LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Outline & Unwind
No full textA chill night with PILSA
Come hang out, recharge, ask questions and get your brain (and markers) flowing !https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1048/thumbnail.jp
Creators v. AI : A Debate on the Future of Copyright
No full texthttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1052/thumbnail.jp
Property and Information
No full textThe article proceeds as follows. As the information theory is a reaction to legal realism, Part I explores its antecedents in the work of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld and Ronald H. Coase. Part II presents the information theory as arising from Professor Smith’s interpretation of the Coase theorem.11 In the imaginary world of TC0, we are supposedly indifferent to organizing by property and organizing by contract. Property eclipses contract as the organon of the economy because property reduces the cost of delineation and processing—of speaking and comprehending. We show that this theory is founded on a misunderstanding of Coase.
Part III sets forth the jurisdiction proper to an information theory of property. This part borrows a distinction invented by J.L. Austin—the difference between constative and performative speech. Professor Smith’s information theory of property is constative.12 That is, he posits O informing the “world” of a static underlying reality—O’s possessory right. But some speech does not report; it creates. To the extent speech creates a new reality, speech is performative. Performativity is out of bounds for Professor Smith’s information theory. As a result, an information theory does not capture an aspect of what is distinctive about property, which is empowerment of the owner against all others and the power to alienate
Putting Police Body-Worn Camera Footage to Work: A Civil Liberties Evaluation of Truleo’s AI Analytics Platform
No full textThis Article summarizes findings from a civil liberties evaluation of Truleo, an AI-powered analytics platform designed to automate the review of police body-worn camera (BWC) footage. It includes a summary of how Truleo’s platform works, policy choices made by the company, and our assessment of safeguards and risks of the platform from a civil liberties perspective. This Article also offers a series of recommendations for policymakers considering the adoption of Truleo or similar technologies. These include the necessity for independent testing of claimed benefits, democratic authorization for deployment, and ongoing transparency and public input around the platform’s design and operation. Importantly, this Article argues that BWC footage should be treated as “civic data” owned by the public, not the police, to enable wider access and use for purposes such as research, oversight, and the exploration of alternative public safety approaches. Generalizing beyond Truleo, we note that despite their cost, explosive growth, and the incredible amount of personal data they capture, BWCs are significantly underregulated by law, with many critical policy choices left to the law enforcement agencies that use the technology. As a result, the use of the technology has shifted away from its original impetus—to improve outcomes for members of the public interacting with the police and to provide transparency and accountability when things go wrong—and increasingly toward an investigative tool. But we view BWC as the largest collection of data on policing in existence, and one that has been woefully underutilized as a tool for evaluating and improving policing, thus leaving much of the value of our nation’s investment in BWCs untapped. AI technologies like Truleo can rebalance the scales by automating the review of this BWC footage, but we worry that Truleo’s full potential will never be achieved so long as police retain sole control of the data. Accordingly, we emphasize the need for proactive policymaking by legislators to ensure that emerging AI analytics technologies serve the public interest and help realize the benefits of the significant public investment in BWCs
The Doors of Janus: A Critical Analysis of the Socio-Technical Forces Eroding Trust in the Rule of Law
No full textThe Rule of Law is neither just a principle nor solely the institutions that embody that principle, a critical aspect of the Rule of Law is its grounding in trust which often gets neglected in the surrounding discourse. When the citizens\u27 trust in the Rule of Law weakens, the Rule of Law becomes fragile. In this article we examine the impact of emerging technologies on the citizens\u27 trust in the Rule of Law. Our analysis is specifcally focused on the effect of systemic disinformation which is likely to worsen with the advent of Generative AI, algorithmic misgovernance, and the digitalization of the social contract on the relationship between citizens and the Rule of Law. Through analysis of global techno-legal developments we demonstrate that new data-driven technologies are eroding the citizens\u27 trust in the rule of law by weakening the epistemic justifications of trust in the rule of law, belying expectations of good governance, and disrupting the temporal-spatial aspects of governance respectively. The issues raised in this article are both of contemporary relevance in view of the upcoming democratic elections across the world and also of long-term significance in view of the declining trust in public institutions. To understand why the Rule of Law has ceded governance space to the rule of code we need to acknowledge the mediating role played by law and technology in social interaction. To recover this lost governance space and restore trust in the Rule of Law, we develop aframework comprising better enforcement and the reinterpretation of existing rights and the formulation of new collective interest-based rights
Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners; Amicus Curiae Brief
Full text linkAmici curiae are law professors who teach and write about the function and role of state and federal courts. Because Amici have substantial expertise in the history, practices, and workings of courts, Amici submit this brief in the hope of being of assistance to this Court in its deliberation
Cardozo Law News Brief: April 25, 2025
Full text linkHighlights from the April 25, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Professor Zalman Rothschild quoted in The New York Times on SCOTUS and religious exemptions.
Professor Jessica Roth featured in American Lawyer and CNN on pro bono work and deportation cases.
Professor Gabor Rona’s lawsuit over ICC sanctions covered by Bloomberg Law.
Professor Lindsay Nash presented immigration law scholarship at UNC.
Sarah Chu honored with a Women of Distinction award.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1001/thumbnail.jp
Staff Development Day 2025: Topics on Jewish Law & Culture
No full textThis presentation was delivered by Ellen Drucker-Albert, Head of Reference & Faculty Services, during Staff Development Day 2025 at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. It explores key aspects of Jewish law and culture, including the sources and development of Halacha, intersections with U.S. civil law, Jewish holidays and food customs, denominations of Judaism, and symbols like the mezuzah
Professor David Rudenstine Pens Opinion Piece for The Hill Calling for SCOTUS Code of Ethics
Full text linkDavid 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
Professor Andrea Schneider Speaks to Business Insider On Tense Oval Office Negotiations Between U.S. and Ukraine
Full text linkProfessor Andrea Schneider spoke to Business Insider to discuss the Oval Office negotiations between President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and ultimatums that Trump gave to Ukraine