The Judiciary Accountability Act: Dismantling the Myth of the Untouchable Judge
April 25, 2022
Aliza Shatzman reviews the long-awaited Congressional response to workplace harassment, discrimination, and misconduct in the federal judiciary and deconstructs the judiciary’s opposition to the measure.
Regulating Collegiate Athletics: Forging New Ground for the Institute-Athlete Relationship
April 18, 2022
Madison Lahey, the winner of the 2022 Legislation Competition, compares two competing Senate bills addressing equitable compensation for student-athletes.
Public Health Law and Policy in the Wake of NFIB v. OSHA: Probing Emerging Divides in the Supreme Court’s View of Public Health
Ana Santos Rutschman & Ruqaiijah Yearby
March 24, 2022
Professors Rutschman and Yearby explain and critique the majority’s framing of occupational health as a basis for restricting the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue emergency temporary rules to protect workers form the spread of COVID-19.
Credit Where Credit is Due: Why Congress Must Act Now to Prevent Americans from Being Financially Devastated by Medical Bills
March 15, 2022
Kaitlyn McMillan makes a case for congressional action to reform the collection, repayment, and reporting of medical debt, casting it as a more effective intervention for stimulation of the economy and narrowing the racial wealth gap than student debt relief.
Infrastructural Control Does the Trick: Apple’s Privacy Battles with Facebook and Tencent
February 28, 2022
Jingxian Zeng presents a comparison of Apple’s battles with Facebook and Tencent over advertising data tracking to argue that current notions of privacy law rest on the misconception that the power of digital platforms is derived from their control over data, rather than their control over the infrastructure that collects and processes data.
Cyberspace Multiplier: Enhancing Domestic Cyberspace Resiliency with the National Guard
February 11, 2022
Mari Dugas examines the unique capacity of the National Guard to address cyber incidents and reviews recent and proposed expansions to the authority of the National Guard in cyberspace.
Security Deposits: Potential Fixes to an Unfair System
January 28, 2022
Brian Canfield explores three options to improve the fairness of the security deposit system, weighing both the interests of landlords and tenants in the all too common dispute over deductions.
Remedying FAPE Violations During Distance Learning with Compensatory Education
January 25, 2022
Toni Blanchard outlines the shortcomings of distance learning for students with disabilities covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the remedies that school districts must now grant such students despite continued funding and staffing hardships in public schools.
A Little More Sunshine: How to Improve the Sunshine Act in Light of Recent Speaker Program Fraud Cases
December 22, 2021
Nick Lussier proposes an amendment to the Sunshine Act in light of three recent False Claims Act cases against pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Memo to President Biden on State and Local Fair Housing Enforcement
Charles S. Bullock, III, Charles M. Lamb & Eric M. Wilk
November 30, 2021
The authors present, as a partial solution to housing discrimination, expanding HUD’s FHAP program to improve enforcement effectiveness and efficiency and adopting new protected classifications tested at the state and local levels.
Hope for People Serving Life Without Parole in North Carolina: The Prison Resources Repurposing Act
November 22, 2021
Claire Heine reviews North Carolina House Bill 697 to increase access to parole for incarcerated people serving life sentences.
Does Texas’ New Congressional Map Violate the Voting Rights Act?
October 28, 2021
Aaron Fisher analyzes the effect of Texas’ hyper-partisan redistricting plan on Latino voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Growing Pains for Hate Crime Statistics
October 19, 2021
Kai Wiggins reviews three recent efforts by the FBI to improve national hate crime statistics, each of which received little attention and poses several unresolved questions needing clarification from the current administration.
New York Election Laws: Better than Georgia’s but not Foolproof
September 20, 2021
Keyawna Griffith provides a valuable critique of New York Election Law procedures that pose a credible threat to voting rights across the state and offers a startlingly simple legislative solution.
Valuing Native Culture: A Legislative Solution
September 7, 2021
Lawrence Rosen presents a federal legislative solution for the repatriation of objects of indigenous origin that accounts for varying cultural and legal conceptions of value and ownership.
Estimating the Empirical Likelihood of Becoming a “Public Charge”
Mitra Akhtari, John Coglianese & Heather Sarsons
August 2, 2021
The authors conduct an ex ante policy evaluation of the Trump Administration’s public charge rule using artificial intelligence to recreate immigration official decision-making. The analysis concludes that the number of immigrants who should be evaluated as likely to become a public charge under the rule is zero.
An Incentive Perspective on U.S. Healthcare
July 12, 2021
Danielle Teitelbaum explores the current framework for U.S. healthcare to illustrate why past reforms have been insufficient and develop an incentive-based approach that finally puts patient wellness and autonomy first.
Sex Trafficking as Domestic Violence
May 19, 2021
Asha McLachlan examines sex work under the lens of domestic violence and argues for the provision of comparable resources to domestic violence victims and sex workers alike as well as the legalization of sex work.
Winning the Global Race for Artificial Intelligence Expertise: How the Executive Branch Can Streamline U.S. Immigration Options for AI Talent
Doug Rand & Lindsay Milliken
April 9, 2021
The authors explain changes and clarifications that immigration authorities could make to immigration policy in order to create better pathways for AI experts to become green card holders.
Journal of Legislation and Public Policy Legislation Competition Winner
Aaditya Tolappa, Margaret Shields & Samantha Yi
March 10, 2021
Journal of Legislation and Public Policy Legislation Competition Runner-Up
March 10, 2021
Should Employers Require That Employees Receive a COVID-19 Vaccination as a Condition of Employment?
March 5, 2021
Karen Zwickel examines the difficult choices many businesses must make in deciding whether to require employees to get a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment, and whether such a requirement would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Filibuster: An Asymmetrical Tool
March 2, 2021
Paul-Winston Cange argues that Democrats should not fear abolishing the Senate filibuster because the filibuster inherently works to stop legislation, which disproportionately harms Democrats and their voters compared to Republicans.
