LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Judicial Deference and Presidential Power Under the Alien Enemies Act
Full text linkOn March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation titled, “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua.” In purporting to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, Trump resurrected a 1798 statute that grants the President extraordinary removal powers in times of “declared war” or “invasion or predatory incursion … against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.” Specifically, this wartime power permits the President to apprehend and remove as “alien enemies” the non-U.S. citizen nationals of the foreign state, as long as they are fourteen or older. Removal is not based on danger, or evidence of a crime, or immigration status. The act thus places significant discretion in the hands of the President in times of war
Is it Time to Scrap Stare Decisis?
No full textShortly after returning to the presidency, Donald Trump terminated several independent federal officers, prompting legal action by employees who occupied government positions covered by statutory for cause removal protections long held constitutionally permissible and valid. Eventually, one or more suits alleging unlawful termination owing to the removal without cause will reach the Supreme Court to be decided on the merits. Having steadily narrowed the Humphrey’s Executor line of cases that insulate these officers, the Court now seems poised to displace that precedent entirely. In isolation, the overruling would mark a seismic doctrinal shift and major advance in legal conservatism\u27s pursuit of a unitary executive empowered with complete authority over all segments of an acutely deconstructed regulatory apparatus. Considered in context, however, the overruling would be even more significant. Coming on the heels of a series of momentous overrulings that rank among the most consequential judicial acts this century, it would be shortsighted to view a decision by the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey\u27s Executor as simply effacing another decades-old precedent in constitutional law. It must also be understood as part of a continuing assault on stare decisis—leaving that doctrine on life support—an underappreciated casualty in the concerted and far-reaching effort to dismantle the jurisprudential foundations of a modern progressive constitutional order. Successive terms marked by blockbuster opinions overruling decades of caselaw governing areas such as affirmative action in higher education, judicial deference to federal agency expertise, and the right to abortion and reproductive and sexual autonomy reveal a Court, diminished in the eyes of the public and commonly viewed as a partisan tribunal, shirking its duty to honor precedent—and with paradigm-shifting ramifications. This paper exposes the Court\u27s oft-veiled disdain for one of the few constraints on the unelected body, arguing that the chasm between theory and constitutional practice suggests it may be time to reassess stare decisis to determine whether the longstanding doctrine can fairly and effectively contain a Court that seems hostile to legal precedent
P*LAW 2025: What’s Next? Reproductive Justice Under the Trump Administration
Full text linkHosted by Cardozo P*LAW 2025, this January 28 event explored abortion rights and reproductive justice under the Trump administration. Panelists discussed litigation, nonprofit advocacy, and policymaking at both state and federal levels, with a focus on how New York-based law students can support local efforts. Moderated by Bella Pori ’21.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1056/thumbnail.jp
Samantha Harberg and Rebecca Malek Selected as 2025 Recipients of Mark Whitlock Scholarship
No full textCardozo School of Law announced that Samantha Harberg and Rebecca Malek have been selected as the 2025 recipients of the Mark Whitlock Scholarship. Established in memory of Mark Whitlock ’10, the scholarship honors third-year J.D. students who enrich student life through their energy, initiative, and spirit. Harberg was recognized for her leadership as Editor-in-Chief of the Dispute Resolution Competition Honor Society, her role in the Mediation Clinic, and her work as an Admissions Ambassador. Malek was honored for her mentorship and leadership across numerous roles, including with BLSA, the ADR Competition Honor Society, and the Divorce Mediation Clinic. Both recipients were praised for embodying the scholarship’s values of passion, dedication, and community-building
Cardozo Law Launches the National Immigration Habeas Institute, as Part of its New Center for Immigration Innovation
No full textCardozo School of Law has launched the Center for Immigration Innovation, which will serve as a hub for immigration-related initiatives, including the new National Immigration Habeas Institute (NIHI). A partnership with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, NIHI will train attorneys to litigate federal habeas petitions—an increasingly critical tool to protect noncitizens facing detention or deportation. The Center will also house the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic and a new Immigration Research Institute, which will host scholarship workshops, speaker series, and service-learning trips. Co-Directors Peter Markowitz and Lindsay Nash emphasized that the Center will strengthen advocacy, scholarship, and hands-on training for future immigration lawyers
Cardozo School of Law Expands its Criminal Defense Clinic to Address the Lack of Representation Available to Individuals on Death Row Amid Increase in Cases
No full textCardozo announced the expansion of its Criminal Defense Clinic, now renamed the Death Penalty and Criminal Defense Clinic (DPCDC), to address the growing lack of representation for individuals on death row amid rising executions in the U.S. The clinic will provide students with specialized training in capital defense while continuing its long-standing work with the Legal Aid Society in New York City. Students will now also travel to southern states to investigate and draft post-conviction claims for death row clients. Co-directed by Professors Kathryn Miller and Jonathan Oberman, the clinic offers hands-on experience in high-stakes litigation and reflects Cardozo’s commitment to fighting for justice for the most vulnerable
Professor Britta Redwood Accepted to 2025 Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum
No full textAssistant Professor of Law Britta Redwood has been accepted to present at the 2025 Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum, taking place June 2–3 at Harvard Law School. Her paper, “A Brutal Anomaly: Unfettered Ownership Rights and the Illegality of Transatlantic Chattel Slavery,” was selected through a competitive double-blind review process. The work argues that transatlantic chattel slavery was unlawful at the time it was practiced, challenging Eurocentric interpretations of treaty and customary international law and instead grounding its analysis in general principles of international law. This recognition places Professor Redwood among a select group of 12–20 junior scholars chosen to foster dialogue on pressing legal issues
Active Learning and Notetaking
Full text linkThis past summer, when I attended my third AALL Conference, I signed up to review a program for the ALL-SIS newsletter. I agreed to report on “AI in Law Libraries: Discussing Ethical Considerations and a Way Forward.” I had attended numerous presentations over three years, but this was the first time I analyzed a program in depth. I needed to make detailed notes about what the participants said, as well as what questions were asked and how the speakers responded to them. Then, I had to synthesize my notes and turn them into an effective program review, about 500-700 words long. To accomplish this, I relied on the techniques of active learning and notetaking. It served me well in the conference context, and it would also be helpful to legal research students
Discussions in Dispute Resolution: The Coming of Age (2000-2009)
No full textThe U.S. judicial system is not merely a system of trials but a system of alternative means to resolution. Highlighting dispute resolution scholarship emphasizes the diverse ways of thinking available for resolving conflicts beyond traditional trials. In their first volume, Discussions in Dispute Resolution: The Foundational Articles (OUP 2021), the authors celebrated the field\u27s foundational writings and reflected on what makes those pieces so significant. In this second volume, Discussions in Dispute Resolution: The Coming of Age (2000-2009), they focus on the 16 most significant and influential articles on U.S. dispute resolution during its golden age of extraordinary growth. These articles shaped legal thinking about how the judicial system outsources the resolution of civil claims.
The heart of the book consists of short excerpts from these significant pieces, distilling them to their core ideas: the concepts, phrases, or findings that made them noteworthy. Four leading dispute resolution scholars (sometimes including the original author) then engage with different aspects of the articles\u27 ideas, recognizing their prescience and critiquing them where appropriate to answer the question: Why is this a significant work in the field?
By highlighting these influential works, the authors bring a fresh perspective, challenge them with the benefit of hindsight, engage with themes discussed in the first volume (such as disputant autonomy, access to justice, equal justice, changing views of legal and legalistic processes, and systemic impacts on processes and disputants), and compare the challenges of this era to those of the founding era.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-edited/1044/thumbnail.jp