New York Law School’s Digital Commons@NYLS

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/wilf_conversations/1001/thumbnail.jp

New York Law School

The Persistence of Poverty and What Can be Done About It

Wice, Jeffrey M.

October 16 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 
10-23-2023 
October 23 Roundtable Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
New York Law School, jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
Recommended Citation 
Wice, Jeffrey M., "October 23 Roundtable Update" (2023). Redistricting Roundtable Updates. 115. 
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/115 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the NY Census and Redistricting Institute at 
DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Redistricting Roundtable Updates by an authorized 
administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. For more information, please contact camille.broussard@nyls.edu, 
farrah.nagrampa@nyls.edu. 
 
 
 
 
N.Y. CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE 
 
 
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS 
  
New York Attorney General Certifies Preclearance Process 
Under State Voting Rights Act 
  
In a letter to Governor Kathy Hochul and state legislative leaders, Attorney 
General Letitia James indicated that the new “preclearance” process will take 
effect on September 22, 2024. As part of the state’s new John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Act, some local governments will be required to submit certain 
types of election-related changes to her office for approval prior to enactment 
or implementation. The law required the Attorney General to provide one-year 
advance notification as to when the new “preclearance” process is to go into 
effect.  
  
The Attorney General’s office is also developing a list of localities most likely 
to be subject to the “preclearance” process. This includes localities with 
histories of racial discrimination. A copy of the Attorney General’s letter is 
attached. 
  
REDISTRICTING 
  
New York Scores a “D” For Redistricting Process 
  
New York’s new redistricting process received a “D” grade from several 
reform groups who scored each state’s post-2020 redistrictings. The 50-state 
report was organized by CHARGE, a coalition of state and local organizations 
seeking more public participation in the redistricting process.   
  
Several factors led to New York’s nearly failing grade: a lack of public access 
options, a perceived lack of interest in public input by the Independent 
Redistricting Commission (IRC),and  a poorly executed IRC process. The 
report also highlights lessons learned: community-based organizations led to 
several victories (new state legislative districts helped elect Asian American 
candidates), translation services need to be accessible, accessible data and 
analysis are important for education, and comprehensive and extended 
funding beyond a redistricting year is critical for community-based 
organizations.  
  
New York’s report can be read 
here: https://www.commoncause.org/resource/charge-new-york/ 
  
 
 
LITIGATION 
 
Congressional Case: Hoffmann v. Independent Redistricting 
Commission 
 
Mark Favors, Theodore Harris and Mark Weisman Amicus Brief in 
Support of Petitioners-Respondents 
 
On October 12, New York voters Mark Favors, Theodore Harris, and Mark 
Weisman (“amici”) filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners 
(Democratic voters). They argue that the Court of Appeals should affirm the 
Appellate Division, Third Department’s decision because, in their view, the 
outcome of Harkenrider (special master-drawn districts) was an emergency 
judicial remedy and not intended to be “a decade-long chokehold on the IRC-
based redistricting process,” and returning the process to the IRC is “required 
by the plain language of the 2014 Amendments.” To support this position, 
they assert the following: 
 
(1) The Third Department correctly concluded that Harkenrider does not 
deprive New Yorkers of their right to IRC-based redistricting for the rest 
of the decade. 
In addition to noting the Harkenrider majority opinion’s repeated 
acknowledgment of the intent of the constitutional IRC process, the amici also 
point to several statements in the decision that they argue support their 
interpretation that the court did not intent to displace the IRC process for the 
whole decade. For example, that the remedy would need to be “swift,” 
“expeditious,” “with all due haste,” and that only with “judicial supervision and 
the support of…a special master” would there be “sufficient time.” Notably, 
the amici point to the court’s conclusion that a judicial remedy was “required” 
to ensure “the expeditious creation of constitutionally conforming maps for 
use in the 2022 election.” They maintain that the limiting language—“for use 
in the 2022 election”—is consistent with an emergency remedy that is limited 
to the 2022 election only.  
 
(2) The 2014 amendments require this court to limit the prior judicial 
remedy and return the redistricting process to the IRC and the 
legislature. 
The amici argue that because the 2022 election emergency is over, there is 
no basis under the state constitution to deny the people’s right to an IRC-
based process. They assert that the plain language of §4(e) requires the 
adoption of the narrowest judicial remedy necessary to correct a specific 
violation, and the legislature’s authority to correct the violation must not be 
unnecessarily restricted. Because no curtailment of the IRC-based process is 
”required” beyond the 2022 election, §4(e) does not allow a more expansive 
remedy. 
 
 
 
(3) The Third Department correctly determined that the petitioners’ filing 
of this mandamus action was timely under CPLR 217(1). (i.e., it was filed 
within the applicable statute of limitations) 
The amici argue that the petitioners could not assert a right to relief until the 
2021 redistricting legislation was declared unconstitutional in Harkenrider. 
Because they filed this case less than four months after that date, the action 
was timely. 
 
(4) Mandamus relief to vindicate the people’s right to an IRC-based 
redistricting plan is also needed to relieve the scourge of hyper-
partisanship in New York. 
The amici conclude by stating that “[b]y holding the IRC to its duties, this 
Court will ensure that IRC members must come together to make the process 
work and produce redistricting maps for legislative approval. It will also call 
upon the legislature to heed the lesson of Harkenrider and enact a final 
redistricting plan grounded in the IRC-based process and reflective of the 
broad public participation that process guarantees. With ample time 
remaining before the 2024 election, this Court should send the IRC back to 
the drawing board to complete the process as prescribed by the 2014 
Amendments.” 
 
