New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1149/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School,

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
5-22-2025 
New York Law School Receives Accreditation From Middle States 
Commission on Higher Education 
New York Law School 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Recommended Citation 
New York Law School, "New York Law School Receives Accreditation From Middle States Commission on 
Higher Education" (2025). NYLS Community News. 205. 
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/205 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History & Archives at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has 
been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Community News by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. 
For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu. 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
 
New York Law School Now Able to Offer New Innovative Graduate Programs
New York Law School (NYLS) is proud to announce that it has received institutional accreditation from the 
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE).
With this action by the Commission, NYLS is now accredited by both the MSCHE and American Bar 
Association. The NYLS accreditation team was led by Matt Gewolb, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs 
and Institutional Strategy, and Professor of Law.
Dean and President Anthony W. Crowell said, “This is a landmark moment in the 134-year history of New York 
Law School. Dual accreditation allows us to expand our educational offerings at a time of profound economic, 
legal, technological, and regulatory transformation. It reaffirms our commitment to delivering exceptional 
legal education while empowering us to innovate in ways that meet the evolving needs of our students and 
the broader community. I am grateful to Dean Matt Gewolb for leading the diligent work of achieving this 
accreditation, which will benefit our institution for years to come.”
The new MSCHE accreditation will provide new avenues for NYLS to develop educational programs not only 
for legal practitioners, but also for professionals who work alongside lawyers or in law-adjacent fields. As 
an independent institution, NYLS now also has the flexibility to create robust interdisciplinary programs and 
degrees typically available at law schools within larger universities. This expanded capacity will provide new 
educational opportunities for working professionals seeking to advance their skills and serve their communities.
Arthur Abbey ’59, Chair of the NYLS Board of Trustees, said: “The Board is grateful to Dean Crowell, Dean 
Gewolb, and the entire team who made this possible. This additional accreditation reflects New York Law 
School’s innovative spirit and legacy of academic excellence. We are positioned to create exciting programs that 
will further serve lawyers and other professionals in a rapidly transforming economy.”
Senior Associate Dean Matt Gewolb said, “Our Middle States accreditation is the result of years of work that 
demonstrated that New York Law School is well positioned to offer cutting-edge programs to serve a wide range 
of professionals. We look forward to providing new opportunities for crucial knowledge and skill development that 
will make a meaningful difference in their careers. I thank my colleagues William LaPiana, Jill Bezel, Joan Fishman, 
Florence Hutner, Rachel Munson, and Michael Siller for their work to help make this happen.”
In addition, the accreditation enables LL.M. students and those in other programs beyond the J.D. to access 
federal financial aid. It also provides greater assurance for all students amid ongoing changes in the regulatory 
environment for higher education.
New York Law School Receives 
Accreditation From Middle States 
Commission on Higher Education
New York Law School  •  Published May 22, 2025
Find more NYLS stories at news.nyls.edu.


English

New York Law School Receives Accreditation From Middle States Commission on Higher Education

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/impact_conference_materials/1000/thumbnail.jp

