New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

Sheet 463A, Photo Box 4
Part of Spring Benefit Gala: 2002 | photo CD each with index print.https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/remembering911/1029/thumbnail.jp

Richard Evangelists | 9/11 Student Hero Award | 2002 Spring Benefit Gala Photos

Appleton, Barry

Canada Submits to China\u27s Algorithmic Colonialism

Sherwin, Richard

No, Trump Is Not “Transactional”

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/wilf_conversations/1021/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
WILF Impact Center for Public Interest Law | 
Event Posters Wilf Impact Center for Public Interest Law 
3-28-2025 
PROGRESS REPORT: Education Justice 50 Years After Goss v. 
Lopez 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/wilf_conversations 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
PROGRESS REPORT:  
Education Justice  
50 Years After  
Goss v. Lopez
FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 2025
9:00 A.M.–4:00 P.M.
AUDITORIUM
CLE:
2.5 credits in Professional Practice  
(NY transitional and nontransitional),  
2.5 credits in Diversity, Inclusion,  
Elimination of Bias (nontransitional only)
CO-SPONSORS 
•  Advocates for Children of New York
•  The Legal Aid Society
•  Legal Services NYC
•  New York Law School
 –   Wilf Impact Center for Public Interest Law
 –  Education Law and Policy Institute
 –   Diane Abbey Law Institute for Children  
and Families
 –   Civil Rights and Disability Justice Clinic
 –   Center for New York City and State Law
AGENDA 
9:00 a.m.–9:30 a.m.
CLE Registration and Breakfast
9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m.
Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. 
Examining the History and Intersectionality of Disability and Racial 
Justice to Uphold Students’ Civil Rights
SPEAKERS:
Sarah Medina Camiscoli, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
Cara McClellan, Director of the Advocacy for Racial and Civil Justice Clinic, and Practice 
Associate Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Penn Carey Law School
Miriam Nunberg, Senior Consultant of the Education Law and Policy Institute, and Adjunct 
Professor, New York Law School 
Britney Wilson, Director of the Civil Rights and Disability Justice Clinic, and Associate 
Professor of Law, New York Law School
11:15 a.m.–12:30 p.m.
Protecting Students’ Rights 50 Years After Goss v. Lopez
SPEAKERS:
Emily Buss, Mark and Barbara Fried Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Richard Marsico, Director of the Wilf Impact Center for Public Interest Law and Professor of 
Law, New York Law School
Dennis Parker, Executive Director, National Center for Law and Economic Justice
Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, Executive Director of the Education Rights Institute and 
Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Michaela Shuchman, Skadden Fellow, Bronx Legal Services
12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m.
Lunch in the Grand Gallery and Auditorium
Recorded remarks from Derek Black, Distinguished Professor of Law, University of South 
Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law
1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m.
Closing the Gaps Left by Goss: Efforts to Improve Students’ 
Disciplinary Rights in New York
SPEAKERS:
Christine Bingham, Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Society
Angel Gray, Solutions Not Suspensions
Carly Hite, Senior Staff Attorney, Children›s Rights
Nelson Mar, Senior Staff Attorney, Legal Services NYC; Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
Kyle Rapiñan, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Attorney General’s Office
Rohini Singh, Director, School Justice Project, Advocates for Children of New York
Kim Sweet, Executive Director, Advocates for Children of New York
Chauncy Young, Director, New Settlement Parent Action Committee
3:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks and Networking
Scan for CLE Materials and  
Speaker Bios or go to  
www.nyls.edu/CLEmaterials