N.Y. Early Voting Law Challenged: Stefanik v. Hochul 
 
Memo in Support of the State of New York and Governor Kathy Hochul’s 
Motion to Dismiss 
 
On October 16, Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James 
filed a memo arguing that their motion to dismiss should be granted because 
(1) Governor Hochul is entitled to legislative immunity; (2) the complaint fails 
to state a claim; and (3) the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the 
constitutionality of the New York Early Mail Voter Act. 
  
AROUND THE NATION 
  
North Carolina: Lawmakers Propose New Congressional 
Maps 
  
On October 18, North Carolina Republican lawmakers proposed new maps 
for the state’s congressional districts, which would be enacted for the 2024 
election. Their proposal includes two separate proposed maps. These 
proposals are significant departures from the current districts, which were 
drawn by the courts and led to an even split of seven Democrats and seven 
Republicans being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2022. 
One of the proposed maps would make it easier for Republicans to flip three 
 
 
of North Carolina’s House seats currently held by Democrats, while the other 
will make it easier for Republicans to flip four Democratic seats. The state 
House and Senate hope to enact a new congressional district plan by the end 
of this month. The district plan that is ultimately enacted will likely be the 
subject of litigation following its enactment.  
  
The congressional map that is currently in place was the product of state trial 
judges declaring that lawmakers had to comply with a February 2022 ruling 
by the North Carolina Supreme Court that determined that the state 
constitution outlawed extensive partisan gerrymandering. The North Carolina 
Supreme Court has since flipped to a Republican majority. It overruled its 
February 2022 ruling in April, determining that the state constitution does not 
limit partisan gerrymandering. The court is allowing the state legislature 
another chance to draw and enact a congressional map because of the 
court’s determination that their 2022 decision which found that the state 
constitution outlawed extensive partisan gerrymandering was wrongly 
decided.  
  
Louisiana: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Emergency Relief to 
Petitioners  
  
On October 19, the U.S. Supreme Court denied pro-voting parties’ 
emergency applications that asked the Court to pause and reverse a ruling 
from the 5thCircuit Court of Appeals that would delay the implementation of 
fair congressional maps in Louisiana. In late September, two conservative 
judges on the 5th Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering the district court 
to cancel the hearing that was supposed to cover the issue of drawing and 
enacting a new congressional map in Louisiana that would comply with the 
Voting Rights Act. The petitioners who brought the lawsuit asked the 
Supreme Court to pause the 5th Circuit’s mandamus order, arguing that the 
5th Circuit’s order suffers several major flaws and “reflects a series of 
egregious mistakes that must be corrected.” In addition to asking the 
Supreme Court to pause the 5th Circuit’s order, they also asked the Supreme 
Court to reverse the order. The Supreme Court declined to do either. As the 
date of the hearing has already passed, this decision does not change the 
status quo of the case. As Justice Jackson pointed out, “The District Court will 
presumably resume the remedial process while the Fifth Circuit considers the 
State’s appeal of the preliminary injunction.”   
             
Galveston County, TX: U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Stays 
a District Court Ruling that Requires Lawmakers to Submit a 
New Map that Complies with the Voting Rights Act 
  
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed a district court ruling that 
ordered Galveston County to file a redistricting plan that complies with 
 
 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On October 13, Judge Jeffrey Vincent 
Brown of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 
found that Galveston County’s 2021 redistricting plan violated Section 2 
because the map diluted the African American and Latino vote. The map 
enacted in 2021 eliminated the only majority African American and Latino 
district that was in previous maps. The court found that this violated Section 2 
because although the African American and Latino populations were not 
individually large or compact enough to make up their own separate districts, 
when treated as a coalition the African American and Latino population was 
sufficiently large and compact to comprise a majority-minority commissioners 
precinct. In addition, Judge Brown also found that the plaintiffs were able to 
satisfy the remaining Gingles factors that are necessary to succeed in a 
challenge to a district plan under Section 2.  
The district court initially ordered Galveston County to file a 
redistricting plan that complied with Section 2 by October 20 but later 
extended this deadline to October 27.   
Galveston County appealed the district court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit on 
November 14 and also requested a stay of the district’s court decision 
pending appeal.  On October 20, The Fifth Circuit stayed the district court’s 
ruling until November 10 to give the court time to consider the parties’ 
arguments. 


English

October 23 Roundtable Update

Navigating the BEAD Weeds - Project Areas - November 2023

Leonard, Arthur S.

