LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Decentering Property in Fourth Amendment Law
Get PDFFor the past several decades, privacy has been the primary conceptual foundation for Fourth Amendment search law. The canonical test for Fourth Amendment searches accordingly looks to whether the government has violated a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Yet privacy is no longer the sole determinant of Fourth Amendment protection, as the Supreme Court has recently added a property-based test to address cases involving physical intrusions on land or chattel. Further, given the ambiguity of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, a variety of influential judges and scholars have proposed relying primarily, or even exclusively, on property in determining the Fourth Amendment’s scope. And the current Supreme Court, which has changed substantially since its last major Fourth Amendment case, seems especially likely to be receptive to property-based approaches.
This Article exposes the overlooked challenges and flaws of a property-centered Fourth Amendment. Pushing past simple hypotheticals, it examines the complications of real-world property law and demonstrates its complexity and uncertainty. It also explores the malleability of property rights and reveals how governments can manipulate them in order to facilitate pervasive surveillance.
Turning to the normative justifications for Fourth Amendment protections, the Article addresses the narrowness and arbitrariness of property-based approaches. Fourth Amendment regimes based on property are likely to be underinclusive, offering little protection for the digital data that is often the focus of modern government surveillance. And property-centered approaches tend to ground Fourth Amendment law on trivial physical contact while ignoring far greater intrusions that raise concerns about pervasive surveillance and fundamental rights. Finally, the Article contends that, because property is unequally distributed along race and class lines, its use as a determinant of Fourth Amendment protections risks leaving the most disadvantaged members of society with the least protection. While property concepts will be relevant in certain cases, they should be used very carefully, and very little, in Fourth Amendment law
Towards the FAA\u27s Next Century: Clarifying Disclosure Requirements in Arbitration
Get PDFThis essay provides a roadmap to the current landscape of neutrality and disclosure. It then suggests three possible reforms to the FAA that would provide better guidance to arbitrators, parties, and courts. Moreover, this essay argues that if the FAA cannot be sufficiently amended, states should take the lead. States can continue to more clearly outline disclosure requirements and enforce clearer standards than the current version of the FAA
Radical Restorative Justice: Reflections on Conflict, Trauma, and Hope in Chicagoland Schools
Get PDFThis Article tracks how abolitionist and reformist debates are unfolding within urban schools’ attempts to smash the school-to-prison pipeline. We document how Chicago-area public school teachers are grappling with new restorative justice programs and their complex and divergent sociopolitical and institutional meanings. Drawing on over forty qualitative interviews with teachers, we illustrate how difficult widespread implementation of new conflict resolution mechanisms, in the name of restorative justice, are turning out to be. We analyze how teachers are interpreting restorative justice practices and the challenges they involve for students, educators, and school administrators who learn and teach and work in hierarchical and bureaucratic institutions. Through this analysis, we bring readers face-to-face with some of the broader challenges that restorative justice and abolitionism confront as a large-scale and world-making project, digging in to show how teachers are having to transform themselves and the work they do as educators in order to meet the calls of the present day and age
Sixteen Cardozo Law Alumni Selected to Billboard\u27s 2025 Top Music Lawyers List
No full textSixteen alumni from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law were named to Billboard’s 2025 list of Top Music Lawyers. This recognition highlights Cardozo’s strong reputation in entertainment law, with the school previously ranked as the #1 Leading Law School for producing top music lawyers. The honored alumni include partners, executives, and legal leaders at major firms and music companies such as Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Publishing Group, and DLA Piper
The Hollywood Reporter Names Four Cardozo Alumni to Top Entertainment Attorney Lists
No full textFour Cardozo alumni were recognized by The Hollywood Reporter in its 2025 lists of top entertainment attorneys. Sasha Levites ’11 and Rachel Strom ’06 were named among New York’s Biggest Entertainment Attorneys, while Marc H. Simon ’01 and Gregory Slewett ’02 were included in Hollywood’s Top 100 Attorneys. Their achievements highlight Cardozo’s national strength in Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, with alumni shaping major film, television, media, and digital industries
Against Criminalizing Wage Theft: Lessons from the Antitrafficking Movement
Get PDFCriminalizing wage theft is a popular idea. This Article argues that--based on practitioners\u27 experience with human trafficking--workers\u27 rights groups, legislators, and prosecutors should reconsider embracing the criminalization of wage theft as an effective response to preventing this form of abuse. Twenty years of experience with trafficking cases and data show that criminalizing wage theft is likely not only to be ineffective but also to cause further harm to the victims and vulnerable communities who suffer the most from wage theft. A review oflabor trafficking cases and data shows the frequent negative impacts on victims from criminal prosecutions that would be avoided if existing civil enforcement systems redressing wage theft violations were instead adequately resourced. Learning from the antiviolence and antitrafficking movement\u27s past carceral-focused approaches, workers\u27 rights advocates must reject intensified law enforcement-focused approaches for combating wage theft. Indeed, advocates have the greatest chance of shifting resources from failed law enforcement efforts and creating new pathways for accountabilityfor emerging crimes and for crimes like wage theft that have not been