From Fearful to Powerful: Rethinking Austerity and City Governance in the COVID-19 Era
February 17, 2021
Jordan Fraade reviews two recent books, Fear City by Kim Phillips-Fein and City Power by Richard Schragger. He applies the lessons of Phillips-Fein’s account of the 1970s New York City fiscal crisis and Schragger’s theory of urban political power to argue against the conventional wisdom of austerity, and to highlight the urgent need for a new approach in the face of the extraordinary challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inclusion Is Not Enough: An Open Letter to the NYU Law American Constitution Society
January 28, 2021
Krystle Okafor responds to a recent letter sent to the NYU Law community from the American Constitution Society regarding the Capitol riot on January 6, 2020. She argues that the group’s focus on inclusive constitutionalism does not appropriately center the history and present reality of anti-Black racism. Doing so, she argues, requires calls for more fundamental rebuilding of our civic ideas and institutions.
Nondisclosure Agreements in the Trump White House
Tyler Valeska, Michael Mills, Melissa Muse & Anna Whistler
January 28, 2021
The authors examine the Trump White House’s unprecedented use of nondisclosure agreements through a First Amendment lens.
Transparency as a First Step to Regulating Data Brokers
January 6, 2021
Dillon Kraus examines what data brokers are, why privacy advocates and legislators are concerned about their practices, and how some jurisdictions have focused on transparency as a way to begin regulating brokers’ buying and selling of people’s personal data.
Does Freedom of Information Mean “Free?” How the Hidden Costs of FOIA and Open Records Laws Impact the Public’s Ability to Request Government Documents
Kelly Cox & Matthew Haber
December 15, 2020
Kelly Cox and Matthew Haber reviewed public records laws across the United States and in Florida specifically to determine how public interest fee waivers for government documents affect the public’s ability to access information. They propose propose that state and local governments implement policies for reviewing records requests and granting waivers to entities and individuals pursuing documents in the public interest.
The Future of California’s Privacy Laws: Proposition 24
November 24, 2020
Santana Jackson examines arguments for and against Proposition 24, which recently passed to amend California’s Consumer Privacy Act. She concludes that, while the Proposition will strengthen some important consumer privacy rights, it may also weaken other rights and was passed before the CCPA’s impact could be fully understood.
Banning Congressmembers from Buying Individual Stocks Does Not Go Far Enough
November 22, 2020
Brian Canfield argues that banning Congressmembers from owning individual stocks, while helpful, is insufficient to address the misaligned incentives that occur when they can still own other investment instruments.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Federal Bench Fabrications in the First Debate
November 2, 2020
Carl Tobias examines President Trump’s continued misrepresentations and exaggerations regarding the federal courts in the first debate.
Under One Roof: Building an Abolitionist Approach to Housing Justice
Sophie House & Krystle Okafor
November 1, 2020
Sophie House and Krystle Okafor provide an overview of the modern abolition movement and discuss how its principles and frameworks can be applied to address housing issues.
Reducing the Power of the Supreme Court: Neither Liberal Nor Conservative but Necessary (and Possible)
Eric J. Segall & Christopher Jon Sprigman
October 31, 2020
Eric Segall and Christopher Sprigman analyze the history and founders’ conception of the Supreme Court, arguing that it has gained an outsized influence over political questions. Segall and Sprigman contend that liberals and conservatives should be equally disturbed by this trend, and the authors suggest that Congress should strip the Court’s jurisdiction over important political questions.
The Posse Comitatus Act: Enduring Policy Against Direct Military Law Enforcement
October 26, 2020
Robert Klein examines the history and structure of the Posse Comitatus Act, which was passed to establish a barrier between the military and police. Klein argues that the Act has served as a useful prophylactic. While military and police forces have grown closer over time, they have not crossed the lines established by the Act.
Left Out in The Cold: The Eviction Moratorium’s Deficiencies and Implications for the Administrative State
October 14, 2020
Margaret Shields assesses the implications of the process and aims of the CDC’s eviction moratorium for the future of the administrative state, arguing that there will be profound consequences for the democratic legitimacy of the administrative state due to the legal design and implementation of the order.
Regulatory Authority in a Crisis: The Limits of the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium
Roderick M. Hills
September 4, 2020
Roderick Hills analyzes the statutory and regulatory authority of the CDC to issue an eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that although the legal authority asserted is tenuous, the order may resist challenge due to its broad public support.
The Moral Mathematics and Responsibilities of Financial Crises
Kathryn E. Ghotbi
August 2, 2020
Kathryn Ghotbi uses an analytical philosophy lens to explore the moral validity of holding individuals criminally responsible for financial crises, using the 2008 Financial Crisis as a case study.
The Case of the Insolvent Federal Agency: A Forensic Analysis of Public Data on U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
Doug Rand & Lindsay Milliken
June 15, 2020
Doug Rand and Lindsay Milliken, of the Federation of American Scientists, investigate the USCIS emergency budget request and find that ideologically-motivated administrative burdens and enforcement priorities are to blame for the agency’s budget shortfall, rather than COVID-induced reductions in demand.
The Need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law
Daniel A. Horwitz
June 15, 2020
Daniel A. Horwitz, a First Amendment lawyer in Nashville, TN, details the rapid proliferation of SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in recent years, the treatment of such suits in federal courts, the gaps in the existing state-level regulation aimed at such suits, and makes the case for a federal Anti-SLAPP statute.
Foresight, Hindsight, and the Merits of a Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Political Campaigns from Cyberattacks
April 28, 2020
Amy Larsen is the co-founder of Foresight2020, a nonpartisan cyber defense and preparedness training organization for political candidates and advisors. In her piece, Larsen explores the need for a comprehensive approach to protecting political campaigns from cyberattacks, with a hope that policymakers will eventually replace Foresight2020 in providing this training and preparation.