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 
2-2023 
Guatemalan Petitioner Wins Remand of Asylum Claim on Several 
Grounds by 9th Circuit Panel 
Arthur S. Leonard 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs 
L G B T
9th Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing of 
Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban
February 2023
Editor-In-Chief
Arthur S. Leonard,
Robert F. Wagner Professor of Labor 
& Employment Law Emeritus
New York Law School 
185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 431-2156
asleonard@aol.com
arthur.leonard@nyls.edu 
Contributors 
Brian Brantley, Esq.
Corey L. Gibbs, Esq.
Matthew Goodwin, Esq.
Ashton Hessee, NYLS ‘24
Bryan Johnson-Xenitelis, Esq.
Willy Martinez, Esq.
Jason Miranda, NYLS ‘24
Eric Wursthorn, Esq.
Production Manager
Leah Harper
Circulation Rate Inquiries 
LGBT Bar NY Foundation
120 Wall Street, Floor 19
New York, NY 10005 
(212) 353-9118
info@lgbtbarny.org
LGBT Law Notes Podcast
Listen on iTunes 
(search “LGBT Legal”)
or Podbean 
at legal.podbean.com.
Law Notes Archive
Contact info@lgbtbarny.org
© 2023 LGBT Bar NY Foundation 
LGBT Law Notes & the LGBT Law 
Notes Podcast are Publications of 
the LGBT Bar Association 
Foundation of Greater New York 
www.lgbtbarny.org
ISSN 8755-9021
If you are interested in becoming a 
contributing author to LGBT Law Notes, 
please contact info@lgbtbarny.org. 
L G B T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing in 
Washington Conversion Therapy Case, Setting Up 
Possible Supreme Court Review
2 Sex, Biology, and Exceptional Athletes: West 
Virginia U.S. District Court Upholds Biological Sex 
Interpretation of Title IX
4 Oregon U.S. District Court Dismisses Case Alleging 
Title IX Exemption for Religious Institutions Violates 
the Constitution
6 Colorado Appeals Court Issues Second Ruling 
Against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips
9 U.S. District Court Holds St. Joseph Medical 
Center of the University of Maryland Medical 
System Corporation Violated Title IX by Canceling 
Hysterectomy for Transgender Patient
11 District Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to 
Federal Hate Crime Prosecution in Anti-LGBTQ+ 
Bias Case
13 District Court Allows Sex Discrimination Claims to 
Proceed for Heterosexual Teacher Who Acted as 
Fierce Advocate For LGBTQ+ Students Within Her 
School
15 U.S. District Judge Rules that a New Hampshire 
Law Restricting Speech of Public School Teachers is 
Unconstitutionally Vague
16 Guatemalan Petitioner Wins Remand of Asylum 
Claim on Several Grounds by 9th Circuit Panel
17 Wisconsin Court of Appeals Rules Transgender 
Individual Must Show Possibility of Physical Harm 
to Shield Name Change Petition from Publication
19 European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber 
Holds That Member States Must Provide Legal 
Recognition to Same-Sex Couples
20 European Court of Justice Holds that Poland 
Cannot Permit Sexual Orientation Discrimination 
Against Self-Employed Persons
21  Notes         34  Publications Noted
16   LGBT Law Notes   February 2023
Constitution tolerates . . . depends in 
part on the nature of the enactment.” 
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 
489 (1982). Notably, greater clarity is 
required when a statute either restricts 
speech, imposes a particularly severe 
penalty, or lacks a scienter requirement. 
“The amendments at issue in this case 
are explicit viewpoint-based speech 
limitations that, as discussed above, 
arguably affect both the curricular 
and extracurricular speech of public 
primary and secondary school teachers. 
Because their extracurricular speech is 
plausibly entitled to First Amendment 
protection, a rigorous vagueness review 
is required.” 
The law provides that if teachers are 
found to have violated its provisions, 
they may be stripped of their teaching 
credentials, employment, and 
livelihoods. This requires that the 
strictest review of vagueness be applied. 
The same standard should apply as 
in a criminal statute based on the 
extreme repercussions. That standard 
is that “the law must give ‘a person 
of ordinary intelligence fair notice of 
what is prohibited’ and must not be 
‘so standardless that it authorizes or 
encourages seriously discriminatory 
enforcement.’” U.S. v. Williams, 553 
U.S. 285, 304 (2008). The judge found 
that the amendments do not provide 
clarity on what is permitted and what 
is not permitted to be taught in the 
classroom and that the violator can be 
sanctioned for teaching a concept by 
implication. As such, the plaintiffs have 
pleaded a plausible claim that the law is 
unconstitutionally vague. 
The plaintiffs are represented by 
David A. Vicinanzo, Nixon Peabody 
LLP, Manchester, NH; Chris Erchull, 
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders 
(GLAD), Boston, MA; Emerson J. 
Sykes, American Civil Liberties 
Union Foundation, New York, NY; 
Henry Klementowicz, American Civil 
Liberties Union of New Hampshire, 
Concord, NH; Jennifer Aimee Eber, 
Disability Rights Center-NH, Concord, 
NH; Leah Watson, American Civil 
Liberties Union Foundation, New York, 
NY; Morgan C. Nighan, Nixon Peabody 
LLP, Boston, MA; Peter J. Perroni, 
Peter J. Perroni, ESQ., Chelmsford, 
MA; SangYeob Kim, American Civil 
Liberties Union of New Hampshire, 
Concord, NH; Sarah Hinger, American 
Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New 
York, NY; Suzanne Amy Spencer, 
Shaheen & Gordon, Concord, NH; 
William E. Christie, Shaheen & 
Gordon, Concord, NH; Gilles R. 
Bissonnette, American Civil Liberties 
Union of New Hampshire, Concord, 
NH; Charles Moerdler, Stroock Stroock 
& Lavan LLP, New York, NY; David 
Kahne, Stroock Stroock & Lavan 
LLP, New York, NY; Elizabeth Clarke 
Milburn, Stroock Stroock & Lavan LLP, 
New York, NY; David Kahne, Stroock 
Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY. 
District Judge Paul J. Barbadoro 
was appointed by President George W. 
Bush.  ■
Brian M. Brantley is a member of the 
New York Bar.
Guatemalan 
Petitioner Wins 
Remand of Asylum 
Claim on Several 
Grounds by 9th 
Circuit Panel
By Arthur S. Leonard
On January 26, a three-judge panel 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th 
Circuit granted a petition by a native 
and citizen of Guatemala to have the 
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 
reconsider her claims for asylum, 
withholding of removal, or protection 
under the Convention against Torture 
