LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Educational Shabbat
No full textWine and Dinner provided.
Joined by Dean Melanie Lesliehttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1045/thumbnail.jp
Public Service Summer Stipend Meetings
No full textCardozo offers stipends to provide funding for students working in unpaid public service summer internships. To be eligible for the stipend, you MUST attend one of the three meetings listed above.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1050/thumbnail.jp
Springboard to Article V (or Electoral Democracy and the End of Constitutional Amendment in the Nation and States)
No full textDrafted in exceedingly sparing terms and notoriously difficult to amend, the U S. Constitution is falling short in one of the most important functions of a government charter: establishing and maintaining a fair and just electoral framework-marked by rules that promote the values of equality, participation, competition, and transparency in elections. That is, the Constitution increasingly fails to preserve electoral democracy even as the nation\u27s systems for voting and elections are plagued by a cascade of problems. State constitutions, though not uniform, are uniformly easier to amend than the national charter and tend to be better stewards of electoral democracy. But state constitutions are typically an afterthought in discussions about American constitutionalism, if even thought of at all. In this context, however, they have something quite valuable to contribute. As this Article contends, there is an informal role that state charters can play, should play, and indeed, have played to nudge their federal counterpart in the right direction by helping to facilitate Article V amendments aimed at improving electoral democracy. The Article proceeds in three parts.
In Part I, the Article discusses two concepts that are central to constitutional democracies like ours: constitutional amendment and electoral democracy. It engages with prevailing scholarship on these topics to explain what they are, why they are so essential, and how they relate to and differ from each other. While the discussion in this Part is largely one based in theory, the discussion in Part II is mostly descriptive. It highlights how these two key concepts manifest differentially under America\u27s fifty-one constitutions. Part III, the final Part, builds on the theoretical and descriptive analyses in Parts l and Il to introduce a novel concept, a springboard amendment, by which state constitutional reform can help to facilitate corresponding federal change through Article V. Then, drawing on history, it illustrates that springboarding actually occurs, again, focusing on amendments related to electoral democracy. Though clearly exhibiting favorable disposition to springboard amendments, especially given the difficulty of amending our Constitution, this Part nevertheless acknowledges that springboarding could lead to negative outcomes, including through reference to the Redemption and Jim Crow periods that came on the heels of Reconstruction, undoubtedly the nadir for constitutional amendment and electoral democracy in the United States. The Article concludes with some musings about the obstacles to amendment and the role of the academy in the project of constitutional change in the hopes that its members will help promote constructive thinking and dialogue about constitutionalizing electoral democracy at the state and national levels
Iconic Voices and AI: The Legal Battle Against Voice Cloning
No full textIn a recent interview with The Guardian, the legendary Hollywood actor, Morgan Freeman, expressed his distaste with AI’s use of his voice. Freeman went on to say, “I get paid for doing stuff like that, so if you’re gonna do it without me, you’re robbing me.” Freeman went further and said that his lawyers “[A]re already ‘very, very busy’ tackling unauthorized artificial intelligence uses of his voice.” While that is the last we have heard from Freeman and his legal team on the matter, this article will analyze the potential legal arguments one can bring to enjoin a company’s use of artificial intelligence to use one’s voice in an unauthorized manner
Necessary Justice: “Political” Trials and Modern Political Philosophy
No full textDonald Trump’s election to President of the United States for the second time in November 2024 marked the beginning of the end of a sustained effort to hold him accountable in court for conduct that many Americans viewed as criminal.[1] Trump received not only the majority of Electoral College votes but a decisive plurality of the popular vote as well.[2] At the time of the election, he had already been convicted of thirty-four felonies surrounding a complex fraud to hide the use of campaign funds for hush money to an adult film actor.[3] Prior to this conviction, the decisions of a federal special prosecutor in Washington, D.C. and a Georgia district attorney to indict Trump on charges related to the 2020 presidential election had generated a heated public debate.[4] In the wake of Trump’s election, special counsel Jack Smith moved to withdraw these charges and indicated his intention to step down in the near future.[5] At one end of the spectrum of opinion are those who see nothing questionable or unusual in such proceedings, only the normal workings of the legal process. Trump was treated as any other potential accused might be on the same facts; no one is above the law, and Trump’s status as a highly controversial President and candidate for 2024 is and should be irrelevant to the workings of criminal justice.[6] At the other extreme, militant supporters of Trump view these upcoming trials as illegitimately political[7]—a way for Democrats to obtain partisan political advantage during an election year, possibly eliminating the Republican candidate from competition. In between, there is a range of views, either in favor of or against these trials, that take into account considerations such as the impact of the trials and the eventual outcome—whether of acquittal or of conviction—on the political fabric of American society and fundamental values such as freedom of speech and probity in public life
Cardozo Law News Brief: October 17, 2025
No full textCardozo received a $6 million gift from Kwanza Jones and José E. Feliciano to name its Clinical Education Program.
Professors Roth, Nash, Noti-Victor, Rothschild, Wansley, and Rona were featured in major media outlets on topics including political prosecutions, ICE surveillance, AI copyright law, religious engagement, Tesla’s robotaxis, and U.S. military response.
Faculty updates include awards, podcasts, grants, and national presentations by Professors Kestenbaum, Kim, Reinert, Sebok, and Zelinsky
Cardozo Law News Briefs: October 24, 2025
No full textHighlights from the October 24, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Professors Reinert, Codrington III, Ingber, Vishnubhakat, Roth, Wansley, Rona, and Zelinsky were featured in major media outlets including The New York Times, TIME, Washington Post, HuffPost, ABC News, CNN, and Wall Street Journal on topics such as ICE enforcement, Voting Rights Act challenges, Amazon Web Services outages, and Tesla’s self-driving technology.
Faculty news includes:
Professor Rebecca Ingber discussed U.S. military strikes on podcasts and will speak at International Law Weekend 2025.
Professor Young Ran (Christine) Kim presented her book The International Tax Revolution at the ABA Tax Section Meeting.
Professor Lindsay Nash hosted the 2025 Cardozo Immigration Enforcement Workshop and served as a forum commenter at University of Michigan Law.
University Professor Michel Rosenfeld appeared on Canadian radio and podcast programs discussing freedom of speech under a second Trump administration
Opinion: Discovery Rollbacks Indulge Prosecutors at the Expense of New Yorkers
No full textAn argument against proposed legislation reducing the amount of information that prosecutors are required to disclose
Cardozo Law News Brief: January 3, 2025
No full textHighlights from the January 3, 2025 Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Professor Jessica Roth spoke to The New York Times about the legal basis for Luigi Mangione facing both federal and state murder charges.
Professor Betsy Ginsberg discussed jail conditions in Gothamist, emphasizing the need for systemic reform.
Adjunct Professor Gary Galperin explained to Gothamist how legal strategy and timing are determined when dual prosecutions occur.
Professor Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum appeared on The FoRB Podcast with Visiting Professor Dmytro Vovk to discuss global responses to the 2014 Yazidi genocide.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/news-brief-2025/1013/thumbnail.jp