traditionally subjected to prosecution. In heeding this call, the powerful organizing voice of workers\u27 rights advocates will amplify those currently calling for criminal reform in the United States that rejects mass incarceration and its associated disproportionate impact on Black and Brown communities. Calling for redirecting resources away from our criminal system to fund innovative efforts for accountability more robustly is an effort that workers\u27 rights advocates, with their long history of community organizing and momentous efforts in partnership with vulnerable communities, are exceptionally well suited to lead. At a minimum, investment in developing data-driven, evidence-based practices to deter wage theft and create a better model of accountability on workers\u27 own terms is sorely needed and must be prioritized by advocates and scholars
Contesting State Capture
No full textState capture poses a distinctive challenge to democracy in the United States. As well-resourced individuals and interest groups exert ever-increasing influence over public policymaking, the American legal system loses its moorings in majority will and democratic faith. The costs of this process are borne by the poor and working classes. Unlike most public-law scholarship concerned with state capture, this Article surfaces potential remedies in the underutilized tools of state constitutional law. Drawing on state constitutional history and political-economic scholarship, it argues that when confronted with legislation suspected of capture, state courts should abandon rational basis scrutinyin favor of more searching forms of anticapture review. Their authority to do so may be located in restraints on legislative power common to every state constitution. State constitution-makers created these restraints in the nineteenth century in order to empower courts to check their captured legislatures. Still verymuch good law, they can and should be mobilized to contest state capture today
From Manuscripts to Monopsonies: Revisiting \u3ci\u3eUnited States v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGAA\u3c/i\u3e
Get PDFUnited States v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA is a unique antitrust case that has reframed decades of precedent. In November 2020, Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA ( Bertelsmann ), the parent company of PRH, announced its plan to acquire S&S from its parent company, Paramount Global ( Paramount\u27). This announcement positioned the merged entity ( S&S + PRH ) to control a third of the book market, the largest market share held by a publishing house. The following year, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division ( DOJATR ) sued to block the merger. In United States v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, the DOJATR\u27s case was distinct because the merger arguably posed a risk of a monopsony instead of a monopoly. Monopsony actions like this case are a noted departure from the consumer welfare prescription, which focuses solely on potential consumer price increases and has dominated modern antitrust jurisprudence. Much to the surprise of antitrust scholars, the presiding judge blocked the merger, finding overwhelming evidence that the merger would decrease authors\u27 compensation and thus lessen competition. This decision was hailed as a victory for the neo-Brandeisian movement. However, the victory celebration might have been premature. In August 2023, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR), a private equity firm, agreed to purchase S&S. Private equity firms are notorious for aggressive revenue driving and efficient reallocation of assets, normally translating to cutting costs through layoffs and other downsizing maneuvers. In theory, tantamount anticompetitive harms could arise through a private equity acquisition of a publishing company as much as through a horizontal merger between two competing publishing houses. The persistence of this risk and the departure from precedent begs the following question: Was Bertelsmann correctly decided?
This Case Note will argue that the judge crucially erred in her decision. The judge\u27s departure from consumer price points, the antitrust norm, was too dramatic. Specifically, the decision\u27s cited findings of increased concentration, history of collusion, and lack of efficiencies were much more correlated to book-reader harm as opposed to that of authors. Furthermore, this Case Note explores the potential underlying rationale behind choosing to frame this action as protecting authors, evaluating why this approach fell short of its intended goals beyond the proposed merger itself. The failure to incorporate the aforementioned rationale into the case is significant, because while focusing on book readers rather than authors might not have changed the case\u27s outcome, this departure from precedent deviates too far from the original intent of American antitrust laws. Changes in antitrust precedent have taken place to realign jurisprudence with the originally intended meaning of these laws, not the reverse. This Case Note will argue that this push beyond the bounds of American antitrust jurisprudence is not unwarranted, in fact quite the opposite; rather, that this case is indicative of some much needed changes to Section 7 merger cases. Moreover, this Case Note will argue that the precedential value of choosing to base the decision around authors will create a false flag for emboldened antitrust regulators as to the bounds of the Clayton Act. As such, this Case Note will highlight that this decision will not prevent monopsony-like conditions in publishing due to private equity acquisitions\u27 ability to evade antitrust regulators\u27 radar and the FTC\u27s track record of failure during the Biden administration. Consequently, this Case Note proposes that consumers once again become the crux of Section 7 merger cases until a change in the statutory language occurs- not to undermine the goals of the Neo-Brandeisian movement, but because current case law does not provide a workable framework to achieve those goals
Cardozo\u27s Entertainment Law Week Showcases Creative Executives and Entertainment Attorneys
Get PDFCardozo’s annual Entertainment Law Week, hosted by the Entertainment Law Society and FAME Center, featured panels and discussions with industry leaders on topics ranging from music and video games to docudramas and diversity in entertainment law