(CAT). Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett 
wrote for the panel, with a concurring 
opinion by Circuit Judge Gabriel P. 
Sanchez. Antonio v. Garland, 2023 WL 
411361, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2036. 
Summarizing the record, Judge 
Bennett wrote, “Antonio was verbally 
and physically harassed and received 
death threats because her community in 
Guatemala perceived her to be a lesbian, 
including because she wore men’s 
clothing to work. In her petition, Antonio 
challenges the IJ’s findings that: (1) this 
treatment did not amount to persecution, 
(2) the relevant social group for asylum 
purposes is based on ‘manner of dress,’ 
and (3) no persecution was committed 
by the Guatemalan government or 
by forces that the government was 
unwilling or unable to control.” 
The court found that the first finding 
was not supported by substantial 
evidence in the record, that the second 
finding suffered from “several errors” 
and that in making the third finding, 
“the agency did not consider all highly 
probative evidence in the record.” 
The IJ had noted as to the second 
issue that Antonio did not present 
a “sexual orientation issue because 
Respondent stated she was not a 
lesbian.” The court observed that the 
IJ seems to have mischaracterized 
petitioner’s argument on the issue of 
membership in a “particular social 
group,” as she also stated in the hearing 
February 2023   LGBT Law Notes   17
Wisconsin Court 
of Appeals Rules 
Transgender 
Individual Must 
Show Possibility 
of Physical Harm 
to Shield Name 
Change Petition 
from Publication
By Willy C. Martinez
Wisconsin Statute Section 786.37(4) 
provides that an individual who files a 
petition for a confidential name change 
may be required, at the discretion of 
the court, to show “by a preponderance 
of the evidence, that publication of his 
or her petition could endanger him or 
her.” In In the Matter of R.I.B., 2023 
WL 225797, 2023 Wisc. App. LEXIS 
50 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2023), Judge 
Gregory B. Gill Jr., writing for the Court 
of Appeals of Wisconsin, affirmed the 
order of Circuit Court Judge Tammy Jo 
Hock denying a transgender individual’s 
petition for a confidential name change, 
concluding the statute requires “proof 
that a petitioner more likely than not 
could be physically endangered if the 
name change petition is published.” 
Robert (a pseudonym assigned by the 
court, which explained that it was using 
a male name out of respect for R.I.B.’s 
dignity) was assigned female at birth 
and identifies as a transgender male. 
When Robert began to use his name 
and wear men’s clothing at age twelve, 
he was subjected to copious amounts 
of physical and emotional abuse. His 
classmates, for instance, verbally abused 
Robert with transphobic slurs. His 
teacher joined the students in Robert’s 
abuse, even threatening Robert with 
recording him “so that others could see 
that he was ‘acting like a girl and not 
like a boy.’” Students, both at school and 
in his neighborhood, threatened Robert 
with physical abuse and violence, 
including threats that the other children 
that “people can think that a person is 
perhaps a lesbian,” and her counsel 
noted that she was “perceived to have 
male tendencies.” Taken together, this 
raised the question whether “perceived” 
or “imputed” sexual orientation based 
on how the petitioner dressed and acted 
could be considered a “particular social 
group” for this purpose. 
“Failure to address a social group 
claim, or failure to analyze such a 
claim under the correct legal standard, 
‘constitutes error and requires remand,’” 
wrote Bennett, citing Rios v. Lynch, 807 
F. 3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2015). “Antonio’s 
manner of dress was one reason her 
community associated her with a 
relevant proposed social group, not the 
basis of the group itself,” he continued. 
“Thus, the agency failed to conduct its 
particular social group analysis with 
respect to the correct group – women 
perceived to be lesbians.” 
Since there is no specific BIA or 9th 
Circuit precedent precisely on point, 
the court remanded as to this issue for 
the agency to determine “(1) whether 
women in Guatemala perceived to be 
lesbian constitute a particular social 
group; and (2) if so, whether Antonio’s 
persecution was ‘on account of’ her 
membership in that group.” 
The court engaged in a close scrutiny 
of the record on the third issue and 
found that the IJ had ignored important, 
uncontradicted evidence in the record 
that could support the conclusion that the 
government failed to take appropriate 
action to protect the petitioner despite 
her attempts to invoke its aid. 
In his concurring opinion, Judge 
Sanchez focused on the issue of 
“particular social group,” observing that 
although the majority “correctly points 
out that no published authority from 
our court or the Board of Immigration 
appeals has expressly recognized 
imputed sexual orientation as a 
cognizable social group, and therefore 
remand is warranted to allow the BIA to 
pass on this question in the first instance 
. . . Under longstanding circuit and BIA 
precedent, the answer to this question 
seems clear.” 
For example, he pointed out that “the 
BIA has emphasized the importance 
of the ‘perception of the persecutor’ in 
asylum claims that involve persecution 
on account of imputed protected 
characteristics.” After citing other 
examples involving different grounds 
for asylum claims, he wrote, “It is no leap 
to conclude that imputed homosexuality 
and homosexuality alike confer 
membership in the particular social 
group of homosexuals. Indeed, as the 
majority recognizes, prior panels have 
applied BIA and circuit precedent to 
arrive at that conclusion in unpublished 
dispositions.” Where the IJ erred was 
in focusing “exclusively on Antonio, 
assigning no weight to the perceptions 
of her persecutors.” It was enough that 
her persecutors believed her to be a 
lesbian, and “Faithful application of the 
foregoing precedent should lead the BIA 
to the same conclusion,” he wrote. 
The petitioner is represented by Marco 
A. Jimenez, Riverside CA. Judge Bennett 
was appointed by President Donald 
Trump. Judge Sanchez was appointed by 
President Joe Biden. The third member 
of the panel, Senior U.S. District Judge 
Elizabeth E. Foote (W.D. La.), sitting by 
designation, was appointed by President 
Barack Obama. ■