PROGRESS REPORT:  Education Justice 50 Years After  Goss v. Lopez

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1166/thumbnail.jp

Falati, Shahrokh

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
3-3-2025 
Patent Law Clinic Helps Woman-Owned Start-Up Obtain Patent in 
Adaptive Fashion 
Shahrokh Falati 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
The Patent Law Clinic of The Plumeri Center for Small Business 
Empowerment at New York Law School (NYLS), directed by 
Professor Shahrokh (Seve) Falati ’08, assisted one of their 
clients, Alina Kuderska, obtain a U.S. patent. Originally hailing 
from Ukraine, Ms. Kuderska graduated with a bachelor’s degree 
in international finance and a specialist degree in international 
economic relations from the National Technical University of 
Ukraine. She later moved to the United States and, after settling in 
as an immigrant in a new country, she pivoted toward the fashion 
industry in New York City, graduating with a degree in fashion 
design from the Fashion Institute of Technology, and also studying 
at Parsons School of Design.
Upon completion of her studies, Ms. Kuderska worked for various 
fashion companies before launching her own fashion business 
called SPARKIES. Her keen interest in design coupled with her 
creative skills led her to create her fashion brand, which focuses 
on designing stylish, comfortable, and functional garments 
for people with special needs, including people with mobility 
impairments or those recovering from surgery or an accident. 
While at Parsons, part of her research on adaptive design 
prompted her first visits to nursing homes where she became 
aware of the problems mobility-impaired people face in finding 
comfortable and stylish garments to wear. She noticed similar 
problems through her hobby as a certified yoga instructor. Through 
her efforts to address these problems with her fashion brand, 
she created a series of commercially popular designs that enable 
mobility-challenged women to wear a special type of bra, which 
the NYLS Patent Law Clinic was able to help her patent.
Ms. Kuderska was accepted into the Patent Law Clinic in 2021, 
soon after she started SPARKIES. The clinic has been with her as 
her business has grown, providing intellectual property-related 
counseling with a focus on patents. With the recent success 
of her patent, she is excited to continue expanding her line of 
adaptive products. She even recently presented her adaptive 
brand at the Venice Film Festival for impact and sustainable 
fashion in Italy and at a United Nations event focusing on people 
with disabilities. SPARKIES is now one of the adaptive brands 
available at Walmart and Macy’s. Ms. Kuderska’s garments are 
also available online through her own fashion label.  
Patent Law Clinic students Kathryn Sacca ’22, Natalia Woloszyn 
’22, Courtney Schenck ’23, Timour Chamilov ’24, Evania 
Fotopoulos ’24, Nikhil Vasthare ’24, Colleen McGuiness ’25, 
Juliana Recchia ’26, and Rachel Zakharov ’26 worked with 
Professor Falati to secure Ms. Kuderska’s patent. Our clinic at 
New York Law School is proud to have successfully assisted Ms. 
Kuderska obtain a patent and to be part of her continuing journey 
as she grows her fashion startup brand. 
Patent Law Clinic Client, Alina 
Kuderska
I want to express my extremely positive experience with 
Professor Falati and his team. My company specializes in adaptive 
apparel design for differently-abled individuals, including those 
with mobility and disability challenges. This led me to come up 
with my invention. With NYLS, we successfully navigated all 
stages of obtaining a patent, from the beginning to the end. 
I particularly appreciated how Professor Falati’s team adeptly 
handled communication with the patent office, making it clear and 
accessible for me to respond and provide necessary comments. 
I have no doubt that Professor Falati’s students are receiving the 
right guidance and will soon become great lawyers.
Patent Law Clinic Student, Colleen 
McGuiness ’25
It was a pleasure to work with Ms. Kuderska, learn about her 
incredible personal and professional background, and assist her 
overcome the barriers women-owned small businesses face when 
trying to obtain patents and grow their businesses. Thank you to 
my fellow patent law clinic students and to Professor Falati for 
making this experience one to remember and a highlight of my 
time at law school.
Patent Law Clinic Helps  
Woman-Owned Start-Up Obtain  
Patent in Adaptive Fashion
 Professor Shahrokh Falati ’08  •  Published March 03, 2025
(From left to right) Professor Seve Falati ’08, Juliana Recchia ’26, Alina 
Kuderska (client), Rachel Zakharov ’26, and Colleen McGuiness ’25
Find more NYLS stories at news.nyls.edu.


Patent Law Clinic Helps Woman-Owned Start-Up Obtain Patent in Adaptive Fashion

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1170/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School,

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
9-10-2025 
NYLS Remembers: 24 Years Since September 11, 2001 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
 