Education Rights Institute

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Conference/Symposium CLE materials Wilf Impact Center for Public Interest Law 
3-2025 
Understanding the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter from 
the Office for Civil Rights Regarding Title VI and Race 
Discrimination in Schools 
Education Rights Institute 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/impact_conference_materials 
March 2025
The Education Rights Institute (ERI) shares this brief  document to assist district leaders in K-12 schools in 
understanding the Dear Colleague Letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 
on February 14, 2025. For a more complete analysis of these complex issues, we encourage you to watch the Brookings 
Institution’s webinar: What Do Education Leaders Need to Know about the Department of Education’s New Guidance on 
Race and Civil Rights?
What is a Dear Colleague Letter? 
Federal agencies author “Dear Colleague” letters to signal or give notice about how the
agency interprets existing law. As the letter itself states, a Dear Colleague letter “does not have
the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.” 
How Does Title VI Apply to Districts? 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, class, or national origin at any 
institution that receives federal funds. This prohibition applies broadly to all the programs and activities of such 
institutions, including but not limited to:
For more information on Title VI, see Title VI for K-12 District Leaders and Preventing and Remedying Race, Color, and 
National Origin Discrimination in Schools: A Primer on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
What did the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) case decide? 
In SFFA, the United States Supreme Court decided that considering an individual student’s race when
determining admission to a selective higher education institution, sometimes called affirmative action, violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 
How does the Dear Colleague Letter Differ from Existing Civil Rights Law? 
The Dear Colleague letter attempts to broaden the applicability of SFFA and reinterpret existing civil rights protections and thus 
violates its own terms in trying to “create new legal standards.” For example, consider the table on the back page that compares the 
Dear Colleague letter and existing civil rights law. 
UVA SCHOOL of LAW Education Rights Institute 
Understantllng the February 14, 2025 Dear Collea:gue Letter from 
the Office for Civ_il R_ig!J,ts ]!.egq,rtllng Title VI and Race 
D1scr1minat1on in Schools 
• ffllT 
Academic 
Programs 
Employment 
Physical 
Education 
Admissions 
Financial Aid 
Recreation 
Athletics 
Grading 
Recruitment 
Classroom 
Assignment 
Guidance 
Counseling 
Student 
Treatment & 
Services 
Discipline 
Housing 
Vocational 
Education 
--- ---- - -----
Dear Colleague Letter Existing Civil Rights Law
“[R]ace-based decision-making, no matter the 
form, remains impermissible.”
An action that considers race violates Title VI only if  it intentionally discriminates 
or results in unlawful disparate impact discrimination. [1]
“[E]ducational institutions may neither separate or 
segregate students based on race.” 
The OCR FAQ explains that programs that focus on particular cultures as well as 
historical and educational observances remain permissible if  they are open and 
inviting to all students and do not create a hostile environment. 
“Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from 
using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, 
hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, 
scholarships, prizes, administrative support, 
discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all 
other aspects of student, academic, and campus 
life.” 
SFFA affirmed that for selective admissions “nothing in this opinion should be 
construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of 
how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or 
otherwise.” [2] SFFA did not address these other areas of educational institutions.
“It would, for instance, be unlawful for an 
educational institution to eliminate standardized 
testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to 
increase racial diversity.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that those who want to pursue a 
permissible race-related goal must give “serious, good faith consideration of 
workable race-neutral alternatives.”[3] The Supreme Court has not stated that the 
described change would be unlawful and rejected the opportunity to review a case 
that upheld such an action.[4]
The letter criticizes “diversity, equity, and 
inclusion” of being discriminatory and “smuggling 
racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness 
into everyday training, programming, and 
discipline.”
Many efforts to increase the diversity of schools and make them more equitable 
and inclusive spaces are lawful under Title VI. Such efforts can challenge 
stereotypes. A district should assess how its policies or practices affects students 
of different races as it reviews whether they impose a disparate impact that 
violates Title VI.
“Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil 
rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face 
potential loss of federal funding.”
Applicable federal law and policy requires a lengthy process in order for OCR to 
revoke federal funds. This process is discussed in ERI’s Title VI Primer.
What are the Next Steps for School Districts? 
District legal counsel should use this opportunity to review district and school policies and practices to ensure that they 
comply with Title VI, rather than the misinterpretations of Title VI in the Dear Colleague letter. Districts should avoid 
overreacting to the Dear Colleague letter.
District legal counsel should provide clear explanations to district employees of what Title VI permits and prohibits. ERI 
provides short videos and reports to increase understanding of Title VI.
Follow the legal challenge that has been filed against the enforcement of the Dear Colleague letter.[5]
OCR may attempt to enforce the Dear Colleague letter’s interpretation of Title VI. Targeted enforcement may occur, but the 
longstanding underfunding of OCR along with recent staffing cuts will greatly limit OCR’s enforcement capacity. 
Districts should respond to any OCR inquiry and reaffirm applicable Title VI law, if  necessary, in court.
Learn more about ERI’s work, sign up for our newsletter, and view our additional resources at law.virginia.edu/education. 
[1] See Title VI for K-12 District Leaders for a succinct summary of disparate treatment and disparate impact prohibitions in Title VI.                                                                   
[2] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181, 230 (2023).                                                                                                                 
[3] Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle, 551 U.S. 701, 704 (2007) (majority opinion of Chief Justice Roberts) (quoting Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 
306, 339 (2003)).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
[4] For example, in 2023, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the decision in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, 68 F.4th 864 (4th Cir. 
2023), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Fairfax County School Board’s decision to change its 
policy for admission to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology to increase diversity.                                                                                                                      
[5] American Federation of Teachers et al. v. U.S. Department of Education was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on February 
25, 2025.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 


Understanding the February 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter from the Office for Civil Rights Regarding Title VI and Race Discrimination in Schools

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/impact_conference_materials/1004/thumbnail.jp