Guatemalan Petitioner Wins Remand of Asylum Claim on Several Grounds by 9th Circuit Panel

FRIED, JOSEPH P.

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Articles and Writings re: Carter Carter v Rafferty 631 F Supp 533 
6-25-2023 
H. Lee Sarokin, 94, Judge Who Freed 'Hurricane' Carter, Is Dead 
(New York Times) 
JOSEPH P. FRIED 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/carter_articles 
THE NEW YORK TIME.5 OBITUARIES SUNDAY, JUNE 25, 2023 □N 25 
H. Lee Sarokin, 94, Judge Who Freed 'Hurricane' Carter, Is Dead 
By JOSEPH P. FRIED 
H. Lee Sarokin, who as a federal 
judge in New Jersey overturned 
the triple-murder conviction of 
the star boxer Rubin (Hurricane) 
Carter, voided a public library's 
ban against a homeless man and 
angered cigarette companies that 
claimed he had shown bias 
against them, died on Tuesday in 
the La Jolla section of San Diego, 
where he and his wife, Margie, 
lived in retirement. He was 94. 
His son Jeff Sarokin said the 
cause was pulmonary fibrosis. 
Judge Sarokin (pronounced 
SAR-eh-kin) resigned from the 
] l 
BILL KOSTROUN/NEW JERSEY LAW JOURNAL. 
VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS 
Judge H. Lee Sarokin in 1991. 
bench in 1996 while sitting on the 
United States Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, 
where he had served for a little 
less than two years. 
He had gained wide notice Jong 
before that, during his 15 years as 
a United States District Court 
judge in Newark, where he was 
perhaps best known for his deci-
sion in the Carter case. 
That case began when three 
white people were shot to death in 
a Paterson, N.J., tavern in 1966. 
Mr. Carter and an acquaintance, 
John Artis, both Black, were con-
victed of the killings by an all-
white jury. Mr. Carter was sen-
tenced to 30 years to life in prison, 
and Mr. Artis to 15 years to life. 
The prosecution had offered no 
motive, and several people had 
placed the defendants elsewhere 
Remy Tumin contributed report-
ing. 
at the time of the killings. But they 
were convicted, largely on the tes-
timony of two men with long crim-
inal records, one of whom said he 
had seen Mr. Carter and Mr. Artis 
leave the tavern with guns in their 
hands. 
In 1976, the State Supreme 
Court overturned the convictions 
after those witnesses recanted 
their testimony and evidence of 
prosecutorial misconduct 
emerged. In a retrial, the prosecu-
tion maintained that the murders 
had been revenge for the killing of 
a Black tavern owner, and the wit-
ness who had originally placed an 
armed Mr. Carter at the scene re-
canted his recantation. Mr. Carter 
and Mr. Artis were again found 
guilty. 
When state court appeals failed, 
defense lawyers brought the case 
to the federal court in Newark, ar-
guing before Judge Sarokin in 
1985 that the convictions should 
be overturned because of consti-
tutional violations. The judge 
agreed, holding that the prosecu-
tors had based their case on "an 
appeal to racism rather than rea-
son, concealment rather than dis-
closure." 
Judge Sarokin said that the 
prosecution had "fatally infected 
the trial" by invoking the racial re-
venge theory without sufficient 
evidence to support it, and that it 
had improperly withheld informa-
tion that could have aided the de-
fense. Mr. Carter was freed after 
nearly two decades in prison. (Mr. 
Artis had already been released 
on parole.) 
Shortly before he died in 2014, 
Mr. Carter wrote in The New York 
Daily News that he had been 
"freed from a living hell by the 
brave Judge H. Lee Sarokin." 
After Mr. Carter's death, the 
long-retired Judge Sarokin re-
vealed that every year, on the an-
niversary of his ruling, Mr. Carter 
had telephoned him to chat. "His 
calls touched me deeply:• he told 
The San Diego Union-Tribune. 
In "The Hurricane," a 1999 film 
starring Denzel Washington as 
Mr. Carter, the part of Judge 
Sarokin was played by Rod Stei-
ger. 
In another high-profile case, 
Judge Sarokin ruled in 1991 that a 
homeless man could not be barred 
from the Morristown, N.J., library 
because of his odor. He said that 
while public libraries could en-
force regulations governing their 
ANTHONY CAMERANO/ASSOCIATED PRESS 
John Artis, left, and Rubin "Hurricane" Carter arriving at court in Paterson, N.J., in 1967. 
patrons, the regulations used by 
the Morristown library violated 
the man's rights because they 
were too broad. 
"The policy neither contains 
nor refers to identifiable stand-
ards" of hygiene that constitute a 
nuisance to others, he said, and 
"affords the library staff and po-
lice excessive discretion in its en-
forcement." 
He added, "If we wish to shield 
our eyes and noses from the 
homeless, we should revoke their 
condition, not their library cards!' 
Librarians whose buildings 
were being increasingly used as 
refuges by homeless people ex-
pressed concern over the ruling. 
An appeals court overturned it, 
saying that the regulation was 
valid because "it would be impos-
sible to list all the various factual 
predicates" of a hygiene nuisance. 
Although he was genial in the 
courtroom, Judge Sarokin could 
write harshly critical decisions. In 
the tobacco cases, in which com-
panies were the targets of law-
suits accusing them of hiding the 
dangers of smoking, the compa-
nies charged that he should be re-
moved because the language in 
some of his rulings showed a pro-
plaintiff bias. 
In 1992, the tobacco companies 
succeeded in having him ousted 
from one case after he began a rul-
ing by flatly stating that among 
those "who believe that illness 
and death of consumers is an ap-
He also ruled that a 
library could not ban 
a homeless man 
because of his odor. 
propriate cost of their own pros-
perity," the tobacco industry "may 
be the king of concealment and 
disinformation." 
An appeals court ruled that, 
since whether the companies had 
hidden the harm of smoking was 
to be decided by a jury, Judge 
Sarokin had to step down because 
he had violated standards on the 
"appearance of impartiality." 
'lwo years later, when Judge 
Sarokin was nominated to serve 
on the same appeals court, he ac-
knowledged at a Senate hearing 
that his language in that ruling 
might have been "unduly strong." 
He added, "I accept that I have 
been irrepressible at times." 
Long after he retired, he re-
turned to the subject as electronic 
ciiarette companies fought the 
scrutiny of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration. "Not much has 
changed:' he wrote in a letter to 
The New York Times in 2016. 
"I presided over the first tobac-
co litigation for about 10 years," he 
continued. "At my Senate hearing 
for elevation to the Court of Ap-
peals, I conceded quite reluctantly 
that my language may not have 
been appropriate for a judicial 
opinion. I now wish to retract that 
concession and declare that it 
wasn't harsh enough." 
Haddon Lee Sarokin was born 
in Perth Amboy, N.J., on Nov. 25, 
1928, to Samuel and Reebe 
Sarokin. His father published 
small local newspapers and a 
state industrial directory, and his 
mother worked for the news a-
pers. 
He graduated from Dartmouth 
College and, in 1953, from Harvard 
Law School. He was a lawyer for 
Union County, N.J., in the 1960s 
but was primarily in private prac-
tice until, appointed by President 
Jimmy Carter, he joined the fed-
eral court in Newark in 1979. 
His nomination to the Court of 
Appeals in 1994, by President Bill 
Clinton, had a tough time in the 
Senate, with Republicans accus-
ing him of being an irresponsible, 
soft-on-crime liberal, but it was ul-
timately approved. Those criti-
cisms surfaced again in 1996, 
when Judge Sarokin was among 
several judges who became cam-
paign fodder for Republicans 
when Mr. Clinton ran for a second 
term. 
He announced that June that he 
was resigning from the bench. "I 
see my life's work and reputation 
being disparaged on an almost 
daily basis:' he said at the time, 
"and I find myself unable to ignore 
it." 
He denied judicial colleagues' 
speculation that his decision was 
also related to their rejection of 
what a court administrator called 
his "extremely unusual" request 
that he be allowed to move to Cali-
fornia, where his children and 
grandchildren Jived, and to com-
mute to the Philadelphia court as 
needed. 
Settling in the San Diego area, 
Judge Sarokin became a private 
mediator and arbitrator and 
wrote commentary on legal and 
political matters for his own blog 
and later for HuffPost. He also 
wrote several plays, staged by a 
local repertory theater. which ad-
dressed issues of social justice 
and civil rights. 
In addition to his wife and his 
son Jeff, Judge Sarokin is sur-
vived by another son, Jim; a 
daughter, Abby Mantini; two 
stepchildren, Ted Schlein and 
Kathy Schlein; and 11 grandchil-
dren. 
In a 1989 interview on the public 
television program "The Open 
Mind:' Judge Sarokin told the 
host, Richard D. Heffner, that 
when a judge was called an activ-
ist, as conservative critics often 
labeled him, "it means that some-
body does not agree" with a deci-
sion. "If they agree:' he added, 
"you're a supporter of the Consti-
tution." 