Twenty-four years ago, on a bright and clear September morning, the 
unimaginable happened just a few blocks away from New York Law School 
(NYLS). Today, we commemorate the tragedy that shook the world and 
reshaped New York City and the nation. The grief, courage, and resilience 
shown by New Yorkers that day and in the subsequent weeks fueled a national 
determination to recover and rebuild in the face of the most difficult challenges.
Today we remember the members of our community tragically killed in the September 11 attacks: Craig 
Lilore ’98, Weirong Lin ’98, Joseph Lostrangio ’78, and Richard Madden ’92—all of whom were working 
in offices in the World Trade Center. And many in the community suffered the loss of family, friends, 
colleagues, and neighbors among the nearly 3,000 lives lost that day. The NYLS community continues to 
mourn these losses and honor their memories today.
Amidst the tragedy, however, stood the brave and selfless acts of the first responders who rushed into the 
danger to save lives. Among them were NYLS alumni. Kevin Cunnane ’04, a fire marshal, arrived on the 
scene right as the second tower came down. James Brown ’04 and James Kennelly ’02 were firefighters 
in the New York Fire Department and soon joined thousands of rescue workers who came to help. NYLS 
Professor Kirk Burkhalter ’04, an NYPD Detective and Evening Division student at the time, worked 
nonstop, first responding to the scene and working on recovery, followed by counter-terrorism investigations 
to protect the City from further attacks. Professor Burkhalter recounted his experiences in a TV interview and 
also spoke about them four years ago on the 20th anniversary of the attacks.
After the attacks, the NYLS community authored a collective memoir titled Eight Blocks Away. We encourage 
everyone to read the deeply personal reflections from many members of the law school community.
As we do every year on this day, we never forget and honor the bravery and resilience of New York City, the 
nation, and our law school community.
During the next year, New York Law School will take the opportunity to mark the upcoming 25th anniversary 
of the attacks by hosting several programs that remember the City’s and NYLS’s experience and losses as a 
result of these tragic events.
NYLS Remembers: 24 Years 
Since September 11, 2001
NYLS News  •  Published September 10, 2025
Find more NYLS stories at news.nyls.edu.


NYLS Remembers: 24 Years Since September 11, 2001

Wice, Jeffrey M.

English

February 10 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
3-10-2025 
March 10 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
CENSUS & REAPPORTIONMENT 
 
Louisiana, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.: Will 
the Trump Administration Seek to Include Non-citizens in 
Congressional Apportionment? 
 
Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and West Virginia brought this lawsuit in January seeking 
to base congressional apportionment on citizenship instead of residency (or the 
whole number of persons).  
 
On March 2nd, the defendants U.S. Department of Commerce and the Census 
Bureau filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time until March 10th to 
respond to individual voters’ motion to intervene. The defendants had previously 
requested a two-week extension to respond to this motion, of which the Court 
granted on February 19th. However, the defendants argue that since they requested 
this extension, “new leadership has begun to onboard” at the Department of 
Commerce (DOC) and the Census Bureau. As a result, the defendants have “sought 
the views of new leadership about this matter,” and requested another one-week 
extension to confer with these new leaders about the “appropriate response” to this 
motion.  
  
The defendants conferred with all parties and the plaintiffs did not oppose the 
extension. The proposed intervenors on this motion also did not oppose the 
extension, so long as their deadline to file a reply is similarly extended.  
  
On March 4th, the Court granted the defendants’ request for a seven-day extension 
until March 10th to respond. The Court also ordered an extension for the proposed 
intervenors’ deadline. The proposed intervenors will now have seven days after the 
defendants’ response to file a reply to the plaintiffs’ response. In the event that the 
defendants do not respond, then the proposed intervenors will have until March 17th. 
  
On March 3rd, the defendants filed an opposed motion for stay. The defendants 
requested that the Court stay this case, including staying the deadlines regarding the 
responses to pending motions to intervene. The defendants argue that because new 
leadership at the DOC is in the process of onboarding, these leaders have not yet 
had time to determine the DOC’s approach to the Residence Rule and this litigation 
following Trump’s recent issuance of Executive Order 14148.  
  
The defendants therefore requested an extension to have more time to “confer about 
the issues raised in this litigation” with the new DOC leadership. The plaintiffs and 
individual voters (potential intervenors) took no position on the stay. Santa Clara 
County (another potential intervenor) opposed entry of a stay prior to a resolution of 
its pending motion to intervene. 
  
 
 
On March 6th, the case was stayed until further order of the Court. In consideration 
of the stay, the pending motions to intervene were stricken and shall be refiled by the 
Court (as well as the deadlines for any responsive briefing) when the stay is lifted. 
The parties shall file a joint status report on May 2nd, after which the Court will 
schedule a status conference. 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT 
 
Suffolk County Submits Preclearance Request 
  
The Suffolk County Board of Elections submitted a request to preclear the moving of 
early voting poll sites. Details can be found here: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/detail 
s/101. 
 