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Conference/Symposium CLE materials Wilf Impact Center for Public Interest Law 
3-2025 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for K-12 District Leaders 
Education Rights Institute 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/impact_conference_materials 
March 2025
This summary aims to provide K-12 district leaders, including school board members and district sta , a brief 
introduction to the prohibitions of race, color, and national origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, so that they can understand how this law should inform their work. A more detailed explanation of Title VI 
may be found in A Primer on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the Education Rights Institute (ERI). The page 
numbers throughout point you to where in the report you can find more detailed information.
Understanding Title VI
What is Title VI?
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any 
program or activity that receives federal funding. School districts are required to comply with Title VI. The O ce for 
Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice have traditionally enforced 
Title VI. Private plainti s may also sue in federal court when they allege intentional discrimination occurred in 
violation of Title VI (pp. 5-6).
What Does “Discrimination” Under Title VI Look Like? There are two types of discrimination that 
are prohibited under Title VI.
Disparate Treatment (pp. 11-13): Intentional 
discrimination, where someone is treated di erently 
because of their race, color, or national origin.
Disparate Impact (pp. 14-16): A neutral policy or 
practice has a disproportionate negative e ect on 
individuals of a certain race, color, or national origin.
To identify an unlawful disparate impact, courts created a three-part test that asks:
Does the policy/ practice
disproportionately and
adversely affect
individuals of a certain
race, color, or national
origin?
Is it necessary to
meet an
important
educational goal?
The policy/ practice is
unlawful, 
including if the
justification is a cover
for discrimination.
Is there a comparably
effective policy/practice
that can achieve the
educational goal while it
reduces/ eliminates the
disparate impact?
The policy/practice
is lawful.
The district should
typically employ the
less harmful policy/
practice. 
if yes if yes if yes
if not
if not
The policy/practice
is lawful.
if not
Disparate impact can exist even if not malicious. Title VI also prohibits retaliation for raising a Title VI issue.
What Programs or Activities Are Subject to Title VI? They include but are not limited to:
Academic 
Programs Athletics
Classroom
Assignment Discipline Grading
TTITA SCHOOL ef LAW 
U V .l"\.. Education Rights Institute 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
for K-12 District Leaders 
,____I- _ ______,I ..____I- _ ______, 
- ... ~ - L - r--i __ ] 
Identifying and Remedying Discrimination
Why Should K-12 Leaders Aim to Understand Title VI?
School district leaders should be aware of what Title VI requires so that they can assist in assessing whether district 
and school policies and practices serve all students well and what reforms could and should be made when they do 
not. For example, consider whether your district:  
Ensures that multilingual learners receive equal, meaningful access to school programming and services.
Imposes disciplinary policies consistently and fairly. Schools or districts may unknowingly impose harsher 
penalties for students of a certain race, color, or national origin. 
Supports equal educational opportunity through access to gifted and talented and advanced courses.
Fosters and maintains a school and district environment that signals that race, color, or national origin 
harassment is unacceptable and immediately investigates, remedies, and prevents its recurrence.
What are the Benefits of Complying with Title VI?
Each student thrives when equal educational opportunity serves as a guiding principle.
All students benefit from supportive school environments that prevent and remedy discrimination.
School districts avoid lawsuits and lengthy and costly investigations by OCR (pg. 21-22).
What Happens When a District Violates Title VI?
OCR has historically processed complaints through the process outlined in Figure 1 (pp. 17-19). The district under 
investigation may request to settle the matter by entering into a Resolution Agreement at any time prior to the 
conclusion of the investigation if OCR deems such an agreement appropriate.
Fact: In 2023, OCR received 19,201 complaints, over double the number received in 2021. Over 12,500 
complaints were K-12 related and 18% of all complaints (3,526) implicated Title VI.
How is OCR Interpreting Title VI in 2025?
On February 14, 2025, OCR released a Dear Colleague Letter with guidance on the interpretation of Title VI and 
released Frequently Asked Questions to further explain this guidance on February 28, 2025. For more information, 
see our response, Understanding the Dear Colleague Letter. We also recommend watching this webinar hosted by 
the Brookings Institution for education leaders in response to the Dear Colleague letter.
The Education Rights Institute provides videos and resources that aim to increase the 
understanding of and compliance with Title VI. You may access our resources at 
law.virginia.edu/education and sign up for our newsletter to receive new resources as we publish 
them.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
CD 
--- ---- ------ ------
Figure 1. OCR Title VI Enforcement Process 
Letter of 
Findings& 
Proposed 
Resolution 
Agreement 
Resolution 
Agreement 
Signed 
No Settlement 
or Resolulion 
Reached 
case 
MonilOfing 
Letterol 
Impending 
Enforcement 
Action 
Case Closed: 
Title VI 
compliance 
achieved 
Case referred 
toDOJ!or 
judicial 
enforcement of 
Title VI 
compliance 
Administrative 
proceeding to 
suspend/ 
terminate Title 
VI funding 


Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for K-12 District Leaders

Sheet 425A, Photo Box 4
Photographer: Rick Kopsteinhttps://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/rsandler/1002/thumbnail.jp