H. Lee Sarokin, 94, Judge Who Freed \u27Hurricane\u27 Carter, Is Dead (New York Times)

April 20, 2023https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations/1025/thumbnail.jp

Albanian American Law Students Association

Asian American Law Students Association

Black Law Students Association

First Generation Professionals

Italian Law Students Association

Jewish Law Students Association

Latin American Law Students Association

Legal Association for Women

Muslim Law Students Association

Outlaws

South Asian Law Students Association

The Student Bar Association

Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Student Organizations Event Posters 
4-20-2023 
2023 NYLS Diversity Panel and Reception 
Albanian American Law Students Association 
Asian American Law Students Association 
Black Law Students Association 
First Generation Professionals 
Italian Law Students Association 
See next page for additional authors 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations 
Authors 
Albanian American Law Students Association; Asian American Law Students Association; Black Law 
Students Association; First Generation Professionals; Italian Law Students Association; Jewish Law 
Students Association; Latin American Law Students Association; Legal Association for Women; Muslim 
Law Students Association; Outlaws; South Asian Law Students Association; The Student Bar Association; 
and Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 
N 
001 
2023 
NYLS 
DIVERSITY 
PANE 
AND 
RECEPTION 
HOSTED BY: 
Albanian American Law Students 
PANEL DISCUSSION 
Time: 5:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. 
Location: W520 
NETWORKING RECEPTION 
Time: 6:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. 
Location: Fifth FloorTerrace 
and Lounge 
REGISTER: 
www.nyls.edu/StudentEvent 
Association PANELISTS: 
Asian American Law Students ------- --
Association 
Black Law Students Association 
First Generation Professionals 
Italian Law Students Association 
Jewish Law Students Association 
Latin American Law Students 
Association 
Legal Association for Women 
Muslim Law Students Association 
Outlaws 
South Asian Law Students 
Association 
The Student Bar Association 
CO-SPONSORED BY: 
Office of Diversity, Equity, and 
Inclusion 
Evette Ennis '03, Vice President of 
Programs, Metropolitan Black Bar 
Association 
Hon. Ushir Pandit-Durant '87, 
President, South Asian and 
Inda-Caribbean Bar Association of 
Queens 
Jeffrey Saavedra '16, President, 
Dominican Bar Association 
1 WE ARE NEW YORK'S LAW SCHOOL 
Since 1891 


2023 NYLS Diversity Panel and Reception

March 30, 2023https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations/1016/thumbnail.jp

Muslim Law Student Association

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Student Organizations Event Posters 
3-30-2023 
IFTAR Dinner 
Muslim Law Student Association 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/student_organizations 
t rsvp1 -


IFTAR Dinner

Benedict, Piper

Zanfardino, Marissa

Friedrichs, Peter

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 
1-23-2023 
January 23 Roundtable Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Piper Benedict 
Marissa Zanfardino 
Peter Friedrichs 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
NEW YORK REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE 
  
State Assembly: Appellate Division Hears Nichols Appeal  
  
In a January 17th Appellate Division hearing, petitioner’s attorney Peter Devlin argued 
that where the IRC and legislature had their chance and failed to abide by the 
constitutional redistricting process, the constitution, as explained in Harkenrider, 
requires a court ordered remedy for a new redistricting plan. The five appellate justices 
pushed back, questioning whether Judge Love’s decision did just that—ordered a 
procedure for the adoption of a new redistricting plan (through the IRC process).  
  
