Cardozo Law News Brief: May 16, 2025

Highlights from the May 16, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include: Professor Michael Herz spoke to National Law Journal about the limited impact of Trump’s executive order on regulatory prosecutions. Professor Peter Markowitz was quoted in Gothamist on a judge’s decision to release a Bronx man detained by ICE. Professor Haiyun Damon-Feng discussed racial bias in immigration policy in Bloomberg. Professor Alexander Reinert appeared on NY1 to comment on the appointment of a remediation manager at Rikers Island. Professor Zalman Rothschild’s 2022 study, Free Exercise Partnership, was cited in a New York Times opinion essay.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1014/thumbnail.jp

Commentary: Strong Discovery Laws Ensure Due Process

Limiting discovery won’t curb recidivism. It will only increase wrongful convictions. A dangerous narrative is emerging around Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed rollbacks to discovery law. Prosecutors and law enforcement claim these changes will prevent recidivism, with NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch arguing the current law hinders efforts to keep violent criminals off the streets

International Holocaust Remembrance Day: Commemorating The 80th Anniversary of The Liberation of Auschwitz

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1050/thumbnail.jp

My Religious Education Was Unparalleled — and That’s the Problem

Professor Zalman Rothschild Publishes Opinion Piece in The Washington Post About His Experience Growing Up With a Hasidic Educatio

P*LAW 2025: Mentor Mocks - A Joint Production of SBA and OCS

Mentor Mocks, presented by SBA and OCS and sponsored by Katten, offered 1L students the chance to practice interview skills through mock interviews with upper-class students.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1061/thumbnail.jp

The Federal Maritime Commission’s New Framework for Ocean Carrier Accountability: Analysis of the \u3ci\u3eMCS Industries\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eOJ Commerce\u3c/i\u3e Decisions

This article examines two 2024 Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or “Commission”) cases that significantly impact the interpretation of ocean carrier accountability under the Shipping Act of 1984: MCS Industries, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. and OJ Commerce, LLC v. Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft A/S & Co. KG. This article argues that the FMC, whose mission is to “[e]nsure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices,” continues to make ongoing efforts to clarify and enforce protecting shippers’ rights. These efforts focus particularly on (i) service contract obligations, which require reciprocal commitments between shippers and carriers to ensure minimum cargo volumes and guaranteed space or rates; and (ii) prohibiting retaliatory conduct by carriers, including “refusing, or threatening to refuse, an otherwise-available cargo space accommodation” or “resort[ing] to any other unfair or unjustly discriminatory action.” By focusing on practical remedies, the FMC continues to develop its approach to enforcement, emphasizing practical remedies over formalistic legal distinctions

P*LAW 2025

This document outlines the full schedule for Cardozo Law School’s 2025 P*LAW Week, hosted by the Center for Public Service Law. Held from January 27 to January 30, the week featured a variety of panels, workshops, and student-led presentations on topics such as reproductive justice, housing, LGBTQ+ immigration, international human rights, labor law, and social justice. Events included guest speakers from leading advocacy organizations, mock interviews, and internship prep sessions, all designed to engage students in public interest law and foster professional development.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1055/thumbnail.jp

Cardozo Law News Brief: March 14, 2025

Highlights from the March 14, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include: Professor Matthew Wansley spoke to The Washington Post about safety concerns with Zoox’s self-driving vehicles. Professor Haiyun Damon-Feng wrote in Slate on the Trump administration\u27s immigration actions against children. Professor Michael Herz discussed constitutional spending powers in Fortune. Professor David Rudenstine published an op-ed in the New York Law Journal defending press freedoms. Professor Lindsay Nash was interviewed by The New Yorker and Zeteo on immigration and due process rights. Adjunct Professor Gary Galperin analyzed a pretrial motion in Business Insider. Faculty scholarship updates include: Professor Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud presenting on U.S. territorial criminal jurisdiction. Professor Luís Carlos Calderón Gómez publishing “Coin Taxes” in U.C. Irvine Law Review.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1005/thumbnail.jp

Doubting Thomas and Questioning Stare Decisis Under the Roberts Court

(Excerpt) “[S]tare decisis is ‘not an inexorable command.’ ” Frankly, every time I read these words in a judicial opinion of late, I shudder. And, in fact, it seems like I am reading these words— and shuddering—with increasing regularity. First off, of course it is not. At times, the Supreme Court has sanctioned manifest injustices in the law. The prime example is the Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which sustained racial segregation under the Fourteenth Amendment. With the blessing of the judiciary, this interpretation of the Reconstruction Constitution supported a regime of racial segregation until, more than a half century later, the Court effectively overruled that precedent and the reprehensible “separate but equal” doctrine in Brown v. Board of Education. So, yes, stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Still, it is a command. And because it is not inexorable but a command nevertheless, we employ a test to decide when it is legally justifiable to proclaim some prior Court ruling to be of diminished value or erroneous and, therefore, that we should no longer abide by it. The test talks about the quality of the earlier reasoning and changes in underlying factual assumptions. It talks about how the Court has decided similar or analogous questions and the practical workability of the present paradigm in light of evolution in the same area of law. It talks about reliance interests, social and economic hardships, and the costs of repudiating precedent. As a legal doctrine, stare decisis has a corresponding test that talks about all of these things. If these considerations all start pointing one way—against the prevailing rule—then, according to the test, perhaps the earlier Court had gotten it wrong