Professor Ross Sandler

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news/1165/thumbnail.jp

Gillingham, Allison

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
NYLS Community News History & Archives 
8-11-2025 
Top Marks for NYLS in preLaw Magazine 
Allison Gillingham 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/community_news 
Since 1891
WE ARE NEW YORK’S LAW SCHOOL
Alternative Dispute Resolution: “A”
From business law to family law, today’s lawyers have a wide range 
of options to resolve conflicts outside of traditional courtroom 
settings, which is why NYLS provides students with numerous 
opportunities to study and train in the three core alternative dispute 
resolution processes—negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.
Our ADR Skills Program provides students with the necessary skills 
to navigate and excel in this evolving practice area, empowering 
them to become effective negotiators and problem-solvers. Students 
can advance their study in areas of conflict avoidance, management, 
and resolution and develop practical skills in area-specific dispute 
resolution regimes such as employment, securities, and family 
law dispute resolution. A focused externship program also affords 
students opportunities to observe and participate in actual arbitration 
and mediation procedures and to develop professional contacts.
Intellectual Property Law: “A”
NYLS also stands out in the area of intellectual property law, offering 
a rigorous and forward-thinking program that prepares students 
to handle the demands of this practice area with innovation and 
creativity. Through foundational and specialized courses, including 
Intellectual Property, Patent Law, and Intellectual Property Licensing 
and Drafting, students gain a deeper understanding of the practice. 
They also benefit from a range of clinics, externships, and other 
experiential learning opportunities that engage them in real-world 
issues that prepare them to successfully launch their career.
Our Innovation Center for Law and Technology provides law students 
with a cutting-edge approach to education and skills training in 
intellectual property and other intersections of law and technology. 
Through projects, events, and research, the Innovation Center brings 
together practitioners, students, and scholars to create the future of 
legal practice, and graduates leave the program prepared to navigate 
complex legal challenges at the intersection of law and technology.
Clinics and Experiential Learning at NYLS
Experiential learning is an essential part of your legal training, and 
NYLS’s wide range of clinics and experiential learning opportunities 
are designed to ensure you’re confident and practice-ready in areas 
of ADR, intellectual property, and beyond.
Students interested in pursuing intellectual property law can 
participate in clinics like the PTO Trademark Clinic or the Patent Law 
Clinic to gain hands-on experience in the practice. Law students 
in the PTO Trademark Clinic recently partnered with the Nonprofit 
and Small Business Clinic to provide local entrepreneurs and small 
business owners with vital information to legally safeguarding their 
businesses. The Patent Law Clinic assists inventors in a variety of 
fields, including adaptive fashion and medical technology, to obtain 
U.S. patents for their inventions. preLaw highlighted one of the 
Patent Law Clinic’s successes in securing a patent for a client who 
created a new exercise device. Students interested in ADR-related 
careers can benefit from the Mediation Clinic, which provides 
students with intensive training before placing them in cohorts to 
perform mediation work on actual New York Small Claims Court 
matters throughout the semester.
Students can also hone their appellate advocacy, brief-writing, and 
ADR skills by joining one of our moot court and competition teams, 
which offer numerous opportunities to compete nationally and 
internationally. In the past semester, NYLS’s Moot Court Association 
(MCA) and Dispute Resolution Team (DRT) have excelled across 
multiple national competitions, earning top honors.
Nationally Recognized Academic Programs
We’re proud to be recognized by preLaw not only as a top school in 
alternative dispute resolution and intellectual property but as a top 
school in government law (A+), real estate law (A), and trial advocacy 
(A-); racial justice (A-), business law (A-), and criminal law (A-); and 
technology law (top 20), family law (A+), and human rights law (A).
Top Marks for NYLS in 
preLaw Magazine
Allison Gillingham  •  Published  August 11, 2025
At New York Law School (NYLS), we take an innovative approach to legal education and we’re proud to train our students 
in practice areas that prepare them for the future. We’re delighted that the Spring 2025 issue of preLaw magazine has 
recognized our outstanding programs in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and intellectual property (IP) law.
Find more NYLS stories at news.nyls.edu.


