Epistemic Justice in Legal Proceedings

Sor Juana's insistence on the legitimacy of her own knowledge and interpretation—against dismissive institutional authorities—speaks directly to epistemic injustice in immigration law. When asylum adjudicators, judges, and bureaucrats position themselves as sole interpreters of evidence, they commit epistemic injustice: they discredit the knowledge produced by people who lived the circumstances being judged. A refugee's understanding of why persecution occurred is expertise. An immigrant's analysis of their own situation has validity. Current systems often privilege external 'experts' (country reports, psychological evaluators) over the knowledge of the people most directly involved. Sor Juana's framework demands recognizing displaced persons as knowers, not merely subjects of knowledge. Justice practice involves training legal advocates to treat refugee and immigrant testimony as authoritative, creating space for self-representation, and challenging expert systems that marginalize the voices of those most affected. When the people experiencing injustice are recognized as producers of knowledge about their situations, legal outcomes improve and dignity is honored.