Neurodivergent people, including individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, continue to face systemic barriers to meaningful and fair participation in the U.S. justice system. Legal standards governing competence, credibility, and culpability remain anchored in expectations of neurotypical communication and reasoning. These expectations do more than shape procedures; they define who is heard, believed, and ultimately brought to justice. This commentary examines forensic ableism, the privileging of neurotypical cognition and communication in legal contexts, through Fricker's framework of epistemic injustice, with a focus on testimonial injustice. In practice, credibility judgments are rooted in neurotypical norms that often devalue neurodivergent testimony. Across competency evaluations, credibility assessments, and capital sentencing decisions, disability-linked patterns of expression and interaction are frequently misinterpreted as signs of unreliability or diminished competence. Addressing forensic ableism requires the redesign of legal processes and broadened disability education to aid in the recognition of diverse cognitive and communication profiles as legitimate ways of knowing and participating. We call for reforms grounded in accessibility, epistemic humility, and collaboration with the neurodivergent community.
Vorce et al. (Wed,) studied this question.