Open Letter to Yale Law Journal Denouncing Ableism and Eugenics
Disability Allied Law Students Association at NYU School of Law
April 27, 2020
Members of the Disability Allied Law Students Association at New York University School of Law authored this letter in response to concerns about a forthcoming article regarding medical triaging in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the time of publication, it has been signed by multiple organizations and 150 students and individuals representing more than twenty-five law schools across the country.
Primer: The Relevant Executive Regulatory Powers and Responses to COVID-19
April 19, 2020
COVID-19 is a nearly unprecedented pandemic requiring wartime-level mobilization from the public and private sectors. This piece explores the federal executive branch’s response through various statutory powers such as the Stafford Act and public health emergency powers.
Fill the New York Federal District Court Vacancies
April 11, 2020
New York faces openings in seven district judgeships, three of which are emergencies. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, urges President Trump, the chamber, and Senators Schumer and Gillibrand specifically to collaborate and promptly fill these vacancies over 2020.
Through A Straw Darkly: Reflections on the NYU Conference “When Seeing Isn’t Believing: Deepfakes and the Law”
Matthew F. Ferraro
April 4, 2020
Matthew F. Ferraro, an attorney and former U.S. intelligence officer, reflects on JLPP’s March conference, “When Seeing Isn’t Believing: Deepfakes and the Law.” He outlines his major takeaways from the conference and works to expand the discourse around the benefits, dangers, and solutions surrounding deepfakes.
Common Sense Parole Reform with the Power to Reshape Lives and Reduce Prison Populations: #LessIsMoreNY
April 3, 2020
Currently pending with the New York State Senate Committee on Crime Victims, Crime, and Correction, the Less is More Act would eliminate incarceration for most technical parole violations. Rachel Cohen explains why reforming the New York State parole system in this way is “common sense” and encourages New York State legislators to approve the legislation.
What if California Assembly Bill 5 Protected Collective Bargaining? An Antitrust Analysis
March 29, 2020
JLPP’s Managing Editor of Production, Sara Spaur, engages in an antitrust analysis of California Assembly Bill 5 as it relates to collective bargaining. She analyzes whether this recently-enacted statute and conduct by workers covered by the statute could withstand antitrust scrutiny if Assembly Bill 5 had granted all workers that meet its definition of “employee,” such as Uber drivers, the right to collectively bargain.
Manipulated Reality, Menaced Democracy: An Assessment of the DEEP FAKES Accountability Act of 2019
2020 Legislation Competition Winner
March 5, 2020
Daniel Lipkowitz, one of the winners of the 2020 Legislation Competition, explores Congresswoman Yvette Clarkes’ DEEP FAKES Accountability Act (H.R. 3230). While acknowledging the benefits of the legislation, he proposes two modifications that would strengthen the bill and feasibly enhance bipartisan support for the bill in Congress.
Analyzing the Commoditization of Deepfakes
Robert Volkert & Henry Ajder
February 27, 2020
Robert Volkert (VP of Threat Investigation at Nisos) and Henry Ajder (Head of Threat Intelligence at Deeptracelabs) present the key findings from their research investigating how deepfakes are being created, shared, and sold online. They aim to provide insight into how deepfakes are being used online, in order to better understand the legitimate and illicit economies that have developed around deepfakes technology.
Against Interpreting Dead Bills
February 10, 2020
The Supreme Court of Washington’s recent opinion in a landmark environmental case shows how interpretive problems arise when courts use dead bills to determine the meaning of statutes.
Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act: Potential Mitigation, Not Guaranteed Fix
February 3, 2020
In 2019, Governor Cuomo signed the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act into law. While a step in the right direction towards providing sentencing relief for domestic violence victims, Remy Bogna argues that the bill lacks the bite necessary to make it a meaningful tool for reform.
First Data Sharing Agreement Under CLOUD Act Reassures Some, Leaves Others Concerned
January 31, 2020
In October of 2019, the U.S. and the U.K. signed the first executive agreement under the CLOUD Act. Austin Gillett discusses the CLOUD Act and outlines the debate among scholars on how the Act will impact privacy.
How the International Subtleties within Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains Explain U.S. Extraterritoriality
December 21, 2019
This short study uses Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America to trace the United States’ use of extraterritoriality as a regulatory tool and examines the pervasiveness of ideology on this practice.
The 2020 Census and Beyond: Why Differential Privacy Should Be Implemented to Protect Confidentiality
November 25, 2019
The proposed citizenship question in the 2020 Census sparked concerns about confidentiality and data security. Michelle Liu argues that differential privacy should be implemented to protect confidentiality in the 2020 Census and in all areas of data collection.
Ranked Choice Voting and the 2020 Democratic Primary
October 30, 2019
Martin Ascher explores several alternative voting systems and shares his thoughts on why “ranked choice voting” should be used in the 2020 Democratic primary and beyond.
A New Way to Legislate: Enhancing the Powers of the Presidency and Congress
Matthew Bergbower, Ph.D.
September 25, 2019
America’s practicing democracy is crippled by institutional gridlock between Congress and the presidency. To accomplish big policy changes, major reforms to how we govern are needed.
Cracking Down on Money Laundering in U.S. Real Estate
April 25, 2019
Money laundering through real estate has long been a problem in the United States. What more can be done to address this problem? Stephanie Thomas explores the various means by which the U.S. government is cracking down on money laundering in the United States through real estate transactions.
Senses of Congress: The Green New Deal in Context
April 8, 2019
Alan Masinter shares his thoughts on the Green New Deal Resolution and its importance, despite the fact that it is a non-binding congressional resolution.