Top Marks for NYLS in preLaw Magazine

NYLS Law Review 
Volume 69 
Issue 2 Volume 69, No. 2, 2025 Article 3 
January 2025 
Masthead Page 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review 
 Part of the Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Masthead Page, 69 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 5 (2025). 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please 
contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu. 
New York Law School Law Review
VOLUME 69 • 2024/25
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Joseph Capio
MANAGING EDITOR
Colin Smith
EXECUTIVE EDITORS
Ryen Cinski Zachary Kimmick Ethan Schaer
STAFF EDITORS 
Hussain Abidi
Keehle Amicon
Julia Applefeld
Logan Arlen
Vanessa Belford
Morgan Celentano
Elizabeth Cox
Megan Crocco
Emilie Delannes-molka
Brianna Evans-sheehan
Monica Fainshtein
Jeremy Gonzales-gottlieb
Ariana Hartnell
Megan Johannesen
Samuel Krull
Kyle Lometti
Gabriella Magras
Mikaela Mahaney
Colin McNamara
Grady Miller
Sean O’Connor
Cindy Park
Stephen Pepe
Dakota Risi
Andrew Shenberg
Dylan Shusterman
Michael Sutnick
Faigy Wilmowsky 
Esfandiar Zoujaji
FACULTY PUBLISHER
Michelle E. Zierler
JUNIOR STAFF EDITORS
Jessica Anastasia
Gabrielle Angelle
Julie Angevine Fernandez
Emma Brammer
Jessie Carvelli
Sarah Chan
Alfred Cirelli
Shane Culgan
Charlotte Danquah
Emily Dillman
Hailey Freilich
Katherine Grabowski
Kristen Grennan
Vanessa Haselkorn
Kelly Johnson
Nicholas Juvelier
Anthony Kassis
Sam Kim
Itamar Kofman
Hailey Kraft
Marcin Luczaj 
Isaac Maya
Mary McCafferty
Timothy McCormick
Beau van der Meulen
Kennedy Mull
Anne Marie Mulligan
Erika Narod
Peter Nemeh
Ashley Oliver
Brian Paroff
Adley Raboy
Wyatt Reiter
Peter Rotondo
Mary Campbell Rouse
Kate Sabiston
Allen Shumunov
Yuchen Sun
John West
Rebekka Wiedenmeyer 
Rhiannon Wright
Nicole Zlatokrasov
Jamie Zwirn
ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR
Alexandra McCloy
DIGITAL REFERENCE EDITOR
Carmen Huang
DEVELOPMENT EDITOR
Gabriella Landicino
EXECUTIVE NOTES & COMMENTS EDITORS EXECUTIVE CITATIONS & SUBSTANCE EDITOR
Taylor Foster
Isabelle McGovern
Brett McAllister
Ashlin Miller
NOTES & COMMENTS EDITORS
Rebecca Bliss
Natalie Halpin
Nicholas Pagliarulo
Zachary Refinski
Andrea Rodriguez
Nicholas Rudolph
Alison Whitney
LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP EDITORS
Jake Finkelstein
Caitlin McGuire


Masthead Page

Shenberg, Andrew

Betting on the Future: Regulating Microtransactions in Video Games and Proposing Comprehensive Consumer Protections

Wice, Jeffrey M.

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Elections, Census & Redistricting Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
6-23-2025 
June 23 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update, 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
June 23, 2025
NY Election Law News
​This week- Newburgh VRA lawsuit, Can An Election Be Postponed?,
State Redistricting Commission Approves New Budget, VRA
Preclearance Action, Around the Nation: Texas, Ohio, New Jersey,
Events
LITIGATION
Orange County: Clarke et al. v. Newburgh (N.Y. Voting Rights
Act)
 
This challenge to the Town of Newburgh's board is now scheduled for a non-
jury trial on July 21st. Parties must provide the status of the application to the
Appellate Division for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by June 27th. 
 
