LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
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
Full text linkOn 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
Revisiting Reasonable Cybersecurity
Full text linkProspective theories of cybersecurity liability have traveled over some well-worn paths over the past three decades, resulting in some successes, but also in at least as many cul-de-sacs and dead ends. Part of this problem can be found in the difficulty and complexity of the subject itself. Courts, legislators, and regulators all face comprehension difficulties when they attempt to fit our existing legal system around cybersecurity, often resulting in half-measures and generalized solutions that are challenging to apply to the widely different technical details behind each case. And in the background, we have a general reluctance to create legal regimes that might unnecessarily hinder the technology industry.
The resulting legal landscape for cybersecurity is an incoherent and ineffectual mess. But as our political, military, economic, infrastructural, and social systems continue to increase their dependency on potentially insecure software and hardware, our timidity and indecision around cybersecurity liability incurs greater real-world harms. Because of our muddled and incomplete cybersecurity legal frameworks, the associated costs are not necessarily borne by the appropriate or most culpable parties. The gaps in our current legal and regulatory frameworks make it next to impossible to consistently and reliably apportion damages or apply incentives and reduce cybersecurity policies to a series of wish lists.
This Article means to advance the cybersecurity liability conversation by taking another look at what are considered “reasonable” cybersecurity practices informed by current accepted frameworks, regulatory decisions, case law, policy goals, and other lessons learned. The Article will rely heavily on common law standards of reasonableness, but will also look to standards used within other legal theories and policy frameworks. This Article borrows useful components of reasonableness from an array of sources to derive a test to assess the reasonableness of cybersecurity-related actions and choices. This test is meant to provide a flexible standard that is technically grounded, empirically precise, yet accessible enough for courts and lawmakers to fairly apply to cybersecurity cases that are sure to present new challenges as our technologies continue to evolve
Unemployment Action Center General Body Meeting
No full textThe Unemployment Action Center ( UAC ) is a student run non-profit organization that provides free legal representation for claimants seeking unemployment benefits.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1004/thumbnail.jp
Presentation of the Jacob Burns Center Award for Professional Courage to: Liv Oyer
No full textMs. Oyer will be joined in conversation with Professor Jessica Roth, Co-Director of the Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the practice of Law.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1003/thumbnail.jp
Cardozo Law News Brief: November 14, 2025
No full textHighlights from the November 14, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson of the New York Court of Appeals was announced as the keynote speaker for Cardozo’s 48th Commencement at Lincoln Center.
Professor Rebecca Ingber was quoted in The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor about the legality of recent U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean.
Faculty news includes:
Sarah Chu, of the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice, delivered the closing plenary at Interpol’s 21st International Forensic Science Managers’ Symposium.
Professor Wilfred Codrington III spoke at symposia hosted by Northwestern University Law Review and Minnesota Law Review on state constitutional rights and the Voting Rights Act.
Professor Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum received the Elizabeth Hurlock Beckman Award for her impact on student-led community benefit.
University Professor Michel Rosenfeld’s book A Pluralist Theory of Constitutional Justice was featured on Oxford Law Pro
The Next Frontier of Environmental Advocacy
No full textThe Center for Rights and Justice invites you to hear from three experts on environmental litigation and policy in a panel discussion moderated by Professor Alex Reinert. The discussion will be far-ranging, touching on domestic and international litigation, environmental policy, and climate justice. Wilson Dunlavey, a partner at the leading class action firm in the country, represents government entities, consumers, small businesses, workers, fishers, and residents in complex litigation against fossil fuel companies, automobile manufacturers, and other polluters. Raya Salter is the Founder and Executive Director of the Energy Justice Law & Policy Center and is an attorney, consultant, educator and clean energy law and policy expert with a focus on energy and climate justice. Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre is the Director of Global Climate Litigation at Columbia University\u27s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and is a leading expert in the field of climate change law and climate litigation.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1040/thumbnail.jp