In addition, on behalf of petitioner Gavin Wax, Attorney Aaron Foldenauer submitted 
that while Wax still agrees with the relief sought by the other petitioners, he does not 
seek to win at all costs and instead wants to ensure the court does the “right thing.” Wax 
asked the court to consider that the IRC has recently agreed on a draft map and that 
process is still unfolding.  
  
On behalf of respondent Governor Hochul, attorney Andrea Trento rebutted petitioners’ 
interpretation of the state constitution and argued that Article III §4(e) gives the court 
flexibility when ordering a new map. Furthermore, Trento argued that petitioners’ 
position that the legislature only gets one shot at redistricting is incorrect because §5 
states, “the legislature shall have a full and reasonable opportunity to correct the law’s 
legal infirmities.” 
  
Furthermore, on behalf of respondent Assembly Speaker Heastie, Attorney Craig Bucki 
argued that the IRC process is more democratic than having a single, unelected special 
master redraw the lines because (1) the people voted for the IRC process; (2) the 
process involves hearing voices from across the state; and (3) the process involves 
commissioners who know the demographics and characteristics of the state.  
  
Finally, Peter Devlin, another attorney for the petitioners, made the correction that 
Petitioners are not asking specifically for a special master but that they would like the 
court to have the final word on the plan instead of the legislature. 
  
A decision is expected soon. Any ruling by the Appellate Division can be appealed to 
the state Court of Appeals. 
	 
Nassau County Legislative Maps Sent to County Legislature  
 
The Nassau County Legislature’s Rules Committee voted to approve two maps, one 
from the Republicans and one by the Democrats, for the county’s 19 legislative 
districts.  
 
The two parties are coming from opposing directions over a new map. Democrats favor 
a map that extensively remaps the county into districts more in line with racial and 
demographic trends and that adhere to standards in state law and the federal Voting 
Rights Act. Republicans claim their map also addresses minority voting concerns and 
more closely follows the existing map created in 2013.   
Activists Warn Town of Hempstead Over Remapping Proposal  
Also in Nassau County, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (“LDF”), attorneys Frederick K. 
Brewington & Randolph McLaughlin, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF sent a letter to the 
Town of Hempstead board to share their concerns that the proposed map for the 
Hempstead Town Council districts presented by the Town of Hempstead Temporary 
Redistricting Commission last month risks violating the federal Voting Rights Act and 
the state’s John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. They are concerned that the map cracks 
the Black and Latino community in Elmont/Valley Stream community, creating a risk that 
Black and Latino voters are denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political 
process and elect candidates of their choice.  A copy of the letter is attached.  
Orleans County: Lewis v. Orleans County Legislature:  
   
On December 22, 2022, a group of residents filed a suit in Orleans County State 
Supreme Court against the county legislature alleging violations of the “one-person, 
one-vote” requirements of the state and federal constitutions. Petitioners assert that the 
county has refrained from legislative redistricting for more than 50 years despite 
significant population shifts. Petitioners contend that there exists a nearly 30% deviation 
between the Central/West districts and the East district. Petitioners further allege that 
this has resulted in vote dilution and politically gerrymandered districts favoring one 
party. They ask the Court to declare the county legislative districts unconstitutional and 
to direct the county to refer the matter to a commission that will swiftly redraw districts 
that comply with state and federal law.  
  
Webinar: “For the Love of Data: How Census Data Drives Decision-Making” 
Thursday, February 16th from 11:00 am – 12:30 pm 
  
Baseline statistics that leaders often rely on to make informed decisions – poverty 
levels, unemployment rates, demographic breakdowns—are possible thanks to the 
census.  
 
But did you know that:  
·    58 percent of the households in Buffalo are renters?  
·    1 in 12 NYS Veterans is female?  
·    Cheektowaga is the fastest-growing town in New York State?   
·    54 percent of households in New York City do not own a car?  
·    Over 1 million households in New York State do not have access to the 
internet?  
  
These and other important statistics are only possible because of the decennial census 
and other complementary surveys conducted regularly by the US Census Bureau. The 
American Community Survey, the nation’s largest household survey, is the most well-
known. But many other complementary surveys regularly collect data about businesses, 
schools, and hospitals, affecting services for the communities and constituencies we 
care about.   
  
What will you learn?  
·    Innovative ways in which various entities have made use of recently released 
Census 2020 data to inform funders, advocates, community organizations, 
service providers, and businesses  
  
Who should attend?  
This webinar is for people who aren’t using census data in their work but would like to, 
those that are using census data but are looking to be inspired by other users, as well 
as experienced census data users interested in learning more. Leaders from nonprofit 
organizations, philanthropy, and government leaders are invited to attend this cross-
sector meeting.  
You are encouraged to share this invitation with your colleagues and network as 
appropriate.  
  
How do you sign up? 
Click here to RSVP 
Registration is required by February 15th.  
Registrants will receive the webinar link a day before the meeting.  
  
The webinar is being offered by Philanthropy New York in partnership with  New York 
State Census Equity Fund and is co-sponsored by  New York Law School’s Census & 
Redistricting Institute, New York Funders Alliance, and Engage New York.  
  
