Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (4)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
30 pages, 543 KB  
Article
LGBTQI+ Asylum Cases in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
by Connie Oxford
Sexes 2025, 6(3), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6030039 - 15 Jul 2025
Viewed by 2888
Abstract
This article examines LGBTQI+ asylum claims in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The data are part of a larger study that has identified 520 LGBTQI+ claims in the U.S. Circuit of Appeals from 1994 to 2023. It focuses on examples from the [...] Read more.
This article examines LGBTQI+ asylum claims in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The data are part of a larger study that has identified 520 LGBTQI+ claims in the U.S. Circuit of Appeals from 1994 to 2023. It focuses on examples from the 115 cases that were granted a review and analyzes the logic that U.S. Circuit Court justices use when deciding to grant a review of a petition that was denied by a lower court, such as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and immigration courts. This article argues that the U.S. Circuit of Appeals contests lower court rulings from BIA and immigration court judges based on assumptions about credibility, discretion, persecution, and criminalization for LGBTQI+ asylum seekers. By granting reviews, the Circuit Courts provide an opening for the acceptance of queer asylum claims. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

28 pages, 651 KB  
Article
Legal Interpretations of Trauma: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Gender-Based Asylum Claims
by Connie Oxford
Trauma Care 2024, 4(2), 120-147; https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare4020011 - 16 Apr 2024
Viewed by 4890
Abstract
This article is based on exploratory research on how the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals uses the language of trauma in gender-based asylum claims. Gender-based asylum claims include female genital mutilation (FGM), coercive population control (CPC) in the form of forced abortions and [...] Read more.
This article is based on exploratory research on how the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals uses the language of trauma in gender-based asylum claims. Gender-based asylum claims include female genital mutilation (FGM), coercive population control (CPC) in the form of forced abortions and forced sterilizations, rape, forced marriage, and domestic violence. The Circuit Courts have reviewed appeals from petitioners with asylum claims since 1946, yet the language of trauma did not appear in the Court’s decisions until 1983. From 1983 to 2023, only 385, 3.85% or less, of the over 10,000 asylum cases before the Circuit Courts used the language of trauma in its legal interpretation of persecution. I have identified 101 gender-based asylum cases that were reviewed by one of the eleven U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that apply the language of trauma in its legal interpretation of persecution for this analysis. The research question guiding this study is: how does the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals use the language of trauma when reviewing gender-based asylum cases? This study found that U.S. Circuit Courts use the language of trauma in four ways: precedent cases, policies and reports, physical trauma, and psychological trauma when reviewing gender-based asylum claims. This study provides the first data set of gender-based asylum claims under review at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that use the language of trauma. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 702 KB  
Article
Genotoxicity Assays Published since 2016 Shed New Light on the Oncogenic Potential of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
by Charles Benbrook, Robin Mesnage and William Sawyer
Agrochemicals 2023, 2(1), 47-68; https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2010005 - 16 Jan 2023
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 13377
Abstract
Controversy over the oncogenicity of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) persists seven years after a 2015 IARC Monograph classified glyphosate/GBHs as “probably carcinogenic” to humans. Most regulatory authorities have concluded that technical glyphosate poses little or no oncogenic risk via dietary exposure. The US EPA [...] Read more.
Controversy over the oncogenicity of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) persists seven years after a 2015 IARC Monograph classified glyphosate/GBHs as “probably carcinogenic” to humans. Most regulatory authorities have concluded that technical glyphosate poses little or no oncogenic risk via dietary exposure. The US EPA classified glyphosate as “not likely” to pose cancer risk in 1991, a decision reaffirmed in reports issued in 2017 and 2020. A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the US vacated EPA’s assessment of glyphosate human-health risks in 2022 and required EPA to revisit old and take into account new data in its forthcoming, possibly final glyphosate/GBH reregistration decision. Divergent assessments of GBH genotoxicity are the primary reason for differing conclusions regarding GBH oncogenic potential. We assessed whether assays published since completion of the EPA and IARC reviews shed new light on glyphosate/GBH genotoxicity. We found 94 such assays, 33 testing technical glyphosate (73% positive) and 61 on GBHs (95% positive). Seven of 7 in vivo human studies report positive results. In light of genotoxicity results published since 2015, the conclusion that GBHs pose no risk of cancer via a genotoxic mechanism is untenable. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Herbicides)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 77 KB  
Article
Transgendered Prisoners in the United States: A Progression of Laws
by Rudolph Alexander
Laws 2013, 2(4), 428-439; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws2040428 - 12 Nov 2013
Viewed by 5793
Abstract
In 1976, prisoners acquired the right to medical treatment from the U.S. Supreme Court through the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbade, in part, cruel and unusual punishment. The following year, a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that medical [...] Read more.
In 1976, prisoners acquired the right to medical treatment from the U.S. Supreme Court through the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbade, in part, cruel and unusual punishment. The following year, a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that medical treatment included psychiatric or mental health treatment. These rulings applied to general prisoners, but not initially prisoners who suffered from gender identity disorder. Courts ruled then that gender identity disorder was not a serious mental disorder—a critical component of the right to medical care and mental health treatment. Later, a few appeals courts ruled that gender identity disorder was a serious mental disorder, triggering a prisoner’s right to medical care and mental health treatment for this disorder. Prisoners with gender identity disorder have litigated for sex realignment surgery as part of their treatment, which prison administrators have balked. The latest ruling unequivocally ordered the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to give a prisoner suffering from gender identity disorder sex reassignment surgery, but the prison system has appealed. This ruling, and previous rulings, has furthered policy towards transsexual prisoners. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Health Law Issues)
Back to TopTop