1932

Abstract

Disability studies is an interdisciplinary field investigating the nature of disability as a social and cultural phenomenon. Since the mid-2000s, legal scholars have been employing a disability studies lens to explore legal doctrine and the treatment of people with disabilities under the law. This article identifies a nascent scholarly movement I call empirical disability legal studies: utilizing both a disability studies lens and empirical methods associated with the social sciences to study disability law. Legal scholars have used empirical methods, involving an analysis of quantitative or qualitative data, to explore three main themes: the experiences of disabled individuals within the formal legal system, the negotiations of disability rights in everyday life outside of formal legal institutions, and the construction of disability in legal texts. This article calls for more scholars to do work in the empirical disability legal studies tradition and puts forward new unexplored paths to expand such inquiry into the legal treatment of disability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138
2024-10-17
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/20/1/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer, 601 US 1 ( 2023.)
  2. Adler-Bolton B, Vierkant A. 2022a.. Health Communism. Brooklyn, NY:: Verso Books
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adler-Bolton B, Vierkant A. 2022b.. Capitalism & disability: a symposium on the work of Marta Rusell. . LPE Blog, Oct. 3. https://lpeproject.org/blog/capitalism-disability-a-symposium-on-the-work-of-marta-russell/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albrecht G. 1992.. The Disability Business: Rehabilitation in America. New York:: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Allport GW. 1979 (1954).. The Nature of Prejudice: 25th Anniversary Edition. Reading, MA:: Perseus Books
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Andrews EE, Powell RM, Ayers K. 2022.. The evolution of disability language: choosing terms to describe disability. . Disabil. Health J. 15::101328
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagenstos SR. 2006.. The perversity of limited civil rights remedies: the case of “abusive” ADA litigation. . UCLA Law Rev. 54::136
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bagenstos SR. 2020.. Who gets the ventilator? Disability discrimination in COVID-19 medical-rationing protocols. . Yale Law J. Forum 130::125
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baynton D. 2001.. Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. . In The New Disability History, ed. PK Longmore, L Umansky , pp. 3357. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baynton DC. 2016.. Defectives in the Land: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bell CM. 2012.. Blackness and Disability: Critical Examinations and Cultural Interventions. East Lansing:: Mich. State Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Belt R. 2022.. The fat prisoners’ dilemma: slow violence, intersectionality, and a disability rights framework for the future. . Georgetown Law J. 110::785833
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Belt R, Dorfman D. 2019.. Disability, law, and the humanities: the rise of disability legal studies. . In Oxford Handbook of Law and Humanities, ed. S Stern, M Del Mar, B Meyler , pp. 14461. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Belt R, Dorfman D, Harris J, Morgan J, Tani K. 2022.. A conversation about LPE & disability part 1. . LPE Blog, March 29. https://lpeproject.org/blog/a-conversation-about-lpe-disability-part-1/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ben Moshe L. 2020.. Decarcerating Disability: Deinstitutionalization and Prison Abolition. Minneapolis:: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bialek T, Schlanger M. 2023.. Effective communication with deaf, hard of hearing, blind, and low vision incarcerated people. . J. Gend. Race Justice 26::134221
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Blader SL, Tyler TR. 2003.. A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “fair” process. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29::74758
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Broyer NR. 2020.. Through the restroom mirror: accessibility and visibility in public space. . Disabil. Soc. 35::1483504
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chin NM. 2018.. Group homes as sex police and the role of the Olmstead integration mandate. . NYU Rev. Law Soc. Change 42::379450
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Colker R. 2020.. The power of insults. . Boston Univ. Law Rev. 100::170
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Connor DJ, Ferry B, Annamma SA. 2015.. DisCrit: Disability Studies and Critical Race Theory in Education. New York:: Teach. Coll. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Covo Y. 2023.. Reversing reverse mainstreaming. . Stanford Law Rev. 75::60174
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Davis LJ. 2002.. Bending Over Backwards: Disability, Dismodernism and Other Difficult Positions. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dorfman D. 2015.. Disability identity in conflict: performativity in the U.S. Social Security benefits system. . Thomas Jefferson Law Rev. 38::4770
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dorfman D. 2017.. Re-claiming disability: identity, procedural justice, and the Disability Determination Process. . Law Soc. Inq. 42::195231
