DENVER, Colorado – Yale Law School professor Daniel Loehr, along with research assistants Balen Essak-Hernandez and Courtney Perales, has filed an amicus brief before the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s habitual criminal law is linked to the eugenics movement. Loehr’s brief, based on historical research conducted during his time at the Law School, aims to demonstrate the historical origins of the law and its ties to the eugenics movement.
The brief focuses on the case of Ward v. the People of Colorado, in which an individual was charged under the habitual criminal law for a robbery committed in the early 1990s. Loehr argues that the individual’s sentence, which resulted in life imprisonment, should be reconsidered in light of a 2019 decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that limited the state’s power to impose harsh punishments. The petitioner in the case contends that the 2019 decision should be retroactively applied to his sentence.
Loehr’s amicus brief provides a historical context for Colorado’s habitual criminal law, tracing its roots back to the eugenics movement. The brief highlights the belief of eugenicists that so-called “habitual criminals” were a lower class of people who should be prevented from reproducing. Loehr hopes that by providing this historical context, courts and policymakers will be better informed in their decisions regarding the enforcement of habitual criminal laws.
Essak-Hernandez and Perales played significant roles in researching and developing the amicus brief. They meticulously examined state statutes and traced them back to the eugenics movement, working to collect legislative materials, articles, and laws from the late 1800s to the early-mid 1900s. Their research revealed the correlation between eugenics ideologies and the passage of habitual offender and sterilization laws.
The importance of understanding the historical trajectory of laws governing the American population is emphasized by Loehr, Perales, and Essak-Hernandez. They argue that many laws we currently enforce were based on outdated premises and ideas that no longer hold true. Loehr asserts that habitual criminal laws, premised on the idea of inheriting criminality, should be reconsidered in light of their eugenic origins.
The amicus brief filed by Loehr and his research assistants not only pertains to the specific case in Colorado but also sheds light on habitual criminal laws across the country. Their collaboration with legal research and library experts provided valuable guidance and resources in uncovering the historical connections between eugenics and these laws.
Overall, Loehr’s amicus brief seeks to raise awareness of the racist underpinnings of habitual criminal laws, challenging their use to lengthen sentences for defendants. By providing historical context, Loehr and his team hope to prompt courts and policymakers to reevaluate the enforcement of laws rooted in the eugenic era.