Index Funds and Stewardship: A Practice Worth Encouraging
March 25, 2019
Joshua Levin explores whether the “Big Three” index-fund managers are doing too much, too little, or a Goldilocksian “just right” amount with their significant ownership of the United States equities market.
Keeping Government Open
March 4, 2019
America’s got a government shutdown problem. Is there a legislative way out? Alex Duran examines the history of federal funding crises and discusses how legislative changes to funding default rules might provide a solution.
Driving Energy Efficiency in NYC Buildings
January 22, 2019
New York City has ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals. Alan Masinter reviews how one proposed measure before the city council could advance them, along with lessons from Tokyo’s experiments in cap-and-trade.
The NY Reproductive Health Act: A Vital Update
December 9, 2018
Julie Bontems considers New York’s revived efforts to preserve abortion rights in the face of a potential Roe-reversal.
Employee Board Members and “General Public Benefit”
November 5, 2018
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed Accountable Capitalism Act seeks to change the way companies fill their boards of directors. Joshua Levin breaks down the Senator’s bill and investigates what its effects could be.
Entity Choice After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
October 30, 2018
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) significantly changed the taxation of capital income. It increased the rate of return on capital through lowered marginal tax rates and other giveaways. Less clear is whether the TCJA changed incentives with respect to entity choice in a way that will improve upon the status quo. This piece argues that, by making the corporate form more appealing relative to the passthrough form, the TCJA makes business taxation more efficient, transparent, and equitable, resulting in more opportunities for optimal taxation and investment in the long-run.
The Case for Electric School Buses
October 1, 2018
Back in 2007, New York City set ambitious air quality goals to reduce vehicle emissions, promote the use of new technologies and fuels, and achieve the cleanest air quality of any large U.S. city. Driving electric vehicles is one way to work toward these goals, and the city can and should take the lead by transitioning its public service vehicles to all-electric fleets. In fact, it should go beyond existing plans to transition city-owned vehicles by instead pursuing an electric school bus plan to take advantage of significant cost, health, and environmental benefits.
Operation Car Wash and Its Impact in Peru
June 4, 2018
Operation Car Wash, or Lava Jato as it is called in Portuguese, has become the largest bribery case in the history of Brazil and Latin America. In this article, we will describe the bribery scheme, outline the measures taken by the Peruvian government, and then evaluate their efficacy. Specifically, we will focus on the prohibition to include addendums to PPP contracts during the first three years of the contract for bankability purposes as a response to the corruption scheme that used such addendums as a mechanism to formalize the bribes.
Balancing National Security with Digital Privacy: Concerns Posed by Section 702 Surveillance
April 10, 2018
In January 2018, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”) was reauthorized. Since 2008, Section 702, codified as 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, has allowed the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize a warrantless electronic surveillance program without a court order, for the purposes of acquiring foreign intelligence information from non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S.
The highly controversial Section 702 has drawn continued criticisms about the potential for its misuse. While Congress included some safeguards to prevent mishandling and misuse of the warrantless surveillance programs authorized by Section 702, there still exists cause for concern, as these programs (1) still authorize “incidental” collections, (2) establish a “backdoor” use of data collected by the programs that can be used against U.S. persons and those located in the U.S., and (3) fail to provide adequate judicial oversight.
The Fate of Carpenter v. United States and Government Access to Historical Cell Site Location Information
Brooke G. Gottlieb
April 3, 2018
This article begins by discussing the historical and legal context preceding Carpenter v. United States, a case in which law enforcement acquired historical cell site location information from Timothy Carpenter’s cell phone provider to connect Carpenter to a string of robberies. Then, this article recommends that the Court hold that the government’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment based on a combination of Katz v. United States’ reasonable expectation of privacy test and the sequential approach to Fourth Amendment analysis. In doing so, the Court should focus on the information the government accesses, as opposed to the technology law enforcement uses, given how quickly technology advances. Ultimately, however, this article concludes that whether the government’s investigative techniques qualify as a Fourth Amendment search is a question the legislature, not the Court, should answer.
A Match Made in Hell: The Dangers of Tech-Banking Union
March 27, 2018
Proponents of the regulatory state have seen very few causes for celebration in the past two years. Buried in the mountain of bad news was an underreported but alarming phenomenon: the entrance of tech giants into commercial banking. Recent reporting that Amazon and other tech companies are interested in entering the banking market should cause those concerned about market consolidation and stability to panic. More importantly, it should cause regulators to think long and hard before making any changes that would allow these companies to engage in commercial banking activities.
Bail Reform in New York: Lessons from New Jersey
March 23, 2018
Since New Jersey’s Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act took effect on January 1, 2017, New Jersey is now at the forefront of the bail reform movement. Under the Act, state judges must use an algorithm that accounts for flight risk and dangerousness before deciding if a defendant should be released before trial. The judge maintains discretion, however, to decide whether to consider other factors that go unaccounted for in the algorithm, and to attach conditions to a defendant’s pre-trial release to ensure his return to court. Judges in New Jersey are permitted to detain violent defendants without bail, but only after the court conducts a hearing that adheres to due process standards. Although a number of states like Colorado, Connecticut, and Rhode Island have instituted changes in their bail procedures through the use of similar pre-trial risk assessments, no state has gone to the same lengths as New Jersey to overhaul its bail system.
Autonomous Vehicles and Products Liability
March 19, 2018
Autonomous vehicles have gone rapidly from a theoretical future technological development to a reality, in which autonomous cars are set to quickly break into the mainstream. Their societal value, which consists, among others, of their increased safety, their ability to facilitate reduced-mobility persons and their environmental efficiency, is a factor which encourages their broad production and use. The Department of Transportation recently explored the legal questions raised by autonomous vehicles at an Autonomous Vehicles Summit Event on March 1, 2018, during which the Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao explored the possibility of an updated federal guidance being released by the end of this summer.