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dorfman D. 2019.. Fear of the disability con: perceptions of fraud and special rights discourse. . Law Soc. Rev. 53::105191
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dorfman D. 2020.. [Un]usual suspects: deservingness, scarcity, and disability rights. . UC Irvine Law Rev. 10::557618
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dorfman D. 2021a.. Suspicious species. . Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2021::1363416
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dorfman D. 2021b.. Afterword: the ADA's imagined future. . Syracuse Law Rev. 71::92752
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dorfman D. 2024.. Experimental jurisprudence of health and disability law. . In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence, ed. K Tobia . New York:: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dorfman D, Yabo M. 2020.. The professionalization of urban accessibility. . Fordham Urban Law J. 47::121356
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dunn D. 2014.. The Social Psychology of Disability. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Edelman LB. 1992.. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: organizational mediation of civil rights law. . Am. J. Sociol. 97::153176
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Emens EF. 2012.. Framing disability. . Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2012::1383442
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Emens EF. 2014.. Admin. . Georgetown Law J. 103::140981
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Emens EF. 2019.. Life Admin: How I Learned to Do Less, Do Better, and Live More. San Francisco, CA:: HarperOne
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Emens EF. 2021.. Disability admin: the invisible cost of being disabled. . Minn. Law Rev. 105::232977
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Engel DM, Munger FW. 2003.. Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ewick P, Silbey SS. 1998.. The Common Place of Law: Stories From Everyday Life. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Garland-Thomson R. 2009.. Staring: How We Look. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gill M. 2015.. Already Doing It: Intellectual Disability & Sexual Agency. Minneapolis:: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Goffman E. 2009 (1963).. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York:: Simon & Schuster
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Goodley D. 2013.. Dis/entangling critical disability studies. . Disabil. Soc. 28::63144
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Goodley D. 2017.. Disability Studies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London:: Sage. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Guidry-Grimes L, Savin K, Stramondo JA, Reynolds JM, Tsaplina M, et al. 2020.. Disability rights as a necessary framework for crisis standards of care and the future of health care. . Hastings Cent. Rep. 50::2832
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hahn H. 1985.. Toward a politics of disability: definitions, disciplines, and policies. . Soc. Sci. J. 22::87105
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hahn H. 1988.. The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. . J. Soc. Issues 44::3947
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hamilton Krieger L. 2003.. Backlash Against the ADA: Reinterpreting Disability Rights. Ann Arbor:: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Harding R. 2006.. “ Dogs are ‘registered,’ people shouldn't be”: legal consciousness and lesbian and gay rights. . Soc. Legal Stud. 15::51133
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Harris JE. 2018.. Sexual consent and disability. . NYU Law Rev. 93::480557
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Harris JE. 2019.. The aesthetics of disability. . Columbia Law Rev. 119::895972
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Healey D, Titchkosky T. 2022.. A primal scene: disability in everyday life. . In The Routledge International Handbook of Goffman Studies, ed. MH Jacobson, G Smith , pp. 24252. New York:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hellman D, Nicholson K. 2021.. Rationing & disability: the civil rights and wrongs of state triage protocols. . Washington Lee Law Rev. 78::102787
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Heumann J, Joiner K. 2020.. Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist. Boston:: Beacon
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Heyer K. 2007.. A disability lens on sociolegal research: reading rights of inclusion from a disability studies perspective. . Law Soc. Inq. 32::26193
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Heyer K, Mor S. 2019.. Special issue guest editors’ introduction: disability legal studies. . Law Soc. Rev. 53::94849
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kafer A. 2013.. Feminist Queer Crip. Bloomington:: Indiana Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kanter AS. 2011.. The law: What's disability studies got to do with it or an introduction to disability legal studies. . Columbia Hum. Rights Law Rev. 42::40379
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kelman M, Lester G. 1997.. Jumping the Queue: An Inquiry into the Legal Treatment of Students with Learning Disabilities. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kleege G. 1999.. Sight Unseen. New Haven, CT:: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Ladau E. 2021.. Demystifying Disability: What to Know, What to Say, and How to Be an Ally. New York:: Penguin Random House