CENSUS 
 
Register Now for the April 1st N.Y.C. Census 2030 Conference 
  
New York City activists can register now for a conference focused on organizing for 
the 2030 Decennial Census. The event will be held at New York Law School on 
Tuesday, April 1st from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Organizers include New York City 
Council Member Julie Menin (who directed N.Y.C.’s 2020 census effort), the N.Y.C. 
Central Labor Council, and the N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. 
Register here: https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/q19nfln10ghm3va/. 
 
Jan Vink on New Census Bureau Modified Race Data 
  
From Jan Vink, Extension Associate with Cornell University’s Program on Applied 
Demographics: 
  
“(Last week), the Census Bureau released the 2020 Modified Age and Race Census 
(MARC) file. These tables provide data from the 2020 Census in race categories that 
align with those used in vital records and administrative data (which may not include 
“Some Other Race”) and are consistent with those used in the Population Estimates 
Program. Data are available for the nation, states and counties by single year of age, 
sex, race and Hispanic origin.  
  
The Census Bureau developed the MARC file by reassigning responses from the 
“Some Other Race” (SOR) category in the 2020 Census to the five race categories 
defined by the 1997 U.S. Office of Management and Budget revised standards for 
the collection, tabulation and presentation of federal data on race and ethnicity. 
  
See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/rese 
arch/modified-race-data.html for more information including a description of the 
methodology. 
 
This MARC file allows the Census Bureau to 
• Create intercensal estimates by characteristics, that is a time series from 
April 1, 2010, through April 1, 2020, that is consistent with both Censuses. 
 
 
• Further analyze the quality of the 2020 Census by comparing it with the 
Demographic Analysis (DA). 
• Develop a new base for the population estimates. Until now, the Census 
Bureau used the blended base, which only used limited information from the 
2020 Census because the population estimates do not contain an “Other 
race” category. 
 
I started to look at some differences between the estimates. 
  
The sources I used were: 
• V20: Vintage 2020, which contains estimates from what we thought the 
Census counts would be BEFORE the Census was taken; 
• DHC: Census 2020 counts; 
• V23: The blended base population from Vintage 2023; and 
• MARC: The new MARC file. 
 
Findings on Race 
 
Estimates of New York State Population by Race 
    V20 DHC V23 MARC 
Total Population 19,368,365 20,201,249 20,202,320 20,201,205 
Non-
Hispanic 
White 10,672,718 10,598,907 11,028,683 10,846,387 
Black 2,790,777 2,759,022 2,944,493 2,868,207 
AIAN 57,805 54,908 59,663 61,052 
Asian 1,739,776 1,916,329 1,837,656 1,966,061 
Pacific Islander 9,212 6,097 9,562 8,750 
Other - 197,107 - - 
Two or more 
races 
360,170 720,847 375,517 502,744 
Hispanic 3,737,908 3,948,032 3,946,746 3,948,004 
  
The blended base (V23) generally used the total population and the total Hispanic 
population from the Census (DHC) for the blended base, but also used the race 
composition from V20. 
  
Most noticeable in this table are: 
• The Non-Hispanic Asian population, where the Census count was a lot higher 
than the 2020 Vintage and resulted in a blended base number lower than the 
Census. The MARC file is much closer to the DHC. 
• The “Other race” group that is only in the DHC were assigned a different race 
in the MARC file. 
• The Census count for the “Two or more race” category was a lot higher in the 
2020 Census than predicted in V20. This is partly due to the difference in 
collecting and processing race information which resulted in higher “Two or 
more race” counts. There were around 240,000 people in the Census that 
were “Other Race” and something else.  In the MARC file, many of them will 
 
 
now be single race and thus creates the drop in Non-Hispanic “two or more 
races” in the MARC file. 
 
If the MARC file was used instead of the blended base, the current estimates of race 
distribution would look a bit different which has impact on the ACS controls and 
denominators used in things like health. 
  
