Abstract:Over the past three decades, the U.S. judiciary has grown increasingly less receptive to claims by convicted felons as to the conditions of their confinement while in prison. Although courts have not articulated a return to the "hands off" policy of the 1950s, it is clear that it has become significantly more difficult for prisoners to prevail in constitutional correctional litigation. The passage and aggressive implementation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been a powerful disincentive to such litigation in many areas of prisoners' rights law. From the perspective of the prisoner, the legal landscape is more hopeful in matters that relate to mental health care and treatment. Here, in spite of a general trend toward more stringent applications of standards of proof and a reluctance to order sweeping, intrusive remedies, some courts have aggressively protected prisoners' rights to be free from "deliberate indifference" to serious medical needs, and to be free from excessive force on the part of prison officials. A mostly hidden undercurrent in some prisoners' rights litigation has been the effort on the part of some plaintiffs' lawyers to look to international human rights doctrines as a potential source of rights, an effort that has met with some modest success. It receives support by the inclination of other courts to turn to international human rights conventions-even in nations where such conventions have not been ratified-as a kind of "best practice" in the area. The recent publication and subsequent ratification (though not, as of yet, by the United States) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) may add new support to those using international human rights documents as a basis for litigating prisoners' rights claims. To the best of our knowledge, there has, as of yet, been no scholarly literature on the question of the implications of the CRPD on the state of prisoners' rights law in a U.S. domestic context. In this article, we raise this question, and offer some tentative conclusions.

Ban-the-Box Laws: Fair and Effective?

Ban The Box? Information, Incentives, and Statistical Discrimination

Criminal Employment Law

Audits as Evidence: Experiments, Ensembles, and Enforcement

Perpetuating wage inequality: evidence from salary history bans

What does it mean to solve the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems

Deleting a Signal: Evidence from Pre-Employment Credit Checks

'No More Credit Score': Employer Credit Check Bans and Signal Substitution

The long-run impacts of banning affirmative action in US higher education

Affective forecasting and ex-offender hiring decisions

A Short-term Intervention for Long-term Fairness in the Labor Market

"It's doom alone that counts": can international human rights law be an effective source of rights in correctional conditions litigation?

Hiring Fairly in the Age of Algorithms

Salary History and Employer Demand: Evidence from a Two-Sided Audit

Higher education policies for applicants with criminal records in the United Kingdom: Are universities ‘banning the box’?

A Causal Framework for Observational Studies of Discrimination

Effect of State and Local Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Laws on Labor Market Differentials

A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithms

A Bayesian Analysis of a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Intervention for High-Risk People on Probation

Employment Legal Framework for Persons with Disabilities in China: Effectiveness and Reasons

US Salary History Bans -- Strategic Disclosure by Job Applicants and the Gender Pay Gap