Liman Center’s 28th Colloquium Explores Safety and Insecurity

The lack of security that many people feel has shaped agendas, policies, and law. The 28th Annual Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law Colloquium, “Safety and Insecurity: Facets of a Complex Landscape,” was cohosted this spring by the Brennan Center at NYU Law School, the Fines and Fees Justice Center, and the Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley Law School. Participants gathered at Yale Law School explored questions about the safety of shared spaces, the reasons for widespread unease, and how to reframe decisions on the allocation of resources and build communities inclusive of people with all kinds of needs. The colloquium included an afternoon panel followed by a day of in-depth discussions that brought together elected officials, academics, and former and current Liman fellows to consider how public and private sectors can respond to diverse and sometimes conflicting concerns.

Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, welcomed panel attendees with a reminder about the genesis of the Liman Center. Fundraising for a professorship to honor Arthur Liman ’57 was so robust that extra funds were available. 

“The best use for that money was to support a graduate of the law school to work on behalf of others,” Resnik explained. “When the Liman Center’s fellowship began in 1997, we had one fellow. Now we have more than 10 a year, and the Liman Center has enabled more than 200 graduates of Yale to spend a year doing needed work in a variety of fields. Impact doesn’t always come from big cases; it comes from helping someone in ways that are immediate and direct.”

Kate Braner ’93, Liman Center executive director, teed up the discussion. Braner shared a story from her time leading the San Diego Office of the Public Defender.

“In recent years, the population of unhoused people has grown. Many people camp along the streets between the office and the downtown courthouse, and those are the same streets the lawyers walk to get to court,” she said. “The lawyers, who fight on behalf of the most disadvantaged and forgotten individuals in our community every day, came to me and said, ‘We do not feel safe walking to court. Can you do something?’ We all want to feel safe. We want our families to feel safe. We want our communities to feel safe.”

Braner asked how laws and policies aiming to create a sense of safety for some end up fostering insecurity for others

“Whose safety is prioritized, and at what cost?” she said. “And is there a way to redefine security so that it does not come at the expense of others’ dignity, freedom, or well-being?”

Offering some answers, Braner noted the dual nature of policies meant to address societal harm.

“Throughout history, we have seen measures that promise security but disproportionately burden specific communities. Surveillance policies meant to deter crime may instill fear in the neighborhoods they target. Immigration laws designed to protect borders can fracture families,” she said. “Sentencing policies may offer reassurance to some while perpetuating cycles of incarceration and systemic inequity. The challenge is to balance protection with fairness and security with justice.”

The Complex Landscape

Moderating the panel, Resnik framed the issues with reference to the title of a Paul Gauguin painting, “Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?” The conversation started with the contemporary demonization of people living on the streets and people from other countries. 

Eli Savit, prosecuting attorney for Washtenaw County in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and former law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, commented on “otherizing and dividing” as a political strategy that is part of the broader political narrative.

“The divide-and-conquer strategy in our politics fosters a sense of ‘us versus them,’ weakening natural alliances among people,” he said.

Savit emphasized the importance of inclusive messaging.

“We need to convince people that their interests align with those they are taught to see as ‘other.’ If we build connections, people will find compassion,” Savit said. “The one group of homeless individuals whom people sympathize with, for example, is veterans, because they imagine themselves or loved ones in them. To move forward, we must do a much better job of confronting deliberate division.”

Reena Kapoor, associate professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, spoke about the complex ties between mental illness and homelessness, noting that somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of unhoused individuals have a mental disorder. The relationship between mental illness and homelessness is bidirectional, she explained. Mental illness can manifest as cognitive or behavioral problems that make it difficult for a person to earn a steady living or afford housing. And, she continued, homelessness can lead to higher levels of substance use, victimization, and encounters with police and the courts, all of which are fertile ground to develop or exacerbate mental illness. She then highlighted systemic gaps that contribute to homelessness.

“Deinstitutionalization in the 1960s released individuals from psychiatric hospitals without adequate community support and reduced the number of psychiatric hospital beds by 90%,”  Kapoor said “The average length of stay plummeted from about one to two months to just seven to ten days, largely due to financial pressures to discharge patients more quickly.”
Coupled with the high legal threshold for mandating treatment, these resource barriers help explain why so many individuals with serious mental illness remain on the streets.

Kapoor then addressed societal perceptions.

“Media overrepresents violence among people with mental illness, perpetuating stigma,” she cautioned. “Only 3 to 5% of violence can be attributed to mental illness, yet public perception skews much higher due to portrayals in movies and news.”  

When discussing safety in our public spaces, we need to address mental health while recognizing that it is only one part of the conversation, speakers said.

“Blaming immigrants for societal problems, real or imagined, is a strategy to consolidate power,” argued Michael K.T. Tan ’08, executive director of The Movement Project at Yale Law School and a former Liman fellow.

Tan highlighted the dangers of scapegoating. 

“Autocrats blame immigrants for issues like housing shortages or crime and purport to solve the problem by expelling immigrants and preventing more from coming to the country,” he said.

Tan pointed to future challenges, particularly in the context of climate displacement. 

“We are seeing unprecedented migration patterns, and our lack of systems to integrate newcomers makes us vulnerable to authoritarian myths,” he warned.

He proposed a vision for resilience: “A secure future requires welcoming newcomers and providing for safety for all residents.”

A secure future requires welcoming newcomers and providing for safety for all residents.”

— Michael K.T. Tan ’08

Jorge L. Barón ’03, also a former Liman fellow, continued the discussion. Barón is the council member for King County Council, District 4, in Seattle, Washington, and the former director of the Northwestern Immigrant Rights Project.