Findings on Sex 
 
  DHC V23 MARC 
Male 9,770,361 9,868,155 9,770,392 
Female 10,430,888 10,334,165 10,430,813 
Sex ratio (males per 
100 females) 93.7 95.5 93.7 
The blended base had relatively more males than the Census. In the MARC file, the 
ratio is equal to the Census. 
 
Findings on Age 
  
The Census age counts show a lot of age heaping, reflecting by peaks at ages 
ending in a 0 or a 5. The chat shows that the MARC file smoothed those peaks, but 
the overall pattern is very similar than that of the Census. 
  
However, compared with the blended base, there are some noticeable differences. 
The Census counted fewer young children that the blended base shows. There are 
multiple publications that study this problem. The blended base numbers are largely 
based on a count of recent birth certificates and are considered of higher quality than 
the Census. 
  
From age 15 through 30, the blended base is noticeably lower than the Census and 
for ages 40 through 60 higher. Differences are not as pronounced at older ages and 
left out of the chart. 
  
The BERT (Base Evaluation Research Team) at the Census Bureau will now have 
the difficult task to determine what elements from the MARC file to use in future 
estimates. Taking the age distribution from the MARC file “as is” will probably have 
some consequences for ACS controls and denominators, but also in the estimates 
process as especially domestic migration uses the age distribution to create age 
specific outflows and inflows. 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
ILLINOIS: The Illinois Supreme Court “looks poised” to review whether the state’s 
current legislative maps unconstitutionally favor the Democratic Party. Illinois House 
Minority Leader Tony McCombie (R) and five Republican voters filed this lawsuit in 
January, alleging that the state House map—drawn by the Illinois Legislature after 
the release of 2020 census data, then approved by the governor in September 
2021—is a partisan gerrymander that unfairly favors Democrats.  
 
 
  
The lawsuit argues that the statewide vote totals for the Democratic and Republican 
Parties have a “large discrepancy” with the percentage of seats they won. While 
Democratic candidates won fifty-five percent of the statewide vote in November 
2024, they won a supermajority of the state House districts (more than sixty-six 
percent). The lawsuit also claims that the state House map violates the Free and 
Equal Election Clause of the Illinois Constitution, including its requirement that 
legislative districts be “compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population.”  
  
The plaintiffs have now asked the Illinois Supreme Court to strike down the current 
map and appoint a “Special Master” to “draft a valid and constitutionally acceptable 
redistricting plan.” 
  
MISSISSIPPI: Pending court approval, five Mississippi House seats will now be 
redecided in a November special election. This special election comes in response to 
an order from a federal three-judge panel, which determined last year that the Illinois 
Legislature did not create enough Black-majority districts when it redrew its 
legislative maps. The panel ordered Illinois to redraw its districts to create an 
additional majority-Black district in Chickasaw County. As a result, the state 
legislature approved a resolution for a November special election even though the 
five legislators were just elected in 2023. 
  
The House plan will not require incumbent legislators to run against one another. 
The primary change in the new map will make the District 22 seat in Chickasaw 
County a majority-Black voter district. The state legislature also voted to redraw 
House District 16, House District 36, House District 39, and House District 41. The 
current legislators for these districts (in order) include Jon Lancaster, Rickey 
Thompson, Karl Gibbs, Dana McLean, and Kabir Karriem.  
  
According to the resolution, the qualifying period will begin on May 19th and end on 
May 30th. The primary election will be held on August 5th, with a potential primary 
runoff on September 2nd. The general election will then take place on November 
4th.  
  
Additionally, the federal courts have ordered the Mississippi Senate to redraw its 
districts and create a Black-majority district in the areas encompassing DeSoto 
County and Hattiesburg. Once the state legislature passes a redistricting plan, the 
federal courts must approve. 
  
NORTH CAROLINA: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of 
North Carolina have submitted an amicus brief in the North Carolina Court of 
Appeals, asking the court to reject Judge Jefferson Griffin’s attempt to “invalidate” 
65,500 ballots cast by North Carolina voters in the 2024 state Supreme Court race. 
  
Although the election remains uncertified, it is undisputed that incumbent Justice 
Allison Riggs received 734 more votes than Judge Griffin in the 2024 election. 
However, after the election, Griffin filed a petition alleging that “the North Carolina 
Board of Elections had, for nearly two decades, improperly accepted voter 
registrations without the inclusion of a driver’s license or social security number.” The 
petition also alleged that “the board had improperly invited and accepted overseas 
 
 
absentee ballots without requiring photo identification.” As a result, Griffin asked the 
state’s courts to reject 65,500 ballots.  
  
