Digital Commons Network^™

Fabricating The Crime Of Undocumented Presence, Eric S. Fish, Doug Keller

Fordham Law Review

In 2025, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) declared that it is a federal crime simply to be an undocumented immigrant. Congress has enacted no such crime. Congress has made it a crime for an immigrant to enter the United States in a manner that “eludes examination or inspection.” For nearly 100 years, this “elude” offense has been understood to occur only at the moment an immigrant enters the country. But the Trump administration’s OLC has reinterpreted this crime as a continuing offense. Under this new reading, an immigrant who entered unlawfully eludes examination until the moment of …

Minimal Success: The Consequences Of Mandatory Minimums In Youth Sentencing, Maya Chrobot

Fordham Law Review

In New York State, children as young as thirteen can be processed as adults and sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to sentence the defendant to a statutorily set minimum term of imprisonment. Practitioners, judges, and researchers question the efficacy of mandatory minimum sentences, finding that they are ineffective at deterring crime, decreasing bias in sentencing, and increasing community safety. Additionally, there is clear evidence about the damaging effects of incarceration on young adults. Instead of functioning as rehabilitative punishment, incarceration leads young adults to experience poor mental and physical health outcomes upon release, and they …

Law's Penal-Professional World Order, Pilar Margarita Hernández Escontrías

Fordham Law Review

The attorney discipline regime has been propagandized as a necessary mechanism to police poor attorney conduct to protect the public. According to this myth, professional associations investigate attorney misconduct and impose sanctions, thus protecting the “noble profession” from attorneys who would tarnish its reputation. Violations of ethics rules lead to investigation, prosecution, and punishment by the state bar. In structure and language, state bars and judicial officers replicate the state in their use of disciplinary frameworks and regimes.

The self-regulating bar is a form of punitive governance used by the state to control entry into and expulsion from the profession. …

Recalibrating Deference In Sentencing, Meghana Nemali

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) is responsible for promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in federal sentencing. In pursuit of this mandate, the Commission publishes the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which are accompanied by official commentary. In Stinson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court endowed the commentary with controlling authority. However, nearly three decades later, the Court in Kisor v. Wilkie granted courts greater discretion in deciding whether to defer to the commentary. Moreover, in 2024, the Court eliminated the absolute deference regime for administrative agency determinations in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. As a result, …

Equality In Sentencing Mitigation, John B. Meixner Jr.

Fordham Law Review

As guilty-plea rates have skyrocketed, sentencing has become an increasingly important part of criminal procedure. With judges often wielding significant discretion at sentencing, a key question is how judges interpret mitigation: evidence about the defendant’s background or the case that supports a reduced sentence. Past empirical research—both experimental and in real-world cases—indicates that mitigation plays an important role in determining sentences. But does mitigation help everyone, or does it reinforce inequalities that frequently infect other areas of criminal procedure? Do low-income Black defendants with appointed counsel benefit from sentencing mitigation as much as wealthier White defendants with private attorneys? Do …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Settling On A Standard: Reviewing The Right To Self-Representation, Lauren Lipson

Fordham Law Review

Courts appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation to uphold their Sixth Amendment rights. In its seminal waiver case, Faretta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the corollary right—the right to self-representation—to constitutional status. In dicta, the Court created a standard by which defendants must waive their right to counsel “knowingly and intelligently” to proceed pro se. The Court subsequently sculpted the right to self-representation as it came to standby counsel and mental competency, but it never prescribed a precise waiver colloquy for district court judges to administer, causing the Faretta colloquy to look …

The Conversation Continues: The Judiciary’S Evolving Role In Perpetuating Racial Disparities In Addiction Treatment, Sydney Crute

Fordham Law Review

Language is a powerful means of social control, an idea that resonates deeply with court rhetoric as it relates to race. This Note examines the language courts use when discussing cases related to drug use and addiction. During the crack epidemic, when Black individuals represented the race of the primary drug user and drug dealer, courts relied on racially coded language related to crime and fear. Alternatively, during the opioid epidemic, when White individuals represented the race of the primary drug user, courts relied on more neutral language related to the health and well-being of society. Finally, the language courts …

Properly Partitioning Prejudice: Analyzing Mixed Brady And Napue Claims, Patrick Scariano

Fordham Law Review

Due process affords criminal defendants the right to receive evidence possessed by the government that would aid in their defense. This right was codified in Brady v. Maryland. Brady’s lesser-known ancestor is Napue v. Illinois, which gave defendants the right to a new trial if the government knowingly offered perjured testimony in their original trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that these rights are critical to support verdicts worthy of confidence necessary to ensure due process.