In the wake of their increasing number, the question of the appropriate treatment of autonomous vehicles under law becomes harder to ignore. The present article reviews the current products liability legislative framework and its application to autonomous vehicles.
Politicization in the Federal Judiciary and Its Effect on the Federal Judicial Function
February 28, 2018
During federal judicial confirmation hearings the term “politicization” comes up as a frequent buzzword amongst political pundits and scholars. While the federal judiciary’s increasingly politicization, over the last few decades, is generally accepted this agreed-upon acknowledgment of judicial politicization does not imply agreement as to its value. There are clearly those who view politicization positively, accompanied by an almost equally loud chorus of those decrying it. But, regardless from where pro- or anti-politicization’s arguments proceed both generally view politicization as a question of judicial legitimacy. It is thus the relationship between politicization and the judiciary that this paper seeks to understand.
This paper attempts to define and measure the exact relationship between politicization and the judiciary. If politicization is really about judicial legitimacy, then what measureable affect does politicization have on it? If this connection fails (i.e., is not falsifiable) then what alternate connections can be found between the judiciary and politicization that can be backed up with falsifiable evidence?
Securing Equal Access to the Ballot for Native Americans
February 5, 2018
Native Americans, like other minority groups, face racially motivated disenfranchisement efforts. Watershed victories for equal access to the ballot – including the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment – did not affect Native Americans because they were not considered U.S. citizens until the enactment of the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. While the Act nominally enfranchised Native Americans, disenfranchisement tactics remained pervasive at the state level. Early disenfranchisement techniques included staples such as literacy tests and laws that prohibited Natives from voting without saying so explicitly (i.e., denying the franchise to “Indians not taxed”). Modern disenfranchisement techniques include everything from gerrymandering to voter harassment and intimidation.
Following the Court’s decision in Shelby County, Native voters have had to rely more heavily on the courts and Congress to combat voter suppression. The Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) offered draft legislation that would increase the number of polling stations available on tribal lands; this legislation has not been introduced. In 2015, Senator Jon Tester introduced a much more comprehensive Native voting rights bill that incorporated DOJ’s suggested language and included provisions aimed at remedying other important voter suppression challenges such as language barriers, harassment and intimidation, and voter identification laws. While Senator Tester’s bill would go much further in combating Native voter suppression than DOJ’s, Tester’s bill might raise federalism concerns that could be fatal. Native voter suppression requires a federal legislative fix. This post reviews the legislative fixes that have been suggested so far, and suggests modifications to help them achieve their policy goals.
Will NYC’s New Pre-trial Risk Assessment Be Race Neutral?
Sainath R. Iyer
November 5, 2017
Pre-trial risk assessment instruments (RAIs) – assessments that help judges make “smarter” bail decisions by quantifying a defendant’s risk of flight and/or threat to public safety – are a relatively new phenomenon. There is fierce debate regarding their role and utility; specifically, how they affect incarceration rates, racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and public safety. At the very least, in some jurisdictions, some have helped reduce the jail population, although others, arguably, at the risk of entrenching racial bias. Given the endemic racial bias in the criminal justice system, this is an important concern, and makes transparency in the development, design, and implementation of RAIs critical.
Why the Civilian Purchase, Use, and Sale of Assault Weapons and Semiautomatic Rifles and Pistols, Along with Large Capacity Magazines, Should Be Banned
Donald L. Flexner
October 19, 2017
Originally published August 23, 2017
In the United States, private citizens can purchase powerful semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines. In 1994, Congress imposed a ten-year ban on the civilian use of many such weapons. Upon its expiration in 2004, Congress refused to extend the ban despite repeated calls to do so. In the wake of the law’s demise, these dangerous weapons have become widely available to disturbed civilians, gangs, criminals, hate groups, terrorists, and so-called lone wolves. This Article argues that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees civilian access to the most dangerous weapons, and that the ten-year ban should be renewed by Congress to stem the availability of these dangerous weapons which have caused countless tragedies.
Appendix A: Published Accounts of Deaths and Injuries Caused by Dangerous Firearms
Appendix B: Lower Court Approvals of Gun Regulations Post Heller
Original article available here.
The Evolution of Insider Trading
Daniel M Wiesenfeld
October 5, 2017
In Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420 (2016), the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on a key insider trading issue. The Salman Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s conviction of a tipee who traded on a relative’s inside information, broadening the scope of insider trading. The Court’s path to this decision has been long and bears review for those in white collar practice.
Defamation 2.0: Updating the Communications Decency Act of 1996 for the Digital Age
May 25, 2016
Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) into law as Title V of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. The statute restricts the transmission of obscene material on the Internet and, secondarily, defines who is subject to liability for unlawful content posted online. Congress carefully drafted the bill to reflect concerns about the law’s effects on the Internet’s growth and development, and to avoid chilling online speech and activity. The CDA, as enacted, immunizes websites and Internet service providers against liability for republishing tortious and otherwise unlawful content. In doing so, it dramatically departs from the common-law rules that govern defamation liability offline. The Internet of 2016, however, bears little resemblance to the Internet of 1996. The concerns that shaped the CDA no longer justify such a hands-off approach to tortious online speech; and as applied to today’s worldwide web, the statute creates problematic incentives, outcomes, and policy concerns. This Article examines the ways in which the CDA fails to account for critical features of the Internet as the medium has evolved since 1996, and then presents proposals as to how the statute might be updated to better suit the needs of today’s digital age.
Declining Controversial Cases: How Marriage Equality Changed the Paradigm
November 21, 2015
Until recently, state attorneys general defended their states’ laws as a matter of course. However, one attorney general’s decision not to defend his state’s law in a prominent marriage equality case sparked a cascade of attorney general declinations in other marriage equality cases. Declinations have also increased across a range of states and with respect to several other contentious subjects, including abortion and gun control. This Essay evaluates the causes and implications of this recent trend of state attorneys general abstaining from defending controversial laws on the grounds that those laws are unconstitutional, focusing on the marriage equality cases as its example. It argues that reputational factors, in addition to legal and political considerations, play a role in determining whether attorneys general will defend their states’ laws when they may have a basis for declining to do so. Moreover, the impact of nondefense goes beyond the directly connected litigation and can have negative ramifications for the public’s perception of the legal system and for the functioning of direct democracy.
