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

Hot Cocoa Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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