Cross-Border Legal Advocacy Takes Aim at Forced Labor in the U.S.

A recent two-part series by Aaron Halegua examined how U.S. legal advocacy can be used against forced labor abroad. This post reverses that focus, exploring how legal tools from outside the United States can address forced labor occurring within the country. It also discusses Ruelas v. County of Alameda, where California's Supreme Court rejected a minimum-wage claim from pretrial detainees because a state Penal Code provision limited jail labor pay to two dollars a day.

This case forms the third installment in a series. The first part examined the California Supreme Court’s ruling and rationale. The second reviewed the state constitution’s treatment of jail labor and argued the two-dollar daily cap did not cover the plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs were pretrial detainees who performed unpaid work for a corporation.

The broader series initially explored using U.S. legal advocacy against forced labor overseas. This post flips that lens, asking whether legal tools from other countries can address forced labor inside the United States. Ruelas illustrates one domestic labor dispute involving incarcerated workers and corporate benefit.

Count words. First para: This(1) case2 forms3 the4 third5 installment6 in7 a8 series9. The10 first11 part12 examined13 the14 California15 Supreme16 Court’s17 ruling18 and19 rationale20. The21 second22 reviewed23 the24 state25 constitution’s26 treatment27 of28 jail29 labor30 and31 argued32 the33 two-dollar34 daily35 cap36 did37 not38 cover39 the40 plaintiffs41. Those42 plaintiffs43 were44 pretrial45 detainees46 who47 performed48 unpaid49 work50 for51 a52 corporation53. Second para: The54 broader55 series56 initially57 explored58 using59 U.S.60 legal61 advocacy62 against63 forced64 labor65 overseas66. This67 post68 flips69 that70 lens71, asking72 whether73 legal74 tools75 from76 other77 countries78 can79 address80 forced81 labor82 inside83 the84 United85 States86. Ruelas87 illustrates88 one89 domestic90 labor91 dispute