Navigating the Policy Landscape to Bring Autonomous Vehicle Legislation to Your State
Kurt M. Gosselin
September 4, 2015
At an economic cost of nearly $300 billion, more than 5.5 million car accidents result in over 30,000 fatalities on American roadways each year. Advocates of automated vehicle (“AV”) technology view self-driving cars as a solution for reducing both the number and severity of accidents. Using AV technology on public roadways currently exists in a legal gray area as there is no national consensus on the legality of AV technology. However, NHTSA recently published guidance on the topic, many states are considering legislation to authorize the operation of these vehicles, and a few states have already passed legislation permitting the testing of automated vehicles. Building from NHTSA guidance and current state legislative and regulatory activity, this Note analyzes the interests involved in state-based regulation of autonomous vehicle testing and proposes a model plan for enacting a regulatory regime for AV technology.
Open Access for Parents to an Education Network (OPEN): An Open-Data Policy to Improve the Effectiveness and Equal Utilization of School Choices and Open Enrollment Options Across the Education Landscape
Robin C. Burrell
July 27, 2015
This white paper was selected as the winning entry for the 2015 NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy Legislation Competition, and aims to explain to advocates and provide them tools to use when talking to legislators about the attached draft bill. The Legislation Competition asked participants to develop and submit model state legislation to address a specific policy issue identified by the Legislation Competition Committee and further submit a white paper to supplement the draft bill. Entries were reviewed by the chairs of the Legislation Competition Committee who rated entries on criteria such as originality, creativeness, quality of submission, and viability of proposal.
Waiver of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Congressional Investigations: What Congress, Witnesses, and Lawyers Can Learn from the IRS Scandal
May 8, 2015
“I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” These few sentences uttered by Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations Division, ignited a debate among criminal law scholars over whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This Article analyzes what constitutes a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination in the context of congressional investigations and asserts that Lois Lerner likely waived her right to remain silent. An examination of Lerner’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee illustrates that the issue of Fifth Amendment waivers in congressional hearings is complicated and highly fact-specific. Thus, this Article proposes measures that Congress should adopt to ensure that complex questions regarding waiver do not arise in future congressional hearings. In addition, this Article offers guidance to lawyers who represent clients in congressional investigations by suggesting how witnesses should invoke their right to remain silent in congressional hearings.
Revisiting the FISA Court Appointment Process
Douglas E. Lindner
April 9, 2015
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts are the only active Article III courts without full-time judges directly appointed by the President. The Chief Justice unilaterally chooses generalist judges to serve as part-time FISA judges. Proceedings are classified and only the government is represented, so the only legal or technical arguments against any surveillance request are the ones judges raise themselves. This Essay argues that the FISA court appointment process lacks democratic legitimacy, threatens the separation of powers, undermines the ideological balance of the judiciary, and asks too much of generalist judges. The author concludes that, whatever the wisdom of the FISA courts’ decisions, they belong in the hands of permanent, specialist judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Tenant Screening in an Era of Mass Incarceration: A Criminal Record is No Crystal Ball
Merf Ehman & Anna Reosti
March 3, 2015
This article focuses on Washington landlord liability in the tenant screening context and increasing housing access for rental applicants with criminal records. Part I examines the concept of foreseeability as it pertains to potential landlord liability for renting to an applicant with a criminal record whose actions harm another tenant. Part II surveys the relevant sociological research on the relation-ship between a criminal record and the ability to meet the obligations of tenancy. Based upon this review, we conclude that there is no empirical evidence establishing a relationship between a criminal record and an unsuccessful tenancy. Part III posits that since research demonstrates that a criminal record is not a reliable indicator for future tenant behavior, it should not serve as a proxy to determine future tenant dangerousness. Washington landlords should not be liable for future harm to tenants based solely upon renting to an applicant with a criminal record. Refusing to hold landlords liable in this way, would increase housing opportunities for this population which in turn will reduce recidivism thereby increasing public safety and promoting the rehabilitation of people with a criminal history.
Comment: Young v. UPS, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Future of Pregnancy Discrimination Law
Katharine M. Deabler
December 1, 2014
Women who continue to work during pregnancy need legal protections to prevent discrimination. While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act strives to protect women from adverse employment actions stemming from pregnancy discrimination, a lack of clarity in the relevant case law has undermined the statute. This comment explores Young v. UPS, a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. Young presents the Court with an opportunity to clarify the statute and enable the law to better protect working women.
Shop ‘Til You Drop: Forums and Federalism in New York’s Class Action Procedure
Max I Raskin
November 21, 2014
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedics Associates v. Allstate Ins. Co., some have proposed that New York repeal § 901(b) of its class action certification statute in order to establish uniformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s analogue, Rule 23. This article argues against repeal of § 901(b) in order to further New York’s sovereign calculus of determining what is best for the state. The New York legislature made a considered determination to bar certification where statutory penalties were available—acquiescing to the ukase of the Judicial Conference of the United States undermines this determination.
Responding to: Oscar G. Chase, Living in the Shadow: Class Actions in New York After Shady Grove, 2014 N.Y.U. Journal of Legis. & Pub. Pol’y Quorum 114 (2014).