The ACLU and ACLU-NC’s amicus brief argues that negating 65,000 votes would 
violate the North Carolina Constitution and “binding precedents” from the North 
Carolina Supreme Court because the state’s voters “relied on these longstanding 
and formal practices.” The brief also argues that Griffin’s petition shows no evidence 
that these 65,500 voters (if properly instructed), “would have failed to register and 
vote using what the petition deems the right procedures.” According to this brief, 
“Even if the board had implemented unlawful procedures—which, as the board and 
the respondent have shown, it did not—otherwise eligible voters should not pay for 
those procedural errors.” 
  
TEXAS: The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped its claims 
against Texas. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 by the DOJ (under the Biden 
administration) and alleged that Texas’s newly enacted congressional and legislative 
maps violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). The DOJ claimed 
that the redistricting plans, which were drawn using 2020 census data, ignored the 
growing minority population in Texas and consequently diluted the voting power of 
these communities. The lawsuit was later consolidated with several lawsuits that 
involved similar claims. 
  
In late January, a federal judge ordered the DOJ to inform the court whether the 
DOJ, now under the Trump administration, planned to continue their claims against 
the state. In his order, District Court Judge Jerry E. Smith cited Pam Bondi’s 
appointment as Attorney General and the DOJ’s order to freeze its Civil Rights 
Division as “possible influence” that the DOJ may have changed their position in this 
lawsuit. Judges customarily do not ask the DOJ to restate their position in any 
ongoing litigation because of a change in administration.  
  
Although the DOJ has dismissed their claims, litigation is still ongoing. Pro-voting 
groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, Mi Familia Vota, and 
the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project will continue their lawsuits 
against the current state maps. Trial on this issue is tentatively set for May.  
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund and the 
New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice & Alexis 
Marking. 


March 10 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
3-24-2025 
March 24 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. ELECTIONS, CENSUS & REDISTRICTING UPDATE 
 
ELECTION LAW 
 
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn): Walden v. Kosinski 
et al. (Mayoral Race) 
 
On March 14th, a hearing on New York City mayoral candidate Jim Walden’s motion 
for a preliminary injunction was held. At the hearing, the State Board of Elections 
stated the following: (1) although the State BOE has a position on whether N.Y. Elec. 
Law § 2-124, the Provision for Party Names and Emblems (the “Party Names 
Provision”), applies to independent bodies, it will not impose its position on the City 
BOE; (2) the State BOE will not seek to enforce this provision against Walden; and 
(3) the State BOE has no involvement in printing the N.Y.C. mayoral election ballots 
and, “thus, cannot subsequently exclude Walden from the ballot after the City BOE 
accepts his independent nominating petition.”  
 
At the time of this hearing, the City BOE still had not taken a position. The City BOE 
was directed to file a letter by March 17th to inform the Court of its position regarding 
the enforcement of the Party Names Provision against Walden. As stated by the 
Court, “To the extent that the City BOE, like the State BOE, determines that it does 
not intend to seek to enforce the Party Names Provision against Plaintiff, as an 
independent body, it must so state.” On March 18th, counsel for the city Board of 
Elections filed a letter with the court indicating that the board lacks the authority to 
take any position on the constitutionality of the state law and that it takes no position 
with regard to the clams in this case. 
 
Court of Appeals: Fossella v. Adams: New York City Non-
Citizen Voting Rejected 
  
In a 6-1 ruling, the New York Court of Appeals has decided that “the New York 
Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.” The 
Court further stated, “We hold that Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution limits voting 
to citizens, and affirm on that ground.” 
  
This appeal to the Court was requested by the New York City Council—which 
approved Local Law No. 11 (2022)—after an appellate court ruled in February 2024 
that the law violated the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Law. Oral 
arguments were heard by the Court of Appeals on February 11, 2025. Oral 
arguments focused on two issues: what exactly qualifies an individual as a “citizen,” 
and that New York City officials “did not hold a referendum to facilitate a home-rule 
law that aims to allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections.”  
  