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988.. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York:: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Linton S. 1998.. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Linton S. 2005.. What is disability studies?. PMLA 120::51822
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Longmore PK. 2003.. Why I Burned My Books and Other Essays on Disability. Philadelphia:: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Longmore PK. 2016.. Telethons: Spectacle, Disability, and the Business of Charity. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Macaulay S, Friedman LM, Mertz EE. 2007.. Law in Action: A Socio-Legal Reader. St. Paul, MN:: Foundation
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Macfarlane KA. 2021.. Disability without documentation. . Fordham Law Rev. 90::59102
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Malhotra R. 2019.. In memoriam: Mike Oliver. . The Nation, March 8. https://web.archive.org/web/20190321211603/https:/www.thenation.com/article/mike-oliver-obit-disability/
    [Google Scholar]
  70. McRuer R. 2006.. Crip Theory: Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Meekosha H. 2004.. Drifting down the gulf stream: navigating the cultures of disability studies. . Disabil. Soc. 19::72133
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Merry SE. 1995.. Resistance and the cultural power of law. . Law Soc. Rev. 29::1126
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Mills M, Sanchez R. 2023.. Crip Authorship: Disability as Method. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mingus M. 2017.. Access intimacy, interdependence, and disability justice. . Leaving Evidence, April 12. https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/access-intimacy-interdependence-and-disability-justice/
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Minow M. 1990.. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Ithaca, NY:: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Mor S. 2006.. Between charity, welfare, and warfare: a disability legal studies analysis of privilege and neglect in Israeli disability policy. . Yale J. Law Humanit. 18::63137
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Mor S. 2014.. The dialectics of wrongful life and wrongful birth claims in Israel: a disability critique. . Stud. Law Politics Soc. 63::11346
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Mor S. 2017.. With access and justice for all. . Cardozo Law Rev. 39::61147
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Mor S, Pikkel RB. 2019.. Disability, rights, and the construction of sexuality in tort claims. . Law Soc. Rev. 54::101650
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Mor S, Pikkel RB, Lankry HI. 2024.. Representing disability in tort litigation: an empirical analysis of judicial discourse (1998–2018). . Law Soc. Inq. 49::70639
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Morgan JN. 2021.. Policing under disability law. . Stanford Law Rev. 73::140169
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Morgan J. 2022a.. Disability's Fourth Amendment. . Columbia Law Rev. 122::489580
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Morgan J. 2022b.. Contesting the carceral state with disability frames: challenges and possibilities. . Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 170::190525
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Morgan J. 2023.. On the relationship between race and disability. . Harvard Civ. Rights Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 58::20166
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Ne'eman A, Stein MA, Berger ZD, Dorfman D. 2021.. The treatment of disability under crisis standards of care: an empirical and normative analysis of change over time during COVID-19. . J. Health Politics Policy Law 46::83160
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Nielsen KE. 2012.. A Disability History of the United States. Boston:: Beacon
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Nielsen KE. 2020.. Money, Marriage, and Madness: The Life of Anna Ott. Champaign:: Univ. Ill. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Nielsen LB. 2004.. License to Harass: Law, Hierarchy, and Offensive Public Speech. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Oliver M. 1986.. Social policy and disability: some theoretical issues. . Disabil. Handicap Soc. 1::517
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Oliver M. 1995.. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London:: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Perlin M, Lynch A. 2016.. Sexuality, Disability, and the Law: Beyond the Last Frontier? New York:: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Piepzna-Samarasinha LL. 2018.. Care Work: Dreaming Disability Justice. Vancouver, Can:.: Arsenal Pulp
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Ponterotto JG. 2006.. Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept “thick description. .” Qual. Rep. 11::53849
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Popham KL, Emens EF, Harris JE. 2023.. Disabling travel: quantifying the harm of inaccessible hotels to disabled people. . Columbia Hum. Rights Law Rev. Forum 55::169
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Powell RM, Parish SL, Mitra M, Nicholson J. 2020a.. Responding to the legal needs of parents with psychiatric disabilities: insights from parent interviews. . Minn. J. Law Inequal. 38::69114
