Familial Association Under Siege: The Implications of United States v. Magdaleno on the Black Community

Abstract

This Comment delves into the fundamental right to familial association and integrity in the United States, tracing its historical significance and its erosion in the criminal legal system. Focusing on the Ninth Circuit’s case, United States v. Magdaleno, it scrutinizes a supervised release condition that restricts interactions with siblings, revealing a potential avenue for family separation through community supervision. Recognizing the historical legacy of family separation, particularly affecting communities of color, this Comment emphasizes the disproportionate impact Magdaleno is poised to have on the Black community, perpetuated by racially-biased policies. By concentrating on the specific ramifications of the Magdaleno ruling on the Black community, this Comment highlights the stark racial disparities within the criminal legal system. It argues that the ruling, influenced by a history intertwined with enslavement and the criminalization of Blackness, will disproportionately affect the Black community, both in terms of numbers and through the consideration of cultural and socioeconomic factors.

Structured into five parts, this Comment provides foundational knowledge on supervised release, explores the interconnectedness of family separation, gang enforcement, and community supervision with Blackness, and analyzes the Magdaleno case. It further elucidates the implications of the court’s ruling, including the expansion of the carceral state, perpetuation of family separation, and increased recidivism, especially for the Black community. As an in-depth examination rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT), this Comment seeks to contribute to the discourse surrounding racial disparities and colorblind policies within the criminal legal system. By offering abolitionist approaches to supervised release, it advocates for reforms that align with constitutional ideals, ultimately urging the nation to prioritize community care and nonpunitiveness in its approach to harm and punishment.

[pdf-embedder url="https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2024/09/05-Mims-No-Bleed.pdf" title="05 - Mims No-Bleed"]

About the Author

J.D., David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy, Critical Race Studies, UCLA School of Law, 2024; M.P.P., UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, 2024; B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2018. I want to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Ingrid Eagly for her invaluable guidance and support throughout the development of this Comment. A special thank you as well to attorney Gail Ivens, whose advocacy in United States v. Magdaleno and input on this Comment greatly enriched the depth of my analysis. I am also deeply appreciative of my dear friend Shireen Jalali-Yazdi, who provided feedback on this Comment in its early stages. Additionally, I extend my thanks to the diligent editors and staff of the UCLA Law Review for their thorough edits and constructive feedback, which undoubtedly strengthened the quality of this work. Lastly, my heartfelt gratitude goes out to my family and friends for their unwavering support and encouragement both throughout law school and before.

By LRIRE