On June 20th, the court was updated on the defendants’ application to the
higher court. By a decision and order on May 23rd, the Appellate Division
granted Newburgh's (defendants’) motion for leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeals, and stayed further proceedings before this Court pending the hearing
and determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeals. The Court has set a
briefing schedule and calendared the appeal to be hard during its October 2025
term. 
This case was moved from Orange County to Westchester County after a
number of Orange County judges recused themselves from the case.
ELECTIONS
Tomorrow is New York Primary Day. Voters who have not already voted
through early voting or by sending in an absentee ballot are eligible to vote in
tomorrow's party primaries.
What happens when you have an election taking place during a heat wave?
Are there a precedent to look to?
For years, heat has been the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the
United States, and at its most severe, can be considered a disaster. We are in
an unfortunate situation where public officials are on the one hand urging
people to turn out to vote, while at the same time urging them to take
precautions from the heat, which typically would include minimizing travel. But
in the discussion of the upcoming heat wave and its impact on primary day,
there's been no major mention ofthe “nuclear option” - the postponement of the
primary election. 
The most prominent precedent for postponement of an election was on 9/11.
Governor Pataki issued an emergency executive order, pursuant to Executive
Law section 29-a, suspending Election Law section 8-100 relating to the date
of the primary election, and other laws relating to the primary. Ultimately the
date was re-set by a special session of the State Legislature. 
Section 29-a authorizes the Governor to suspend laws, both state and local, in
cases of disaster. While the definition of “disaster” in Executive Law section 20
does not explicitly include heat among its examples, it clearly includes
dangerous heat situations.
 Note that Election Law 3-108 has a provision that authorizes boards of
election to add an extra voting day for general elections, if in case of a disaster,
turnout is low - less than 25% of registered voters - but that does not apply to
primary elections.)
REDISTRICTING
State Independent Redistricting Commission Meets,
Approves Budget
The state’s Independent Redistricting Commission met in Albany on June 20 to
approve a new $932,935 operating budget for the current state fiscal year. The
commissioners also received a report from Co-Executive Directors Karen Blatt
and Doug Breakell on population trends since 2020.
From the Co-Directors report:
1.   While other states saw population growth New York has lost population but
the loss is slowing down.
2.   Growth was seen in Westchester (+.20%), Ulster (+.75%), Dutchess (.99%),
Orange (+2.6%) and Rockland (+2.9%)
3.   Declines were seen in The Bronx (-5.97%),Kings (-4.34%), Queens (-
3.68%), New York (-2.02%), and Richmond (-.40%)
4.   Orange, Suffolk, and Rockland experienced the most growth since 2020.
5.   Kings, Queens, and The Bronx experienced decreases since 2020.
6.   Otsego County had the largest percentage increase of 3.43%. Orange
County had the largest numerical increase (411,767)
7.   The Bronx had the largest percentage decrease (-5.97%). Richmond County
had the largest percentage increase (+.40%)
8.   New York City experienced population decline, although the population
increased by 87,184 in the last year.
All of the numbers represent population estimates provided by the U.S.
Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
​Commission Chair Ken Jenkins also introduced the newest member of the
Commission, Jamie Laredo of Monroe County who was appointed to fill a
vacancy be Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart Cousins.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance Updates
641 Monroe Co. Board of Elections- poll site locations- preliminarily granted
Numbers refer to submisson numbers
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
Texas Re-redistricting Deja Vu? Republicans in Texas and Ohio are debating
whether to push a new congressional map through the state legislatures to
help strengthen the GOP’s hold on the U.S. House majority. In Texas, a
special session of the legislature is apparently being urged by President
Donald Trump’s political operatives. A new map would involve moving GOP
voters from safe red districts into blue ones, making such moves risky in a
Democratic election year. While redistricting is usually restricted to a once-a
decade process or where courts require a redrawing to correct legal infirmities,
the U.S. Supreme Court has not prohibited states to redraw maps in mid-
decade unless state law prohibits it. Texas re-redistricted for partisan gain- and
no other reason- in the mid 2000s decade. Any action to enact a new map is
likely to face prolonged litigation, making changes of having a new plan in
place in 2026 questionable.
Ohio is required to redraw its congressional districts before 2026 due to a state
constitutional requirement that the map must be redrawn if the map used after
the 2022 elections was not drawn on a bipartisan basis. In Ohio, minority party
Democrats will have a larger voice in the process, unlike in Texas.
New York is prohibited from redrawing its districts before 2031 unless directed
to do so by a court. However, state senate lines could change if a party were to
bring a challenge in state court arguing that the current map was enacted by a
state court and that the state independent redistricting commission and
legislature should complete the decade's task. This point was made in a New
York Daily News editorial on June 19th. Nevertheless, the later a challenge
might be filed, the chances of a new map remain remote.
New Jersey: The New Jersey Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a
municipal political district drawing, which could have caused a wave of
redistricting lawsuits across New Jersey. The lawsuit focused on Jersey City
wards, alleging that the addition of wealthy high-rise residents into low-income
wards diluted the voting power of low-income residents to elect a candidate
that prioritized their interests (e.g., low-income housing). 
 
According to Bloomberg Law, this case also acts as “a microcosm for a
broader battle—how courts should judge the compactness of districts and
rights of communities split by lines in municipal, legislative, and congressional
maps that all require some form of compact shape.” The court ruled in a rare 4-
3 split that judges do not need to consider mathematical formulas or
community cohesion when deciding whether a political district meets the New
Jersey mandate for “compactness.” 
 
More than a dozen groups had challenged this drawing together. In a
statement, the groups argued the ruling creates a “new precedence which
dilutes the right to fair and effective representation on the local level.”
 