“We need to recognize the issue of race because that is what drives immigration policy,” Barón said. “From a political perspective, the challenge is that the strategy of ‘othering’ has been successful and not just in the U.S., but throughout the world. It is so much easier to scapegoat than to provide complex solutions.”

Barón explained that long-term solutions require building communities and infrastructure to provide services and housing, and people get frustrated waiting for it.

“We launched an initiative to create crisis care centers. Voters supported the measure to invest property tax revenue in centers that provide behavioral health support, many of them serving unhoused individuals,” he said. “We approved the project in 2023, and the first center is just about to open. The next centers will not open for a few more years, so people think nothing has happened.”

Scapegoating and sensational media coverage can mislead the public into believing that problems are being resolved, but solutions to complex issues require time and effort, speakers said, adding that getting public attention for such long-term work is difficult.

As social safety nets diminish, we have replaced support systems with policing and punishment, particularly for unsheltered communities.”

— Jamelia Morgan ’13

Jamelia Morgan ’13, professor of law and faculty director of the Center for Racial and Disability Justice at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, critiqued the systemic criminalization of vulnerable groups.

“Policing has historically regulated nonconforming bodies and minds,” Morgan explained.

Morgan pointed to the recent killing of Jordan Neely, a Black male with psychiatric disabilities, on a New York City subway train as emblematic of societal failures.

“He was hungry and angry on a subway train, and that became a basis for the loss of his life,” she said.

Morgan added context to the systemic roots of these issues.  

“We’re in an era of governing through crime,” she noted. “As social safety nets diminish, we have replaced support systems with policing and punishment, particularly for unsheltered communities.”

She warned against the misuse of medical rhetoric in policy.

“Disability labels are increasingly used to justify expanding state power, often diverting attention from systemic failures like the lack of affordable housing,” Morgan said.

Community-Driven Solutions

The panel “Public Safety Reimagined: Community-Driven Solutions” grappled with how to create policies that enhance security, rather than prioritizing the safety of some at the expense of others. They spoke about root causes of homelessness, mental illness, and substance abuse and emphasized that long-term, well-funded solutions are needed to move away from criminalization.

“Without a well-thought-out, well-funded, and well-executed alternative, decriminalization will fail,” Savit explained.

Kapoor highlighted lessons learned from past reforms. For example, requiring people to change their behavior, such as stopping the use of street drugs, taking prescribed medications, or entering treatment, before granting access to housing, often failed. Instead, the “housing first” model, which prioritizes placing individuals in stable housing before addressing physical and mental health needs, has shown promise.

“We also learned that just because you build a mental health clinic does not mean people will come,” Kapoor said. “That is why we launched a street psychiatry movement, where community treatment teams meet people literally on the street.”

Lisa Daugaard ’95, co-executive director of Purpose Dignity Action in Seattle, Washington, and a former Liman fellow, stressed the need for bold action.

“The criticisms from the right about chaos in progressive cities are not entirely wrong,” Daugaard said. “We need deep, funded, and real solutions. Many people out there have severe substance use disorders and criminal histories.”

Daugaard reflected on lessons from the pandemic. 

“During 2020, we saw a crash course in non-carceral approaches in Seattle, with jails emptied and courts closed,” she said. “It was a stark reminder that without meaningful alternatives, the system can collapse into chaos.”

Daugaard also discussed innovative approaches to public safety, including the LEAD program in King County, Washington. LEAD diverts individuals engaged in low-level drug crime, prostitution, and crimes of poverty away from the criminal legal system and connects them with intensive case managers. LEAD originally stood for Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, and police were expected to refer individuals to intensive case management. Now, the program stands for Let Everyone Advance with Dignity, reflecting a shift that allows non-law enforcement referrals. LEAD also works with local businesses and neighborhood leaders to ensure their concerns are heard and addressed.

Resnik raised the question of how to respond when individuals decline available shelter placements. 

“We do not have service-resistant people, we have people-resistant services,” Dauugard answered. “You need to offer people a safe, dignified, pleasant place to be that is private, where when they come in, their behaviors and characteristics are anticipated and understood.”

Panelists acknowledged that there is a small number of people who are unable to make decisions in their own self-interest and for whom involuntary commitment may be necessary. Speakers also noted the challenges of securing adequate funding and political will for innovative services, especially in the face of federal funding cuts.

“The question is, which type of responses are we going to use and how do we most effectively use the limited resources that we have to be able to provide those responses?” Barón asked. “Public safety cannot be achieved without addressing the deeper insecurities created by homelessness, mental illness, systemic inequality, and exclusionary immigration policies — our task is to build systems rooted not in fear, but in dignity, care, and shared responsibility.”

In a series of in-depth discussions the next day, colloquium participants explored concepts of dangerousness, the interaction between criminal law enforcement and immigration, the fiscal and political challenges of local and state government, the impact of recent changes in federal policies, and the interaction between economic insecurity and housing. Each session was teed up by remarks from expert panelists but largely focused on engaging participants to share experiences, perspectives, and strategies for change. 

“The Liman Colloquium enabled me to learn from leaders in public interest law, policy, and research from across the country, think critically about some of the largest problems we face, and brainstorm collectively about how to tackle them,” said Ellie Driscoll ’23, a Meselson-Liman Fellow currently working for the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “The colloquium is unique in that it truly generates community and deep, honest conversation. I came away energized by my colleagues' incredible work and with new tools and ideas to meet this moment."   

The next Liman Colloquium is slated for April 9 and 10, 2026.