Resources and Publications

ON THE BOUNDED APPLICABILITY OF LEHMAN v. LYCOMING COUNTY CHILDREN’S SERVICES AGENCY, 458 U.S. 502 (1982) IN LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT UNCAT RATIFICATION AND TREATY SUPREMACY PRINCIPLES

This Advisory Opinion analyzes Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (1982), which held that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to state child custody determinations. The Institute for the Advancement of Justice & Human Rights concludes that Lehman’s scope is necessarily bounded—not because the decision was incorrectly reasoned in 1982, but because intervening developments in treaty law, constitutional interpretation, and procedural safeguards fundamentally alter the legal landscape within which Lehman operates.

Critical Threshold Finding: Lehman predates U.S. ratification of the Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) by twelve years. The 1994 ratification created federal obligations that Lehman did not anticipate and that necessarily constrain its contemporary application. This Advisory Opinion identifies the boundaries of Lehman’s authority and articulates the constitutional and treaty-based safeguards that must accompany any state custody determination from which federal habeas review is foreclosed.

Core Principle: The closure of federal habeas review strengthens—rather than weakens—the constitutional imperative that state proceedings meet minimum reliability standards. When federal courts cannot provide collateral review, state processes must be robust enough to protect fundamental rights without federal backstop. Lehman thus reinforces the case for rigorous state-level safeguards.

Applicability: This Advisory Opinion articulates federal constitutional minimums applicable to all fifty states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, and the United States’ treaty obligations under UNCAT. While documented examples are drawn from specific state investigations, the constitutional and treaty requirements apply uniformly nationwide.

Download: IAJ Advisory Opinion

Texas Supreme Court amicus: In the Interest of K.N., K.L., K.L., and K.L., Children

IAJ submits this brief to provide the Court with a unique analytical framework that has not been addressed by other amici curiae. No party has addressed the critical question of how the United States’ ratification of UNCAT informs the constitutional analysis this Court should undertake.

Critically, this brief addresses a fundamental gap in prior analysis: the distinction between the US instrument of ratification as deposited with the United Nations and the Senate Executive Reports that preceded it. The instrument deposited on October 21, 1994, constitutes the binding international commitment of the United States. While S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30 (1990) reflects Senate deliberations, the deposited instrument represents the actual international obligation that, under Article VI of the Constitution, forms part of the “supreme Law of the Land.”

IAJ’s mission encompasses the recognition that human rights principles embodied in international treaties “resonate with the U.S. Constitution, and operate as keys to the extraction of the un-enumerated rights therein.” The consideration of human rights frameworks “speeds the recognition of rights that are systematically erased by institutions and courts, such as the right to family integrity, and the freedom of parent and child from severe pain and suffering through separation.”

This case presents an opportunity for this Court to recognize that strict scrutiny under Texas Constitution Article I, Section 37 must be informed by the proportionality standards embodied in UNCAT—but that strict scrutiny without adequate procedural safeguards is illusory and ineffective. The procedural safeguards this brief advocates are essential predicates to meaningful strict scrutiny analysis.

Download: IAJ amicus

International Precedents and Comparative Law on Judicial Torture and CIDT

Today, ‘judicial torture’ properly covers (i) judicially ordered corporal punishment; (ii) court-process-linked torture/CIDT ; (iii) state acquiescence in private violence connected to proceedings. Judicial acquiescence to torture is tantamount to torture. This analysis examines international precedents and comparative law on judicial torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT) across five critical areas of international legal authority. The research reveals a consistent international consensus that torture prohibition constitutes a jus cogens norm of customary international law, establishing absolute and non-derogable obligations for states regardless of exceptional circumstances. The prohibition dates back to the earliest days of the international formulation of human rights standards.

While regional and international judicial bodies have developed sophisticated jurisprudence defining torture and state obligations, significant implementation gaps persist in judicial contexts, particularly regarding procedural safeguards, accountability mechanisms, and effective remedies for victims. U.S. doctrine on torture are sparse, with examples such as Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain acknowledging torture as a law-of-nations violation under the ATS; Filártiga ; exclusionary principles; and the Medellín /Avena implementation tension.

Key findings demonstrate that international courts and treaty monitoring bodies have established complementary frameworks that collectively strengthen the global prohibition against torture, though enforcement mechanisms vary significantly across jurisdictions. The analysis identifies both convergent principles and critical gaps in ensuring judicial accountability for torture prevention and prosecution.