Living in the Shadow: Class Actions in New York After Shady Grove
Oscar G. Chase
November 21, 2014
In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., the Supreme Court wrestled with conflicting state and federal rules governing class action certification in a diversity case. Section 901(b) of New York’s Civil Procedure Law and Rules prohibits certification of class actions in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a “penalty,” unless specifically authorized by statute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 has no such limitation. Plaintiffs brought a class action in federal district court to recover statutory interest pursuant to a New York law that imposed an interest rate on insurers who delayed payments. The interest payments were considered a “penalty” for the purposes of § 901(b). Thus, a class action was not available in New York state court, but the case could proceed in the federal court if Federal Rule 23 applied. The Supreme Court held in Shady Grove that the federal rule governed and that the class action could proceed. Consequently, future claims based on statutory penalties will qualify as class actions in federal but not in New York courts. Because the typical penalty recoveries authorized by New York law are too small to support individual actions, this article argues that the resulting inequitable treatment of claimants is unfair and violates the spirit of Erie and its progeny. New York should repeal § 901(b) in its entirety, or should decide on a statute-by-statute basis which, if any, should remain extant.
Comment: Elonis, True Threats, and the Ontology of Facebook
Alessandra N. Baniel-Stark
October 31, 2014
Elonis v. United States, which will be argued before the Supreme Court this December, raises the question of the applicable standard for determining whether speech is a true threat. Of particular interest in Elonis is how the Court will interpret appellant’s speech, which took place on Facebook and often took the form of quoted rap lyrics. This Comment argues that, despite changes the Internet has wrought in how speech is delivered, the appropriate standard for determining whether speech is a true threat is an objective one, as such a standard best addresses the concerns that gave rise to the true threats exception. This Comment further discusses some of the challenges courts have faced in properly conceiving of rap music and urges that a particular view of rap not be enshrined as a matter of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Why We Need a Comprehensive Recording Fraud Registry
Randall K. Johnson
September 9, 2014
This essay argues for a modest expansion of the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) in order to detect and deter more recording fraud. It does so, initially, by explaining why this online registry limits mortgage fraud. The essay later describes how the NMLS could detect or deter other crimes, such as deed fraud and lien fraud. Lastly, it deals with concerns about a Comprehensive Recording Fraud Registry.
Model Fairness and Advocacy for Interested Recipients (FAIR) Act: Ensuring Fair and Balanced Treatment of Americans Participating in Social Security Act Programs Through Legal Representation and Counsel
Cerin M. Lindgrensavage
August 28, 2014
This white paper was selected as the winning entry for the 2014 NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy Legislation Competition, and aims to explain to advocates and provide them tools to use when talking to legislators about the attached draft bill. The Legislation Competition asked participants to develop and submit model state legislation to address a specific policy issue identified by the Legislation Competition Committee and further submit a white paper to supplement the draft bill. Entries were reviewed by the chairs of the Legislation Competition Committee who rated entries on criteria such as originality, creativeness, quality of submission, and viability of proposal. The first section is a quick “leave behind” one-page document to help advocates briefly explain the issue the bill is trying to address, why the issue matters, and a describe the proposed law. The rest of the white paper provides additional information, including an example of how the bill might actually work, should it become law.
Racializing Abortion: Standing and the Equal Protection Challenge to Sex-Selective Abortion Statutes
Joshua D. Lee
July 10, 2014
Several states have recently enacted statutes prohibiting the provision of an abortion on the basis of a fetus’s sex (so-called sex-selective abortions). These statutes—which impose criminal sanctions on medical professionals who knowingly perform a sex-selective abortion—were justified under the pretense of allegedly curbing the sex-selective practices of Asian cultures, though critics were quick to point out that bill sponsors provided scant or no evidence of sex-selective abortions actually occurring. The statutes—at least one of which has been challenged in federal court—has, according to some, had the effect of unfairly stigmatizing Asian-Americans by relying on “invidious and unfounded” stereotypes, which are memorialized in the legislative history of the statutes. This Essay examines the equal protection challenge to these statutes, as well as the standing obstacle that the plaintiffs must overcome.
Should Counsel for a Non-Party Deponent be a “Potted Plant”?
David L. Ferstendig & Oscar G. Chase
May 19, 2014
It has long been the practice in New York that non-party deponents may be represented at depositions and that counsel may object to questions counsel believes are improper. In 2010, however, the New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department ruled in Thompson v. Mather that counsel for a non-party may not make objections and, in effect, is a mere “potted plant” at the deposition. Under Thompson, counsel may not object even to protect a privilege or to strike a plainly improper question that would cause substantial prejudice if answered. Although only the Fourth Department has ruled in this manner, the case is binding on all lower courts throughout the state absent a contrary decision by another Appellate Division Department, an overruling by the Court of Appeals, or a legislative correction. This article analyzes practical considerations and ethical dilemmas implicated by this ruling. The article concludes that the ruling rests on an improper interpretation of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, flies in the face of established practice, is impractical, and raises serious ethical dilemmas for counsel representing a non-party at a deposition. The authors urge the Court of Appeals, which is set to decide this issue in the October, 2014 term, to reject the Fourth Department ruling and hold that important protections provided by counsel to party deponents are available to counsel for non-parties. Alternatively, the authors recommend legislation be enacted to achieve that end.
Applying “Corrective Measures” to the ADA: Looking Beyond the Glasses Exception
Eric C. Yarnell
May 11, 2014
Individuals with disabilities often take medications, wear prostheses, or employ methods to help alleviate the effects of their disabilities. Collectively, these are commonly known as “mitigating measures.” Under the amended Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), when a court determines whether someone is disabled, the court cannot take the effects of his or her mitigating measures into account. However, the amended ADA does permit courts to consider the corrective effects of “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” when making disability determinations. This Article argues that the ADA’s sole exception for corrective lenses is inappropriate as currently written. Most seriously, the current statutory language is deficient because it does not provide a framework through which changes in science or technology may be taken into account. In time, other mitigating measures might become as cheap, as common, and as effective as glasses are today. This Article proposes that the ADA’s isolated exception for corrective lenses be replaced with a general exception framework and test. Specifically, when determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, mitigating measures should be taken into account for any measure (1) that provides assured, total, and relatively permanent control of all symptoms; (2) that is reasonably inexpensive to use; and (3) whose use would not be viewed as socially stigmatizing from the perspective of the reasonable observer.