Local Law No. 11 (2022) would have authorized certain non-citizens to vote in local 
elections, including more than 800,000 green card holders and other residents with 
federal work authorization. Under this law, individuals could vote for mayor, borough 
 
 
president, comptroller, public advocate, and council members in municipal elections. 
New York City never actually implemented this 2022 law. As a result of this ruling, 
the law will not go into effect.  
 
Automatic Voter Registration Rules Released for Review 
  
It has been a long and difficult road for automatic voter registration in New York. In 
2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo approved a law that would automatically 
register New York residents to vote when they get a driver’s license or register to 
receive benefits from the state. Funding for the system’s implementation was 
temporarily frozen in 2020 due to the pandemic and resources were diverted to 
support the extensive mail-in voting needed that year. Finally, after a series of delays 
the state government appears poised to implement automatic voter registration. 
  
Proposed regulations were recently released by the State Board of Elections and are 
subject to public comment through May 5th, 2025. If the proposed regulations are 
approved, eligible New York residents will have their information transmitted from 
certain state agencies to the state Board of Elections when they take a specific 
action. These actions include whenever anyone submits an application for services 
at the agency, files a change of address form, or files a change of name form. 
Agencies would also fold a voter registration form into their application form for their 
services. This would allow a New York resident to easily register to vote when 
routinely applying for government services.  
  
After the voter registration applications are filed the eligibility of the applicant is 
verified by election officials. If an applicant’s signature does not match what the 
election official has on file, the application would still be accepted unless there was 
another reason to reject it. If there is no signature at all, the applicant would have to 
add one at their local Board of Elections or they would have to vote via an affidavit 
ballot on Election Day. 
  
Originally, the automatic voter registration was supposed to only apply to forms filed 
with the state Department of Motor Vehicles. However, several more agencies are to 
begin participating in the program including the Department of Health, the Office of 
Temporary and Disability Assistance, the Department of Labor, and the Office of 
Adult Career and Continuing Education Services. Registrants under Medicaid would 
also be eligible for the program.  
  
Additionally, Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris has introduced 
legislation that would change how voters would be able to opt out of this new system. 
Instead of being able to opt out at the point of service, residents would now receive a 
letter in the mail allowing them to opt out after the fact. The proposal has passed the 
Senate but so far does not have any sponsors in the Assembly. 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT 
 
Attorney General Receives Preclearance Submissions 
  
 
 
The Attorney General’s Civil Rights Bureau received preclearance submissions from 
the N.Y.C. Board of Elections, the Nassau County Board of Elections, and the 
Onondaga County Board of Elections. All relate to early voting or election day poll 
site issues. The submissions can be accessed by visiting this link: https://oagcloud.a 
g.ny.gov/s/iGGaDQy9E8Xty6K. Enter the password: Preclearance2025! 
 
CENSUS 
 
April 1st N.Y.C. Census 2030 Conference 
  
New York City activists can register now for a conference focused on organizing for 
the 2030 Decennial Census. The event will be held at New York Law School on 
Tuesday, April 1st from 9:00 AM to Noon. Organizers include New York City Council 
Member Julie Menin (who directed N.Y.C.’s 2020 census effort), the N.Y.C. Central 
Labor Council, and the N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. Register 
here: https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/q19nfln10ghm3va/. 
 
AROUND THE NATION 
 
LOUISIANA: Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether to leave 
Louisiana’s congressional map in place.  
  
This case centers on Louisiana’s response to a federal district court’s ruling in 2022, 
which stated that Louisiana was likely violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by 
only having one majority-Black district. The case went to the Supreme Court and was 
sent back to the lower court, where the court held that Louisiana was required to 
redraw the map by January 2024 or otherwise go to trial. The state believed that a 
trial would result in the court imposing its own map, so the Louisiana Legislature 
went into a special session and drew a new map that included a second majority-
Black district. 
  
However, after the map was signed into law, a group of “non-African Americans” (as 
they identified themselves), sued Louisiana and alleged that the new map was an 
unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge panel in the Western Louisiana 
District Court ruled in favor and blocked the new map from being used. Louisiana 
appealed and received an emergency stay from the Supreme Court in May 2024 to 
block the lower court’s injunction.  
  
