LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Cardozo Law News Brief: February 14, 2025
No full textHighlights from the February 14, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Associate Judge Caitlin J. Halligan was announced as the keynote speaker for Cardozo’s 47th Commencement.
Professor Jessica Roth appeared on CBS Mornings, The Washington Post, and PBS NewsHour discussing the Luigi Mangione case and corruption charges involving Mayor Eric Adams.
Professor Lindsay Nash spoke to City Limits about the impact of the Laken Riley Act on immigrant communities.
Faculty updates include:
Ellen Drucker-Albert edited the latest issue of Association of Jewish Libraries’ News and Reviews.
Professor Andrea Schneider co-authored International Conflict Resolution Processes with Carrie Menkel-Meadow.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1008/thumbnail.jp
International Holocaust Remembrance Day: Commemorating The 80th Anniversary of The Liberation of Auschwitz
Get PDFhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1050/thumbnail.jp
Madeleine Albright: The Original Madam Secretary
No full textMadeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as US Secretary of State, redefined American diplomacy with her sharp intellect, perseverance, and strategic negotiation skills. From escaping totalitarian regimes as a child to shaping global policy, Albright’s career was marked by a commitment to democracy, multilateralism, and human rights. Her diplomatic legacy includes crucial negotiations on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expansion, the Kosovo intervention, US–Cuba relations, and the Middle East peace process, where she demonstrated resilience, preparation, credibility, and charm. This chapter examines Albright’s impact on international relations, her ability to navigate complex negotiations with world leaders, and the negotiation strategies she employed, including coalition building, personal diplomacy, and strategic messaging. Her legacy serves as a guide for leaders and diplomats, proving that toughness and empathy can coexist in high-stakes diplomacy.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-chapters/1112/thumbnail.jp
Placing Constitutionally Conforming Interpretation in its Larger Theoretical and Political Contexts
No full textConstitutionally conforming (judicial) interpretation (CCI), which roughly corresponds to constitutional avoidance in the US, or its functional equivalents prevail in a very large number of jurisdictions. This is the case in the context of nation-state constitutions as well as in transnational legal pluralism such as that prevalent in the European Union (EU). Logically, CCI seems legitimate and desirable whenever only one of several plausible interpretations of a statute makes the latter consistent with the relevant constitution or hierarchically superior legal norm. CCI appears particularly well suited to foster legal harmony and to bolster the rule of law. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, CCI is highly contested in certain settings where it is characterized as amounting to judicial overreach. What is even more surprising is that CCI has been more criticized in certain settings where parliamentary supremacy prevails, such as the UK, than in others, such as the US, where constitutional adjudication cannot be for all practical purposes superseded.The purpose of the present chapter is to place CCI in its national and transnational dimensions in the proper theoretical and political context. First, the potential and limitations of CCI are considered in terms of the canons of judicial interpretation. Next, focus bears on the impact on CCI fostered by the concurrent internationalization of constitutional law and constitutionalization of international law. Finally, CCI is evaluated in terms of questions concerning democracy and politics.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-chapters/1110/thumbnail.jp
Taxing Litigation Finance
Get PDFThe 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
P*LAW 2025 Celebrates Public Service
Get PDFAnnual Public Interest Law Advocacy Week (P*LAW) 2025, hosted by the Center for Public Service Law, featured 12 panels on social justice topics, planned and moderated by over 30 students, with contributions from alumni, faculty, and legal experts
Entrepreneurship and Community Business Clinic Making an Impact in California
Get PDFIn February 2025, Cardozo Law’s Entrepreneurship and Community Business Clinic visited California, where students led workshops, met with Judge Ana de Alba, and provided legal support to local entrepreneurs
Alumni Updates - Spring 2025
No full textThe Spring 2025 alumni updates highlight notable achievements across the Cardozo community. Sixteen alumni were named to Billboard’s Top Music Lawyers list, while Rafael Castellanos ’86 and Seth Goodman Park ’91 received WESTY Awards. Chris Fenlon ’09 helped secure a record $34.5 million Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower settlement, and Adam Greenberg ’93 and Todd Hellman ’94 advanced to new law firms. Other updates include Eric Hochstadt ’03 being named Head of Antitrust Litigation at Orrick, Julie Levine ’14 joining Offit Kurman, and Mark Osherow ’88 publishing Florida Litigation Guide. These achievements reflect the broad impact of Cardozo alumni in law and beyond
Cardozo Welcomes Newest Class of J.D., LL.M. Students
No full textCardozo opened the new school year by welcoming the J.D. Class of 2028 and the LL.M. Class of 2026. The 1L students come from 36 states and from across the globe, including Albania, China, Israel, Italy, and South Korea
The End of FDA Exceptionalism? Dissecting Deference to the FDA in Drug Disputes
Get PDFOn April 7, 2023, a federal judge issued a nationwide stay on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the abortifacient medication mifepristone. It was instantly a landmark case, decried as the first time in over one-hundred years that a federal court nullified an FDA drug approval. A few hours later, a second federal district court enjoined FDA restrictions on mifepristone. Two federal courts substantively evaluating FDA drug approval data in one day is unprecedented. It begs the question: will courts overturn FDA drug approvals again?
Conventional wisdom says no. Abortion exceptionalism, the trend of legislatures and courts subjecting abortion to unique and burdensome rules, suggests that aggressive judicial review of FDA approvals in non-abortion contexts will continue to be limited. Yet this Article analyzes pharmaceutical litigation involving the FDA across the last decade to offer an alternative narrative on whether and when challenges to FDA drug determinations might occur. Between 2019 and 2023, courts have overturned multiple longstanding FDA policies by challenging science-based policy decisions. Viewed in this light, the mifepristone cases could be one piece of a concerning emerging trend.
This Article also explores why litigants have been more successful than usual. It argues that the emerging new norm of scrutinizing science-based policy choices may also be connected to growing public skepticism of the FDA in the wake of multiple concurrent pharmaceutical-approval crises including COVID-19 treatments, opioids, and the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab. Judicial deference to agencies has also been declining for decades. After the 2023 Supreme Court Term, longstanding FDA policies deciding drug approvals might be successfully challenged more often. While there are other reasons to suspect that challenges to FDA drug approval decisions may not increase, it is more important than ever to restore trust in the FDA and consider where judicial review of pharmaceutical determinations is beneficial