While “a detailed explanation of a ward commission’s compactness
determination would better inform the public and facilitate judicial review,”
according to the court majority, the state law does not require map-drawing
commissions to meet the requirements that community advocacy groups are
arguing for in this lawsuit.
UPCOMING EVENTS
NYC Charter Revision Commission
The NYC Charter Revision Commission is considering including a proposal on
the city ballot to open its closed primary system to independent voters who
currently cannot vote in party primary elections. Public hearing are being held
for comment:
Staten Island, Mon 6/23: Main Hall in Building B at Snug Harbor Cultural
Center, 1000 Richmond Terrace 10301
Manhattan, Mon 7/7: Langston Hughes Auditorium at Schomburg Center
for Research in Black Culture, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard 10037
Comments can also be sent to: https://www.nycopenprimary.com/take-action-
crc
INSTITUTE RESOURCES
The New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute has archived many
resources for the public to view on our Digital Commons Page.
Our Redistricting Resources page contains resources on the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Act. You can access the page
here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/
Archived Updates can be accessed
here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/
Please share this weekly update with your colleagues. To be added to the
mailing list, please contact Jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu
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, Stephen Louis and Alexis Marking.
 
New York Law School
New York Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute
185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013 
T 212.431.2100, ext. 4170
          
City Law | New York Law School 185 West Broadway | New York, NY 10013 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice


June 23 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update,

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Elections, Census & Redistricting Updates NY Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute 
5-19-2025 
May 19 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
May 19, 2025
NY Elections, Census & Redistricting Update
​This week- Newburgh VRA Case Transferred to Westchester County, One
Million Missing New York City Voters, VRA Preclearance Update,
Alabama Redistricting, Upcoming Events
LITIGATION
Westchester: Clarke v. Town of Newburgh (Voting Rights Act)
This challenge was brought by voters in the Town of Newburgh in Orange
County. After an original decision by a state supreme court judge rejected the
case against the at-large town board and invalidated the state’s new Voting
Rights Act, the Appellate Division reversed and the case was proceeding
towards a hearing on the merits.
The Orange county supreme court judge hearing the case, Justice Maria
Vazquez-Doles) recused herself from the case last week because she became
aware she know one of the parties. Subsequently, several other justices in
Orange County also recused themselves from hearing the care for various
reasons ranging from planned vacations to conflicts of interest. On May 15, the
case was transferred to Westchester County state supreme court. While it’s
expected that a Westchester judge will be assigned to the case, the town is
now appealing the transfer to Westchester.
ELECTIONS
New York City’s Unregistered Voters: “The Missing Millon”
New Yorkers for an Inclusive Democracy and City & State NY held a
conference on voting reforms at New York Law School last week. The report
“The  Mission Million” was released at the conference written by Professor
John Mollenkopf of the CUNY Graduate Center’s Center for Urban Research/.
The reports takes a look at the over one million New Yorkers who are eligble
to vote but who are not registered.
Key points from the report:
There are 1.3 million eligible New York City voters who are missing from the
voter rolls,
representing over 25% of the city’s potential electorate.
Voter disenfranchisement Is concentrated among young, poor, and immigrant
communities. Unregistered voters are disproportionately young adults (18–29),
low-income residents living in poorer neighborhoods, who are renters; and
naturalized, non-native born citizens
New York City’s registration system Is outdated, incomplete and  cannot keep
up with population mobility. Half a million people move in/out or within NYC
each year—many never get added to or removed from the rolls.
The existing 4.7 million voter file overcounts existing voters. Over one million+
haven’t voted in 14 years, and many may have moved or died—further inflating
participation estimates.
 
You can access the complete report here:
https://missingmillion.commons.gc.cuny.edu/the-missing-million-report-2025/
VOTING RIGHTS ACT PRECLEARANCE
N.Y. Attorney General’s Office Preclearance Updates
461 NYC Board of Elections, poll site locations, under review
423 Albany County BOE, poll site locations, granted
541 Nassau County BOE, poll site locations, under review
501 Erie County BOE, poll site locations, under review
301 NYC BOE, poll site locations, under review
561 Nassau County BOE, poll site locations, under review
562 Erie County BOE, poll site locations, under emergency review
522 Onondaga County BOE, poll site locations, under review
523 Onondaga County BOE, poll site locations, under review
262 Nassau County BOE, poll site locations, under review
525 Onondaga County BOE, poll site locations, under review
262 Nassau County BOE, poll site locations, granted
581 Westchester County BOE, poll site locations, under review
441 Rockland County BOE, poll site locations, under review
All submissions can be viewed at: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/
AROUND THE NATION
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down Federal Voting
Rights Protection
 
A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—encompassing Arkansas,
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—has
struck down one of the key methods of enforcing the federal Voting Rights Act
(VRA). 
 
Traditionally, private individuals and groups have brought lawsuits under
Section 2 to enforce voting protections against racial discrimination. However,
in a 2-1 ruling last week, a 3-judge panel has found that Section 2 cannot be
privately enforced because the VRA does not explicitly mention private
individuals and groups. The panel concluded that only the Justice Department
can bring lawsuits for this purpose. 
 