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Powell RM, Parish SL, Mitra M, Waterstone M, Fournier S. 2020b.. Terminating the parental rights of mothers with disabilities: an empirical legal analysis. . Mo. Law Rev. 85::1069111
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Price M. 2011.. Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life. Ann Arbor:: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Robbennolt JK, Hans VP. 2016.. The Psychology of Tort Law. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Russell M. 1998.. Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract. Monroe, ME:: Common Courage
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Samuels E. 2014.. Fantasies of Identification: Disability, Gender, Race. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Santinele Martino A. 2022.. “I don't want to get in trouble”: a study of how adults with intellectual disabilities convert and navigate intellectual disability sexual fields. . Cult. Health Sex. 24::123042
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Santinele Martino A, Perreault-Laird J. 2019.. “I don't know if I can talk about that”: an exploratory study on the experiences of direct care workers regarding the sexual expression and practices of people with intellectual disabilities. . Disabil. Stud. Q. 39:. https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v39i3.6383
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Sarat A. 1990.. “…The law is all over”: power, resistance, and the legal consciousness of the welfare poor. . Yale J. Law Humanit. 2::34379
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sarat A, Kearns TR. 1993.. Beyond the great divide: forms of legal scholarship and everyday life. . In Law in Everyday Life, ed. A Sarat, TR Kearns , pp. 2162. Ann Arbor:: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Schalk S. 2018.. Bodyminds Reimagined: (Dis)ability, Race, and Gender in Black Women's Speculative Fiction. Durham, NC:: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Schlanger M. 2017.. Prisoners with disabilities. . In Reforming Criminal Justice: Punishment, Incarceration, and Release, Vol. 4, ed. E Luna , pp. 295324. Phoenix: Ariz. State Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Schweik SM. 2009.. The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public. New York:: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Scotch RK. 2001.. From Good Will to Civil Rights: Transforming Federal Disability Policy. Philadelphia:: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Shakespeare T. 2000.. Disabled sexuality: toward rights and recognition. . Sex. Disabil. 18::15966
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Shakespeare T. 2014.. Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited. London:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Shapiro JS. 1993.. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. Portland, OR:: Broadway Books
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Siebers TA. 2008.. Disability Theory. Ann Arbor:: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Siebers TA. 2010.. Disability Aesthetics. Ann Arbor:: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Silbey SS. 2005.. After legal consciousness. . Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1::32368
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Sins Invalid. 2019.. Skin, Tooth, and Bone: The Basis of Movement Is Our People: A Disability Justice Primer. Berkeley, CA:: Sins Invalid. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Sommers R. 2021.. Experimental jurisprudence. . Science 373::39495
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Stone DA. 1984.. The Disabled State. Philadelphia:: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Tani K. 2022.. Capitalism & disability as research agenda. . LPE Blog, Oct. 4. https://lpeproject.org/blog/capitalism-disability-as-research-agenda/
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Tobia K. 2022.. Experimental jurisprudence. . Chicago Law Rev. 89::735802
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Traustadóttir R, Sigurjónsdóttir HB, Egilson ST. 2013.. Disability studies in Iceland: past, present and future. . Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 15::5570
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Waterstone M. 2007.. A new vision of public enforcement. . Minn. Law Rev. 92::43497
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Waterstone ME, Stein MA, Wilkins DB. 2012.. Disability cause lawyers. . William Mary Law Rev. 53::1287359
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Weber M. 2023.. Special education cause lawyers. . Case West. Reserve Law Rev. 74::375401
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Wendell S. 2001.. Unhealthy disabled: treating chronic illnesses as disabilities. . Hypatia 16::1733
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Wong A. 2020.. Disability Visibility: First-Person Stories from the Twenty-First Century. New York:: Vintage
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Wong A. 2024.. Disability Intimacy: Essays on Love, Care, and Desire. New York:: Vintage
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Young KM. 2014.. Everyone knows the game: legal consciousness in the Hawaiian cockfight. . Law Soc. Rev. 48::499530
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Zola IK. 1972.. Medicine as an institution of social control. . Sociol. Rev. 20::487504
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Zola IK. 1993.. Disability statistics, what we count and what it tells us: a personal and political analysis. . J. Disabil. Policy Stud. 4::939
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error