Updated IRC Hearing Schedule  
   
Syracuse - Tuesday, January 24 5:00pm  
Syracuse University College of Law  
Melanie Gray Ceremonial Courtroom  
Dineen Hall, 950 Irving Avenue  
Syracuse, New York 13210  
   
Albany - Wednesday, January 25 5:00pm  
 University at Albany (SUNY)  
Page Hall – Downtown Campus  
135 Western Avenue  
Albany, New York 12203  
  
White Plains *** - Monday, January 30 4:00pm  
Haub School of Law at Pace University  
Gerber Glass Moot Courtroom  
78 North Broadway  
White Plains, New York 10603  
  
   
Bronx County *** - Tuesday, January 31 4:00pm  
 (UPDATED LOCATION)  
    Hostos Community College  
           Savoy Multi-Purpose Room - D Building/Savoy Manor Building  
120 E. 149th Street 2nd Floor  
 Bronx, New York 10451  
  
New York County *** Tuesday, February 7  4:00pm  
 Hunter College (CUNY)  
Kaye Playhouse  
695 Park Avenue  
(entrance on 68th Street between Park and Lexington Avenues)  
New York, New York 10065  
*** Proof of vaccination/negative COVID test within 7 days required. 
   
Richmond County - Wednesday, February 8 4:00pm  
 (UPDATED LOCATION)  
Staten Island Borough Hall  
Conference Room 125  
10 Richmond Terrace  
Staten Island, New York 10301  
    
Kings County *** - Wednesday, February 15 4:00pm  
 (UPDATED LOCATION)  
Medgar Evers College (CUNY)  
Founders Auditorium  
1650 Bedford Avenue  
Brooklyn, New York 11225   
*** Proof of vaccination/negative COVID test within 7 days required. 
  
Queens County*** - Thursday, February 16 4:00pm  
(LOCATION CHANGE)  
York College (CUNY)  
Faculty Dining Room  
94-20 Guy R. Brewer Boulevard  
Jamaica, New York 11451   
*** Proof of vaccination/negative COVID test within 7 days required. 
   
Nassau County - Tuesday, February 28 5:00pm  
 Nassau Community College (SUNY)  
   College Center Building, Rm 252/253  
1 Education Drive  
Garden City, New York 11530  
    
Suffolk County - Wednesday, March 1 5:00pm  
 (UPDATED LOCATION)  
Suffolk County Community College  
Michael J. Grant Campus  
Van Nostrand Theatre  
Crooked Hill Road  
Brentwood, New York 11717  
 


January 23 Roundtable Update

DigitalCommons@NYLS 
Redistricting Roundtable Updates NY Census and Redistricting Institute 
5-1-2023 
May 1 Roundtable Update 
Jeffrey M. Wice 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates 
 
 
NEW YORK CENSUS & REDISTRICTING ROUNDTABLE UPDATE 
	
LITIGATION 
	 
Hoffmann v. Independent Redistricting Commission: 
Appellate Division Schedules Congressional Case Hearing 
  
The Appellate Division, Third Department, sitting in Albany, has scheduled a hearing on 
the appeal seeking to order the state Independent Redistricting Commission to submit a 
new congressional map to the state legislature. The hearing will take place on 
Thursday, June 8th at 1:00 PM in Albany. Last year, Albany County State Supreme 
Court Judge Peter Lynch rejected the argument that the congressional map be revisited 
by the commission. This case may eventually be decided by the State Court of Appeals. 
  
Mohr v. Erie County Legislature 
  
On April 24th, in a challenge to Erie County’s legislative lines,federal Western District 
Court Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo issued a decision granting Erie County’s motion for 
summary judgment. The court found that Ralph Mohr, an Erie County election 
commissioner, lacks standing to pursue both his due process claim and his equal 
protection claim. 
  
For Mohr’s equal protection claim, he alleged that the county violated his right to equal 
protection by including metes-and-bounds errors that resulted in certain residents being 
placed in multiple districts, other residents being excluded from any district, some 
districts extending to include areas outside of the county, and a failure to draw eleven 
contiguous districts. 
  
Mohr also asserted that his vote would be unconstitutionally diluted by the new district 
lines. The court held that Mohr lacks standing to pursue his equal protection claim 
because he has not provided enough support in his amended complaint to show the 
requisite injury caused by the new districts. 
  
For his due process claim, Mohr contended that if he were to comply with the new lines 
as an election commissioner, he would face prosecution under state law. The court 
found that Mohr lacks standing to pursue his due process claim because he has failed 
to allege “that he faces a credible threat of prosecution for implementing (or refusing to 
implement)” the new lines. 
  
Rockland County Legislature: Parietti v. Rockland County  
  
In a decision released on April 25, the Appellate Division (2nd Dept.) affirmed the trial 
court’s dismissal of Michael Parietti’s challenge to the Rockland County Legislative 
lines. 
  
First, the Appellate Division found that the trial court appropriately dismissed Parietti’s 
motion for recusal because he failed to establish a basis for mandatory disqualification. 
The Appellate Division explained that Parietti did not demonstrate that the trial court had 
any familial relationship to any party in the proceeding nor did he provide any proof of 
bias or prejudice that would warrant recusal. 
  
Next, the Appellate Division explained that contrary to Parietti’s contention, the standing 
provision located in the state constitution does not govern this case because it only 
applies to State Legislative redistricting. Therefore, the Appellate Division found that 
under traditional standing principles, the trial court correctly held that Parietti lacked 
standing to pursue claims under the Voting Rights Act, Municipal Home Rule Law 
§ 34(4), and any other authority relating to districts he did not reside in or claims 
concerning minority vote dilution. 
  
Additionally, the Appellate Division held that Parietti failed to establish his standing 
regarding his claims as they relate to the district in which he resides, including his 
assertions that the new district map improperly advantaged the incumbent and lacked 
compactness. The Appellate Division explained that Parietti failed to allege sufficient 
facts in his petition to show the requisite personal harm needed to establish standing. 
Lastly, the Appellate Division found that Parietti’s First Amendment argument was 
without merit. 
  
 
