kagan are liberal judges, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court since 2005 on social issues and human rights has trended more conservative.…”