Pension Forfeiture and Prosecutorial Policy-Making
March 14, 2014
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York recently announced the adoption of new policies designed to forfeit the pensions of New York state and local officials convicted of federal corruption charges. In this article, Gary Stein analyzes the SDNY’s new pension forfeiture policies in light of the long-established doctrine that the power to prescribe the punishments for federal crimes belongs exclusively to Congress. No federal statute expressly authorizes pension forfeiture as a punishment for corrupt state and local officials, and general federal forfeiture law — the principal legal basis underlying the SDNY’s new policies — does not appear to authorize forfeiture either, as pension benefits cannot, at least in the majority of cases, logically be viewed as the “proceeds” of a corrupt official’s wrongdoing. Tracing the development of pension forfeiture legislation at the federal and New York levels, the article also argues that the SDNY’s approach conflicts with congressional intent and with principles of federalism. Further, since general forfeiture law is mandatory rather than discretionary, the SDNY approach is incapable of balancing competing interests in a manner that legislation is able to accomplish. For all these reasons, the article concludes, the SDNY’s new pension forfeiture policies exceed the limits of permissible policy-making by federal prosecutors.
Irreparable Harm to Whom? Parsing Utah’s Odd Argument
March 10, 2014
In Kitchen v. Herbert, a federal judge in Utah struck down Amendment 3 to the state’s constitution, which prohibited same-sex couples from marrying. Utah rushed to stay the decision pending appeal, which would prevent same-sex couples from marrying in the interim. Although both the District Court and Court of Appeals denied the state’s request, the Supreme Court granted the stay—but not until nearly 1,300 same-sex couples had already married in Utah. In arguing in favor of a stay, Utah posited that same-sex couples would suffer an irreparable harm in the form of “dignitary losses” if they were to marry and then, when the District Court’s decision was eventually overturned on appeal, have their marriage taken away from them. This article critiques the curious logic behind the state’s argument, as well as the state’s earnestness in its concern for dignitary losses considering its decision, after the Supreme Court granted the stay, not to recognize the legal validity of the 1,300 same-sex marriages that had taken place. In the recent wave of similar challenges to same-sex marriage prohibitions taking place in many states around the country, and due to the subsequent stay requests that will surely follow, the author hopes to provide guidance to both judges and the legal community as to how to approach “dignitary loss” arguments made by states.
“People who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications”: Defining a Journalist and Deciding Who May Claim The Privileges
Jonathan Peters & Edson C. Tandoc, Jr.
October 8, 2013
In July, a federal appeals court ruled that a New York Times reporter must testify in the criminal trial of a former CIA officer accused of improperly disclosing classified information. In May, the DOJ confirmed it had obtained months of phone records of AP reporters and a “portfolio of information” about a Fox News correspondent. Criticism from the press and public was swift, and in response, the administration attempted to reassure the press that it would not be conscripted into the service of law enforcement. President Obama urged Congress to reintroduce a federal shield bill that would allow reporters to refuse to testify about their sources. The bill’s fate is uncertain, and it has generated a debate about the definition of a journalist. Innovations in technology have created new channels for people to communicate, complicating the effort to define a journalist. This article explicates the concept of journalist, drawing from the scholarly, legal, and industry domains. The authors hope to contribute to the ongoing debate about who may claim the legal privileges for journalists.
Substantial, Purposeful, or Material? Defining the Contours of Support for Terrorism
Paul John DeSena
July 12, 2013
Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act controversially allows individuals who provide “substantial support” to terrorist organizations to be detained “until the end of the hostilities.” The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is currently considering a case involving its interpretation. In this Comment, Paul John DeSena analyzes the interpretation of related terms, such as “material support,” and argues that the Second Circuit should follow the lead of a prior district court decision, Gherebi v. Obama, and cabin the meaning of “substantial support” to those who directly participate in or are members of terrorist organizations.
A Response to Professors Adler and Siegel Addressing the Constitutionality of the REINS Act
Sally Katzen with Julian Ginos
April 15, 2013
Professor Sally Katzen responds to Professors Adler and Siegel, both of whom claim that the proposed REINS Act would be upheld as constitutional. Professor Katzen casts doubt on this position by offering a competing interpretation of the Act and of executive power under existing Congressional delegations of regulatory authority. Particularly, the REINS Act impermissibly interferes with the President’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” by resurrecting a form of the legislative veto rejected by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha.
Responding to: Jonathan Adler, Placing “REINS” on Regulations: Assessing the Proposed REINS Act, 16 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2013) and Jonathan Siegel, The REINS Act and the Struggle to Control Agency Rulemaking, 16 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 131 (2013).
The Two-Year Law Degree: Undesirable But Perhaps Unavoidable
April 3, 2013
Professor Gillers responds to Professor Estreicher’s proposal for a two-year law degree that will qualify a graduate to take the bar examination. Professor Gillers states that while two years of law school may be sufficient to practice many types of legal work, it will put two-year graduates at a professional disadvantage. The lower knowledge base of two-year graduates will make them less attractive candidates in an already tight job market. Furthermore, even if New York allows a two-year degree to qualify for the bar exam, it will limit two-year graduates to practicing in New York only, as reciprocity from other states is not expected.
Responding to: Samuel Estreicher, The Roosevelt-Cardozo Way: The Case for Bar Eligibility After Two Years of Law School, 15 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 599 (2012).
Foreword: An Introduction to Quorum
Julia F. Bell and Britton A. Kovachevich
April 3, 2013