Download: International Precedents and Comparative Law on Judicial Torture and CIDT: An IAJ review

Download: Quick Reference

Enhanced Constitutional Framework for Judicial Torture

This constitutional framework establishes the legal foundation for judicial torture claims by integrating five critical doctrines of constitutional and international law: Article VI supremacy, jus cogens peremptory norms, Charming Betsy treaty interpretation, Ex parte Young sovereign immunity exceptions, and constitutional Due Process protections. The framework demonstrates that the United States Constitution, in harmony with the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), creates binding obligations on federal and state judiciaries to prevent, investigate, and remedy torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT) committed by or with the acquiescence of state officials.

The constitutional foundation rests on Article VI's declaration that treaties constitute "supreme Law of the Land," binding judges in every state. When integrated with jus cogens peremptory norms prohibiting torture, the Charming Betsy doctrine's interpretive requirements, Ex parte Young's remedial pathways, and substantive due process protections, a comprehensive framework emerges that obligates courts to recognize, investigate, and provide relief for torture claims—regardless of traditional doctrines of abstention, sovereign immunity, or judicial deference.

Download: Enhanced Constitutional Framework for Judicial Torture: An IAJ review

Court Accommodation Implementation Guide

A comprehensive manual for court administrators and judges on implementing effective disability accommodations.

• Legal requirements under ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and CRPD
• Assessment procedures for accommodation requests
• Implementation timelines and procedures
• Documentation and record-keeping requirements

Status: Coming soon

Virtual Hearing Best Practices

Guidelines for conducting accessible virtual court proceedings that comply with human rights standards.

• Technology accessibility requirements
• Accommodation protocols for virtual settings
• Communication assistance and interpretation
• Security and privacy considerations

Status: Coming soon

Disability Rights in Court Proceedings

Essential guide to understanding and protecting disability rights within the judicial system.

• Fundamental rights under international and domestic law
• Common violations and how to identify them
• Advocacy strategies and resources
• Reporting mechanisms and support services

Status: Coming soon

Accommodation Assessment Training

Professional training program for court personnel on properly assessing and implementing disability accommodations.

• Medical documentation review procedures
• Interactive assessment techniques
• Accommodation determination frameworks
• Ongoing monitoring and adjustment protocols

Status: Coming soon

Rights Protection Workshop Materials

Interactive workshop materials for educating legal professionals on human rights protection in judicial settings.

• Case study analysis and discussion guides
• Role-playing scenarios and exercises
• Assessment tools and checklists
• Resource directories and reference materials

Status: Coming soon

Court Staff Sensitivity Training

Comprehensive sensitivity training program for all court personnel on working with disabled and vulnerable litigants.

• Understanding invisible disabilities and their impacts
• Communication strategies and best practices
• Trauma-informed approaches to court interactions
• Cultural competency and bias awareness

Status: Coming soon

Necessary and Common Knowledge About Disabilities

Essential knowledge necessary for the meaningful accommodation of disabled and vulnerable litigants.

• Characteristics and impact of disabilities from the perspective of the pro se litigant
• The impact of the judicial process on litigants with disabilities
• Guide to the treatment of the disabled litigant
• Guide to injuries precipitated by interactions with the court
• Correcting errors and mitigating discrimination
• Exploring judicial bias

Status: Coming soon

Annual Accessibility Report 2025

Comprehensive annual report on the state of court accessibility and human rights compliance across jurisdictions.

• Statistical analysis of accommodation requests and outcomes
• Trends in judicial human rights compliance
• Case studies of successful and failed implementations
• Recommendations for systemic improvements

Status: Coming soon

Court System Analysis Q1 2025

Quarterly analysis of court system performance in human rights compliance and accessibility provision.

• Performance metrics and benchmarking
• Emerging trends and patterns
• Regional and jurisdictional comparisons
• Policy recommendations and interventions

Status: Coming soon

Human Rights Compliance Study

In-depth study examining compliance with international human rights standards in judicial systems.

• Comparative analysis of international standards vs. domestic implementation
• Gap analysis and compliance deficiencies
• Best practices from international jurisdictions
• Framework for improved compliance monitoring

Status: Coming soon

Torture in the African Regional System

This preliminary review integrates binding and authoritative African sources on the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT). It is designed to provide court‑ready authorities—treaty text, Commission/Court decisions, and Commission guidelines—that judges regularly cite when adjudicating Article 5 questions. Where appropriate, persuasive studies and NGO analyses that have informed African and UN bodies are paired with binding sources for maximum judicial utility.

Download: Torture in the African Regional System: An IAJ preliminary review