The Court We Need: Why the Supreme Court is Worth Saving—Especially from Itself with Professor Steven I. Vladeck

For all of the ink that has been spilled over the Supreme Court in recent years, no one has been able to bridge the growing divide between those who think we should bury the Court and those who think we should praise it. Meanwhile, public faith in the Court continues to decline. The result has been an erosion of the Court’s moral authority and an impasse about how to restore it at the exact moment when we most need it—with the other institutions of government increasingly unable or unwilling to check each other. Now, more than ever, we need a Supreme Court that has, and that has earned, widespread popular support. For two centuries, that was the Supreme Court we had. It’s no longer the Supreme Court we have. But it is very much the Supreme Court we need, and this talk will explain how we get there from here.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1003/thumbnail.jp

The Immigration Subpoena Power

For over a century, the federal government has wielded the immigration subpoena power in darkness, forcing private individuals, subfederal governments, and others to help it detain and deport. This vast administrative power has remained opaque even to those who receive these subpoenas and invisible to those it affects most. Indeed, the very people targeted by these subpoenas often don’t know they exist, much less how they facilitate arrest and deportation. For these reasons—and more—this power has escaped the legal battles raging over other immigration enforcement tactics and the scrutiny of journalists, scholars, and courts. Thus, as state- and locality-held information has become central to immigration enforcement, this power raises urgent questions about when, how, and with what constraints the federal government uses it more broadly. This Article provides the first comprehensive account of the immigration subpoena power. Drawing upon previously undisclosed agency records and an original dataset reflecting thousands of subpoenas issued nationwide, this Article shows how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deploys a power created to facilitate racial exclusion at the border to reach deep into our communities and people’s lives. It demonstrates how ICE uses subpoenas to pierce state and local sanctuary laws and force subfederal governments—and others—to become unwilling partners in arrests, detention, and removal. And it exposes a range of other unlawful practices. These findings shed vital light on the immigration subpoena regime. They help resolve important constitutional questions, illuminate new constraints, and offer lessons that transcend the immigration realm

Hot Cocoa Party

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1049/thumbnail.jp

Taxing Litigation Finance

The emerging litigation finance industry has the capacity to expand access to justice but also raises important legal and ethical questions. Although much has been said about the industry’s potential to increase frivolous lawsuits and permit improper control over a claim by the funders, scholarly discussion on the proper tax treatment of the parties involved has fallen by the wayside. The problem arises in classifying litigation finance contracts as either a nonrecourse loan, immediate sale, or variable prepaid forward contract, all of which discretely impact the timing and character of income. Unfortunately, courts have traditionally found it difficult to draw clear distinctions between these three categories for tax purposes, and the opaque industry combined with the complexity of the transaction enhances the confusion. The consequences are tax uncertainty and an opportunity for taxpayers to engage in aggressive tax planning by structuring transactions to obtain favorable tax treatment without altering their economic position. This Article proposes a customized, multifactor analysis to identify the true nature of litigation finance transactions and impose proper tax treatment. The bedrock of the proposal is the concept of tax ownership, which in the litigation finance context can be streamlined into two key factors: economic risk and legal control of the claim. Emphasizing the legal control factor may address the agency problems inherent in litigation finance. As the industry develops, this Article calls on tax policymakers and regulators to reduce the current tax uncertainty by integrating this multifactor analysis when issuing future guidance and imposing disclosure obligations

Professor Jessica Roth Quoted in The New York Times About Justice Dept. Targeting SDNY

Professor Jessica Roth spoke to The New York Times about Emil Bove III, the acting deputy attorney general, targeting the U.S. attorney\u27s office for the Southern District of New York over the Trump administration\u27s plans to seek the dismissal of corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams

Active Learning and Notetaking

This past summer, when I attended my third AALL Conference, I signed up to review a program for the ALL-SIS newsletter. I agreed to report on “AI in Law Libraries: Discussing Ethical Considerations and a Way Forward.” I had attended numerous presentations over three years, but this was the first time I analyzed a program in depth. I needed to make detailed notes about what the participants said, as well as what questions were asked and how the speakers responded to them. Then, I had to synthesize my notes and turn them into an effective program review, about 500-700 words long. To accomplish this, I relied on the techniques of active learning and notetaking. It served me well in the conference context, and it would also be helpful to legal research students

An Unfair Chance for the Formerly Incarcerated: \u3ci\u3eYim v. City of Seattle\u3c/i\u3e and the Commercial Speech Doctrine

Formerly incarcerated persons face disproportionately challenging barriers to housing upon reentry; criminal records are used as a basis to deny otherwise suitable prospective tenants. In 2017, the City of Seattle passed the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, prohibiting landlords from relying on criminal history when evaluating prospective tenants. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck this provision down on the grounds that this complete ban violated Seattle landlords\u27 constitutionally protected free speech rights. The circuit court held that the ordinance implicated commercial speech and failed to pass intermediate scrutiny review under the four-part test outlined in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York. The Ordinance was deemed more extensive than necessary, and since other jurisdictions had less restrictive local laws that allowed landlords to consider some modicum of criminal history, Seattle\u27s blanket ban could not stand. The commercial speech doctrine is a confusing area of constitutional law. This Note explores the inconsistencies of the Supreme Court\u27s rulings on commercial speech. Commercial speech is subject to intermediate scrutiny review, but the Supreme Court has never completely articulated how lower courts should apply that standard of review. If a stricter interpretation is correct, then the Yim v. City of Seattle majority was right. If a more lenient standard is correct, then the Yim dissent was right. This Note argues that Yim exemplifies the collateral consequences of this ambiguous doctrine: Formerly incarcerated persons continue to be punished long after serving their sentences

P*LAW 2025: The Future of the National Labor Relations Act Under Trump

A P*LAW 2025 panel on the future of the National Labor Relations Act under Trump, moderated by Jordan Pollack ’27, featuring attorneys from Goldstein & Singla PLLC and worker-organizers from Trader Joe’s United.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1060/thumbnail.jp

Alumni Updates - Winter 2025

This Winter 2025 Alumni Updates highlights recent professional achievements of Cardozo Law graduates, including promotions to partner and counsel, executive appointments, prestigious awards, notable publications, and creative accomplishments across law, government, business, and the arts

Professor David Rudenstine Pens Opinion Piece for The Hill Calling for SCOTUS Code of Ethics

David Rudenstine, published an opinion piece in The Hill on January 10, 2025 about crisis at the Supreme Court. He argues that much of the distrust that the public feels for the court is warranted, and in order to fix this problem, Chief Justice John Roberts should implement an enforcable code of ethics for him and his fellow justices to follow