The Whitney Museum of American Art

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1125/thumbnail.jp

Defining Political Activity Under the First Amendment

In this article, Zelinsky examines Freedom Path, Minnesota Voters Alliance, and Wisconsin Right to Life and explains the proper test for identifying campaign intervention for purposes of section 501(c)(4)

Breakfast with Douglas Letter

A conversation on constitutional litigation and public service in and outside of the federal government.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1101/thumbnail.jp

Dare to Innovate: Lela Love

Professor (Emerita) Lela Love, dared to reimagine how lawyers resolve conflict. A renowned mediator and dispute resolution pioneer, Professor Love joined Cardozo in 1985 and founded the Cardozo Mediation Clinic—one of the nation’s first programs to train law students as mediators. In 1990, she established the Kukin Program through a generous gift from Ira and Doris Kukin. Today, the Kukin Program includes four clinical offerings, the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, the International Advocate for Peace Award, and a comprehensive dispute resolution curriculum. Cardozo is now ranked the fifth-best dispute resolution law program in the country by U.S. News—a lasting testament to her vision.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/daring-daily-commemorative-visuals/1002/thumbnail.jp

Dare to Create: Monrad G. Paulsen

Monrad Paulsen, the first dean of Cardozo School of Law, dared to create the foundation of our institution. Monrad\u27s legacy lives on through the Paulsen Competition, sponsored by the Moot Court Honor Society, which gives second- and third-year students a forum to compete for recognition as Cardozo’s top advocates.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/daring-daily-commemorative-visuals/1000/thumbnail.jp

Fifty Years, Countless Smiles

A group of Cardozo Law students gather together, smiling and celebrating their shared journey through law school. As part of the Flashback @ Fifty series, this image reflects the diversity, friendship, and sense of belonging that define the Cardozo community.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flashback-at-fifty/1020/thumbnail.jp

Fall 2026 Cardozo Law Clinic Info Sessions

Field Clinic and Externship Program Info SessionWednesday, February 25 Live Virtual Session - Zoom link to follow 12:45 - 2 p.m., Viewing Room 424 In-House Clinic and Pro Bono Scholars Info SessionMonday, March 2 12:45 - 2 p.m., Moot Court Room Fall 2026 Clinic Fair Wednesday, March 4 12:45 - 2 p.m., 3rd Floor Student Lounge Clinic Application Deadline: Monday, March 16 at 12 p.m.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2026/1009/thumbnail.jp

ICE, Minneapolis, and Beyond

Join Cardozo professors for a timely discussion examining ICE enforcement, civil liberties, and the evolving legal landscape. The panel will explore recent developments in Minneapolis and their broader national implications..https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1072/thumbnail.jp

The Student Bar Association Presents: Barristers’ Ball

Live DJ, Buffet and Open Bar Black Time Optional Tickets:  Students: $120 Guest: 140https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1115/thumbnail.jp

Post-Chevron Deference in Asylum Proceedings

The Supreme Court held for four decades that Chevron deference should apply in all immigration proceedings. How, then, will asylum proceedings change in a post-Chevron world? When, and under what circumstances, will courts continue to defer to the findings of immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)? And why does it matter? This Article answers those questions. These issues require urgent examination for three reasons. First, they directly confront an issue pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi: Without the protection of Chevron insulating BIA decisions from meaningful judicial review, can certain legal questions like the definition of “persecution” be recast as fact questions requiring statutory deference from the courts? Those with an institutional interest in aggregating agency power over asylum matters, including the attorney general, have taken this exact approach. Second, the contours of post-Chevron power sharing between the executive branch and the federal courts are only beginning to be drawn, and this exercise will continue for years, if not decades. Nowhere is the issue more salient than in asylum law, where courts have traditionally granted multilayered deference to the executive branch, but where agency interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions has been met with withering criticism from courts and scholars alike. The sixfold increase in asylum applications this decade further highlights the importance of articulating an appropriate post-Chevron role for judicial review in asylum cases. Third, the extent to which courts may reclaim interpretive power in asylum proceedings will prove to be a matter of urgent and enduring importance in light of the current administration’s open attempts to unilaterally restrict asylum eligibility to a desirable subset of applicants, arguably in violation of international law, court and agency precedent, and (to use the language of Chevron) reasonable constructions of the refugee statute