LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Keynote Address by Congressman Daniel Goldman
No full textThe Hon. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), lead counsel in the first House impeachment of Trump, gave the keynote address, followed by three panels
Administrative Reliance
Get PDFPresidential regime change and the federal policy shifts that accompany it raise significant questions concerning continuity, stability, and governance in the administrative state. Presidential policymaking through the administrative state may generate serious reliance interests recognized under administrative law (what this Article calls “administrative reliance”), which agencies must consider prior to enacting policy change. Administrative reliance has developed into a robust form of judicial review over agency action. Administrative reliance has been invoked in highly politicized contexts, such as immigration law, to challenge a sitting administration’s termination of a prior administration’s policies. Despite its powerful and consequential effects, the doctrine of administrative reliance has been underdeveloped by the courts and underexplored in legal scholarship. The resulting confusion allows partisan litigants—including States—to effectively veto federal policy change and allows the judiciary to subsume policymaking power traditionally wielded by the executive branch.
This Article fills an important gap in the literature and begins to present a coherent understanding of administrative reliance. It provides the first in-depth account of the doctrine’s development and evolution, and it looks to the doctrine’s history to identify what values administrative reliance seeks to protect. This Article argues that courts should adopt a threshold inquiry to focus administrative reliance–based review in a way that adheres to these values, and that privileges reliance-based claims asserting concrete expectations arising from rights, statuses, or benefits previously granted through agency action
CJCR Publishes Volume 25, Issue 1 (Fall 2023)
Get PDFThe Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution—the country’s preeminent legal journal of arbitration, negotiation, mediation, settlement, and restorative justice—today published the web edition of Volume 25, Issue 1 (Fall 2023).
The print edition of the issue is forthcoming. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on February 28, 2024. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above
The American Arbitration Association’s AI Integration Efforts for Alternative Dispute Resolution
Get PDFThe American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) has joined a long line of various organizations that are looking to make use of, and integrate artificial intelligence (“AI”) into their processes.The AAA has launched innovation programs that are lending support to the idea of AI integration into arbitration, mediation, and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) methods. These programs are looking at creating the right structure and guidelines for AI usages. This is two-fold: on the one hand, the AAA has been building its own solutions; on the other, there is an increasing awareness on developing the framework for external AI tools.
This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on March 12, 2024. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above
Gender Quotas for Boards of Directors: Norway and the United States
Get PDFDespite unprecedented progress for women in the workplace, at the highest rung of the corporate ladder, the status quo remains. Women now account for more than half of the college-educated workforce in the United States and more than half of all currently enrolled law students. Looking further up, however, progress is slower. In 2023, for the first time in history, female CEO’s outnumbered CEO’s named John. Globally, women only occupy twenty percent of seats on corporate boards. More educated women participate in the corporate world at higher rates than ever, but what explains deficient representation at the top?
This post was originally published on the Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review on April 4, 2024. The original post can be accessed via the Archived Link button above
Brief for \u3ci\u3eAmici Curiae\u3c/i\u3e New York State Legal Scholars in Support of Defendants-Respondents
Get PDFThis document presents a legal brief submitted by amici curiae in a case involving prominent Republican plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of New York State\u27s absentee voting provisions. The brief emphasizes the fundamental importance of voting as enshrined in the New York Constitution, particularly Article II, which guarantees suffrage to all qualified citizens. It argues that the Constitution\u27s democracy principle supports broad access to the electoral process, countering the plaintiffs\u27 claims that the absentee voting provisions are overly restrictive. The amici curiae assert that the legislative authority to expand voting access is consistent with the overarching democratic commitments of the Constitution. The brief also critiques the plaintiffs\u27 interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions, advocating for a holistic understanding of the Constitution that prioritizes inclusivity and the protection of voting rights. Ultimately, the amici urge the court to uphold the Appellate Division\u27s decision and affirm the legitimacy of the absentee voting law as a means to enhance democratic participation
Panel II: Quality: Is Mediation Fulfilling Its Historic Promise?
No full textModerated by Lela Love, this panel features James Coben, Tat Lim, Ivana Ninčić Österle, and Nancy Welsh in a comparative discussion on the state of mediation around the world. Panelists will explore what is happening under the banner of “mediation” in their respective jurisdictions, including how mediation is evaluated through policies, practices, accreditation, and training. They will examine common challenges, emerging standards, and evolving expectations as mediation continues to develop globally
The SCOTUS Term Preview & Retrospective
Get PDFThe Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy invites you to the SCOTUS Term Preview & Retrospective, as part of the Cardozo School of Law’s Constitution Day program. Join Professors Wilfred Codrington, Haiyun Damon-Feng, Elizabeth Goldman, Michael Herz, and Saurabh Vishnubhakat as they discuss recent Supreme Court decisions and preview the upcoming term.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2024/1019/thumbnail.jp
Comparing Joint Session and Caucus Outcomes: Factoring in Substantive Discussions and Case Characteristics
Get PDFMany of the traditional components of initial joint sessions occur less frequently today than they did historically and are more likely to take place during initial caucuses than during initial joint sessions. These changes in mediation practice lead to questions about whether initial joint sessions still provide the benefits historically attributed to them and whether initial caucuses now provide not only the benefits specifically ascribed to them but also the benefits typically associated with initial joint sessions. The presentArticle addresses these questions while taking into consideration differences in case and mediator characteristics as well as the extent of discussions in each setting. The findings are based on the survey responses of over 1,000 mediators in general civil and family cases across eight states.
There were differences between cases that began mediation in joint session versus in caucus in several intermediate outcomes associated with the initial session, especially in civil cases, but few differences in final outcomes between cases where the disputants spent some versus no time together during the entire mediation. However, for the most part the differences disappeared or were reduced after we statistically adjusted for the extent of substantive discussions among the mediator, the disputants, and the lawyers as well as several case and mediator characteristics. Thus, the outcome differences largely appear to be explained by differences in the extent of discussions that occur during the initial mediation session as well as differences in case characteristics rather than simply by whether the disputants are together or apart during the mediation. The findings do not support some common assertions about the relative benefits of initial joint sessions and initial caucuses or the benefits of the parties being together for some time during the mediation, but they do provide evidence for the informational and relational benefits of mediation more generally