This decision comes out of a North Dakota redistricting lawsuit initiated by the
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe. The tribal
nations argued the redistricting lines drawn and approved by the North Dakota
Legislature reduced the opportunity for Native American voters to elect the
candidate of their choice. A lower court agreed, striking down the map for
violating Section 2 of the VRA by diluting the voting power of Native
Americans.
 
Here, the tribal nations cited Section 1983 (a federal statute which gives
individuals the right to sue local and state officials for violating civil rights) as a
basis for bringing the lawsuit as private groups. The North Dakota Secretary of
State appealed to the 8th Circuit and argued that, in spite of decades of
precedent, Section 1983 does not allow private individuals and groups to do
so. 
 
The 8th Circuit agreed. The tribal nations are now determining whether to
appeal this decision. Debates about the private right of action may lead to a
detrimental decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, eroding a significant
protection of the VRA. A similar case decision came from an Arkansas federal
court over that state’s legislative redistricting plan. The losing plaintiffs there
decided not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, fearing a possible negative
outcome.
 
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Circuit Judge Steven Colloton stated, “Since
1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on [Section
2] that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of
those cases should have been dismissed because [Section 2] of the Voting
Rights Act does not confer a voting right.”
 
WISCONSIN: A group of Wisconsin voters have filed a lawsuit challenging the
state’s congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. After Governor Tony
Evers vetoed a congressional map in 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
adopted a map that made the “least change” to the 2011 map. The lawsuit
alleges that the current map packs Democrats into two congressional districts
and “cracks” other primarily-Democrat communities into Republican districts.
Voters argue that this congressional map violates the Wisconsin Constitution
and request that the court order a new map for the 2026 congressional
elections.
Federal Court Faults Alabama Map for Racially Discriminatory
Intent
After completing a full trial, a federal court in Alabama found that Alabama’s
2023 congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and was
enacted with racially discriminatory intent. This ruling ensures that the
Alabama map must include two districts where Black voters have the
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (like the map ordered by the
court in October 2023) for the remainder of the decade. The court-drawn map
used in the 2024 elections resulted in the election of two Black representatives
to Congress for the first time in history.
​The court’s decision follows several challenges where voters argued that
Alabama’s congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
by diluting Black voting power. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 2023
ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on that claim, and in its decision
in Allen v. Milligan, required the creation of a second opportunity district that
resulted in the current map. Despite earlier decisions, Alabama insisted on a
trial of and once again the Court ruled against its congressional map as
unfairly harming Black voters. In this recent decision, the court ruled that
Alabama had intentionally discriminated against its Black citizens in enacting
the map.
 
UPCOMING EVENTS
NYC Charter Revision Commission
The NYC Charter Revision Commission is considering including a proposal on
the city ballot to open its closed primary system to independent voters who
currently cannot vote in party primary elections. Public hearing are being held
for comment:
Queens, Weds 5/28: Helen Marshall Cultural Center at Queens Borough
Hall, 120-55 Queens Blvd 11415
Bronx, Tues 6/10: 3rd Floor Café in Building C / East Academic Complex
at Hostos Community College, 450 Grand Concourse 10451
Staten Island, Mon 6/23: Main Hall in Building B at Snug Harbor Cultural
Center, 1000 Richmond Terrace 10301
Manhattan, Mon 7/7: Langston Hughes Auditorium at Schomburg Center
for Research in Black Culture, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard 10037
Comments can also be sent to:https://www.nycopenprimary.com/take-action-
crc
May 29- 2025 Primary Election Preview
Join Max Politics and FAQ NYC podcasts - Ben Max, Christina Greer, Katie
Honan, and Harry Siegel - for a special 2025 New York City primary election
preview event with political analysis, special guests, audience participation,
and more.
The evening will feature the latest analysis of the Democratic primary for
Mayor and other races to watch, reminders about ranked-choice voting, plenty
of audience Q&A, and more.
This event is hosted by The Center for New York City and State Law at New
York Law School. To attend, register here:
https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/qxmjtbs0nexll7/
INSTITUTE RESOURCES
The New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute has archived many
resources for the public to view on our Digital Commons Page.
Our Redistricting Resources page contains resources on the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Act. You can access the page
here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/
Archived Updates can be accessed
here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/
Please share this weekly update with your colleagues. To be added to the
mailing list, please contact Jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu
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, Jarret Berg, and Alexis Marking.
 
New York Law School
New York Elections, Census, and Redistricting Institute
185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013 
T 212.431.2100, ext. 4170
          
City Law | New York Law School 185 West Broadway | New York, NY 10013 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice


May 19 Elections, Census & Redistricting Update

MARCH 25, 2025https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/innovation_law_tech_events_flyers/1017/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School

Not a member yet