This case has now returned to the Supreme Court. The question is whether the 
three-judge court erred in enjoining Louisiana’s map as an unconstitutional racial 
gerrymander. Supreme Court precedent provides states with “breathing room” to 
redraw voting districts with racial communities in mind when there is a “good reason” 
for the state to believe they must do so to comply with the VRA’s voting protections. 
Here, Louisiana argues that it was trapped between contrary court orders due to the 
three-judge court, which undermined its ability to create a compliant map. 
  
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is expected by the end of June. 
 
 
 
 
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants 
from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund  and the 
New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice, Alexis Marking& 
Michael Athy. 
 


March 24 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1145/thumbnail.jp

Bancamper, Jennifer

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
5-6-2025 
Book Talk: Hon. Diane Kiesel Dives Deep into Law, Celebrity, and 
Scandal 
Jennifer Bancamper 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
 
On March 20, members of the New York Law School (NYLS) community gathered for 
a captivating book talk by NYLS adjunct professor Hon. Diane Kiesel. Professor Kiesel 
brought to life the sensational story behind her new book, When Charlie Met Joan: The 
Tragedy of the Chaplin Trials and the Failings of American Law.
Professor Kiesel transported the audience back to 1940s Hollywood, when the world-famous actor Charlie 
Chaplin found himself in a years-long legal battle involving a young aspiring actress named Joan Barry. “At 
its core, this is a juicy story of Old Hollywood,” said Professor Kiesel. “But it’s more. It’s about the power of 
celebrity, how law trails science, the weaponization of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, and the way women have 
always been exploited in Hollywood.”
Outlining the events detailed in her book, Professor Kiesel described how, in 1944, Chaplin was indicted for 
violating the Mann Act—a law prohibiting the transport of a woman across state lines for “immoral purposes.” 
The charge stemmed from his brief yet tumultuous affair with Barry, who accused him of inviting her from New 
York to California to continue their extramarital relationship. The FBI, already suspicious of Chaplin due to his 
political outspokenness, aggressively pursued the case. While he was ultimately acquitted of the Mann Act 
charges, Chaplin later lost a paternity suit brought about by Barry, and was legally obligated to pay child support 
for a child that wasn’t biologically his.
Contextualizing the case in terms of gender and the law, Professor Kiesel shed light on the misconduct of the 
judge who presided over the case, the outdated paternity laws that led to a miscarriage of justice, and how 
Barry’s story mirrored the broader exploitation and marginalization of women in Hollywood.
The event concluded with a lively Q&A, during which Kiesel shared that her interest in the topic began 
while researching custody and domestic violence cases. What started as a legal footnote grew into a full 
investigation, spanning court transcripts, FBI files, and personal accounts. “When I discovered Chaplin paid 
child support for 21 years for a child that wasn’t biologically his,” she said, “I knew something had gone terribly 
wrong. And I had to find out how.”
Following a career as a political journalist, Professor Kiesel served as a law clerk to two federal judges in 
Baltimore, worked as an associate at the Wall Street firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, and spent a decade as an 
Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, where she eventually rose to Deputy 
Chief of the Child Abuse Unit. In 1999, she was appointed to the bench of the New York City Criminal Court, 
and later went on to serve nearly 25 years as Acting Supreme Court Justice in both Bronx County and New 
York County before retiring in 2023. Professor Kiesel is also the author of Domestic Violence: Law, Policy and 
Practice (two editions) and She Can Bring Us Home: Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, Civil Rights Pioneer. She 
has taught legal writing and domestic violence law at NYLS since 1992.
Book Talk: Hon. Diane Kiesel 
Dives Deep into Law, Celebrity, 
and Scandal
Jennifer Bancamper  •  Published May 6, 2025
Find more NYLS stories at news.nyls.edu.


New York Law School

Not a member yet

Richard Evangelists | 9/11 Student Hero Award | 2002 Spring Benefit Gala Photos

Canada Submits to China\u27s Algorithmic Colonialism

No, Trump Is Not “Transactional”

PROGRESS REPORT: Education Justice 50 Years After Goss v. Lopez

Patent Law Clinic Helps Woman-Owned Start-Up Obtain Patent in Adaptive Fashion

NYLS Remembers: 24 Years Since September 11, 2001

February 10 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

March 10 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

March 24 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

Book Talk: Hon. Diane Kiesel Dives Deep into Law, Celebrity, and Scandal

11,204

14,324