Intertextuality in Castle Rock v. Gonzales: Legal language and the perpetuation of intimate partner violence

Abstract

Gender-based violence is a public health crisis in the United States, yet there is a limited response within the legal system (Rosenfeld, 2022). This is particularly clear in certain Supreme Court cases that deny women the right to challenge gender-based violence under federal law. Specifically, the case Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) determined that victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) have no right to the enforcement of a court issued restraining order even if they live in a state with a law mandating that enforcement.

Research on language and the law has examined how language is used to effect power (Conley et al., 2019). With respect to the connection between language and gendered violence in the legal system and the language of court decisions, many researchers have investigated intertextuality in the reproduction of patriarchal ideologies and the construction of legal authority (e.g., Andrus, 2011; Bakhtin, 1981; Conway, 2003; Ehrlich, 2012, 2016; Mertz, 1988). Thus, in the current study I investigate the use of intertextuality in the opinions of the case Castle Rock v. Gonzales to determine if and how language practices perpetuate the lack of response to IPV within the legal system.