The Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice (founded in 1978 and publishing its first thirty-one volumes as the Third World Law Journal) was a unique periodical that filled the need for a progressive, alternative legal perspective on issues both within the United States and in the developing world. The Journal's scope included issues affecting underrepresented populations, human and civil rights, immigration, women's and children's issues, and issues of disproportionate economic impact. The founders of the Journal envisioned it as a forum for discussing legal issues affecting people, cultures, and institutions that share a common history of colonialism, oppression, under-representation, and marginalization in the political and economic processes.

In 2017, the journal, along with three of Boston College Law School's other student-edited journals was consolidated into a single, larger journal published under the title Boston College Law Review.

Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

Preface to Volume 32: Introducing the Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

The Supreme Court decided two landmark cases, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, that interpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)’s pleading requirement. The Court shifted from a notice pleading standard to one that requires more factual substantiation of claims before allowing discovery. This has important ramifications in the area of employment discrimination, as courts dismiss these claims disproportionately. If the Supreme Court’s new pleading standard is read to allow more judicial subjectivity, it could bar employment discrimination plaintiffs from access to courts. Lower courts often misconstrue the legal standard for a hostile work environment, thereby resulting in the disposition of meritorious claims. This Note explores two different interpretations of the new pleading standards, one where judicial discretion is unbridled and the other where strong limitations on discretion still exist. For the welfare of hostile work environment discrimination victims, lower courts should apply the latter interpretation.

Twombly and Iqbal : Effects on Hostile Work Environment Claims

The Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky includes within the Sixth Amendment’s right to the effective assistance of counsel advice on immigration, but still falls short of attaining fundamental fairness and legal professional responsibility. Where Padilla’s recognized representation standard only requires an attorney to advise when the immigration consequences of a guilty plea are “truly clear” —allowing the attorney to “do no more” when not clear—the guiding hand of an attorney remains fractured and will force a noncitizen client to proceed in plea bargaining without informed consent. Rather than giving a private practitioner an excuse to “do no more,” the private practitioner should simply study and provide the applicable immigration law under the circumstances. A public defender not knowledgeable in immigration law, however, should be allowed to do no more based on their uncontrollable caseload, provided an immigration lawyer is also appointed.

Under the Circumstances: Padilla v. Kentucky Still Excuses Fundamental Fairness and Leaves Professional Responsibility Lost

There is a growing practice of separating immigrant children from their deportable parents. Parental fitness is no longer the standard with regard to undocumented immigrant parents. Increasingly, fit undocumented parents must convince courts and welfare agencies that continuing or resuming parental custody is in their child’s best interest. This requirement is unique to immigrant parents and can have a disastrous impact on their ability to retain custody of their children. Best interest decisions are highly subjective and courts and agencies increasingly base their custody determinations on subjective criteria such as negative perceptions regarding undocumented immigrants and their countries of origin, and on extremely positive beliefs regarding the benefits of an American upbringing. For undocumented parents facing deportation, this is a disastrous combination. Courts and agencies frequently conclude that allowing a child to leave with a deported parent, return to a foreign country, and forgo childhood in the United States is not in the child’s best interest. Replacing the parental rights standard with a best interest of the child standard in the context of undocumented immigrant families is the latest example of the increasing power of the children’s rights movement. This, however, is a drastic change and one that must receive considerable attention and consideration before it is permitted to continue.

Separation, Deportation, Termination

While there are relatively few cases from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that mention Muslims or Islam, an analysis of these cases discloses three common themes. First, Islam was seen as a decidedly non-American religion. Second, Islam was often used to illustrate worldwide acceptance of a legal principle, reflecting on core common values between people of different faiths. Third, religious tolerance extended beyond traditional Christian ideologies to encompass Islam, at least in theory if not in practice. These three themes display how judges used often-faulty notions of Muslims and Islam to justify their conclusions, and highlight the genesis of many stereotypes and insensitivities still prevalent in the modern era.

Islam in the Mind of American Courts: 1800 to 1960

The procedure known as “knock and talk” allows police to approach a dwelling, knock on the door, and ask questions of the inhabitant with the goal of obtaining entry into the dwelling. This is a popular policing technique because probable cause or a warrant is not required. This Note analyzes the effect of knock and talk on conceptions of privacy and space held by those most frequently targeted: low income and minority individuals. It argues that the curtilage doctrine, which protects the area surrounding the home, does not assist these individuals. In addition, this Note demonstrates that knock and talk can be abused in two ways: through improperly obtained consent and police-created exigent circumstances. Finally, this Note argues that the use of knock and talk undermines efforts at community policing and has the potential to harm the population it supposedly protects.

Wolf at the Door: Issues of Place and Race in the Use of the “Knock and Talk” Policing Technique

Domestic violence is a pervasive problem in American society. Undocumented immigrant women suffer disproportionately from spousal abuse due to language and cultural barriers. Undocumented domestic violence victims often do not know how or where to seek help and fear deportation. That fear is not unfounded because Secure Communities, an immigration enforcement program run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, requires participating local law enforcement agencies to crosscheck fingerprints with a federal immigration database. Individuals that are matched and considered removable are subject to removal proceedings. Secure Communities makes undocumented immigrant women less likely to call for help because of the risk of being fingerprinted and then deported. This Note argues for a three-step process to provide protection for victims of domestic violence.

Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice (Vol. 32, Iss. 1)

Items in this collection

Preface to Volume 32: Introducing the Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

Twombly and Iqbal : Effects on Hostile Work Environment Claims

Under the Circumstances: Padilla v. Kentucky Still Excuses Fundamental Fairness and Leaves Professional Responsibility Lost

Separation, Deportation, Termination

Islam in the Mind of American Courts: 1800 to 1960

Wolf at the Door: Issues of Place and Race in the Use of the “Knock and Talk” Policing Technique

Insecure Communities: How an Immigration Enforcement Program Encourages Battered Women to Stay Silent

.repo-1h6ne0y{background:#ffffff;text-transform:uppercase;padding-right:1.5rem;}.repo-1h6ne0y:after{content:'';position:absolute;background:#adadad;transform:translateY(-50%);top:50%;left:0;width:100%;height:0.1rem;z-index:-1;}Items in this collection

Twombly and Iqbal : Effects on Hostile Work Environment Claims

Under the Circumstances: Padilla v. Kentucky Still Excuses Fundamental Fairness and Leaves Professional Responsibility Lost

Separation, Deportation, Termination

Islam in the Mind of American Courts: 1800 to 1960

Wolf at the Door: Issues of Place and Race in the Use of the “Knock and Talk” Policing Technique

Insecure Communities: How an Immigration Enforcement Program Encourages Battered Women to Stay Silent

Items in this collection