Unfortunately, defendants victimized by misconduct are often affected by multiple violations of their rights. Courts have developed ways to examine …

Can Prosecutors’ Offices Preserve Public Confidence In Their Nonpartisanship—And, If So, How?, Bruce A. Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Doing Justice With Empathy: Black Prosecutors In The Age Of Mass Incarceration, Kevin Woodson

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

A World-Threatening Feeling: Grief, Moral Injury, And Institutional Loss In Rural Courts, Michele Statz

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Honorable John F. Keenan, Judge Keenan's Former Law Clerks

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Broken Shield: Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims In Cases Of Racist Defense Attorneys, Sophia Sabet

Fordham Law Review

Defense attorneys are not immune to racism, and a defense attorney who holds racist beliefs about their client’s race fundamentally calls into question the representation received. Under the Sixth Amendment, all criminal defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington that a criminal defendant must prove that their counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. The Supreme Court supplemented the Strickland standard in Cuyler v. Sullivan and United States v. Cronic, holding that a conflict …

Distorted Narratives In The Treatment Program Complex, Evelyn Lia Malavé

Fordham Law Review

Problem-solving courts and alternatives to incarceration have been both celebrated as successful attempts to address the factors that lead to defendants’ involvement in the criminal legal system and critiqued as ineffective reforms that worsen mass incarceration. Specifically, critiques of the “treatment program complex” have tended to focus on how it harms defendants by exposing them to higher levels of incarceration if they fail to complete court mandates. But these critiques have failed to account for another way the treatment program complex harms defendants: by suppressing their voices regarding what kind of help they need and how they are affected by …

Impeaching With An Alleged Prior False Accusation, Erin Murphy

Fordham Law Review

The Court’s categorical recognition of bias as a constitutionally protected, and therefore rape-shield recognized, exception to the general bar on evidence of sexual history has led to questions about whether other forms of impeachment might also evade rape shield restrictions. In particular, courts have grappled with the admissibility of impeachment by evidence of a prior false accusation (PFA).

The current treatment of PFAs is inconsistent and controversial for several reasons. First, as explained further in Part I, there is a lack of clear guidance in the rules about how such evidence should be treated. Second, of course, there are the …

An Apt Analogy?: Rethinking The Role Of Judicial Deference To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Post-Kisor, Amy Walker

Fordham Law Review

Since its inception in 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) has struggled to garner and maintain a sense of legitimacy among federal judges. The tension is both a story about competing expertise between judges and the Commission and competing values, namely uniformity and individuality. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stinson v. United States prioritized uniformity by telling lower courts to treat the Commission as they would any other administrative agency. Lower courts—for the most part—faithfully executed this directive until 2019, when the Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie gave them another option, one that seemed to leave …

Branding Corporate Criminals, W. Robert Thomas, Milhailis E. Diamantis

Fordham Law Review

Corporate punishment has a branding problem. Criminal sanctions should call out wrongdoing and condemn wrongdoers. In a world where generic corporate misconduct is a daily affair, conviction singles out truly contemptible practices from merely sharp, unproductive, or undesirable ones. In this way, criminal law gives victims the recognition they deserve, deters future wrongdoers who want to preserve their good name, and publicly reinforces society’s most treasured values.

Unfortunately, corporate punishment falls far short of all these communicative ambitions. For punishment to convey its intended message, society must be able to hear about it. When courts convict individuals, everyone understands that …

The Legal Imitation Game: Generative Ai’S Incompatibility With Clinical Legal Education, Jake Karr, Jason Schultz

Fordham Law Review

In this Essay, we briefly describe key aspects of [generative artificial intelligence] that are particularly relevant to, and raise particular risks for, its potential use by lawyers and law students. We then identify three foundational goals of clinical legal education that provide useful frameworks for evaluating technological tools like GenAI: (1) practice readiness, (2) justice readiness, and (3) client-centered lawyering. First is “practice readiness,” which is about ensuring that students have the baseline abilities, knowledge, and skills to practice law upon graduation. Second is “justice readiness,” a concept proposed by Professor Jane Aiken, which is about teaching law students to …

Ai, Algorithms, And Awful Humans, Daniel J. Solove, Hideyuki Matsumi

Fordham Law Review

A profound shift is occurring in the way many decisions are made, with machines taking greater roles in the decision-making process. Two arguments are often advanced to justify the increasing use of automation and algorithms in decisions. The “Awful Human Argument” asserts that human decision-making is often awful and that machines can decide better than humans. Another argument, the “Better Together Argument,” posits that machines can augment and improve human decision-making. These arguments exert a powerful influence on law and policy.

In this Essay, we contend that in the context of making decisions about humans, these arguments are far too …

Burden Of The Bargain: Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims In The Absence Of A Plea Offer, Sriram H. Ramesh

Fordham Law Review

The modern criminal justice system in the United States is a “system of pleas.” Plea bargains have largely supplanted trials as the primary method of resolving criminal proceedings in this country. Acknowledging their prevalence, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the plea-bargaining process. Thus, defendants may bring ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims for alleged ineffectiveness during the plea-bargaining phase.

In two companion cases, Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, the Court held that its two-pronged test for IAC, laid out in Strickland v. Washington, …

Regulating The Public Defender Identity, Irene Oritseweyinmi Joe

Fordham Law Review

The public defender institution has trouble meeting its mission. This is partly because, despite the specific and clear purpose of representing indigent defendants in criminal proceedings, public defender offices rely on various centering principles to meet this objective. The institution falters if it chooses a centering principle that unwittingly complicates its ability to meet the institution’s central mission. For public defender leaders tasked with developing and maintaining an institutional identity for a particular office, neither legal nor professional regulations supply the type of considerations that guarantee that an adopted identity will comply with core institutional responsibilities. This project seeks to …

No More Nixon: A Proposed Change To Rule 17(C) Of The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Norah Senftleber

Fordham Law Review

Today, the standard for subpoenas under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, espoused in United States v. Nixon, provides for limited, almost useless, pretrial subpoena power for criminal defendants. When subpoenaing a third party, a defendant must show (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity for documents that they have not yet gained access to. This narrow scope of Rule 17(c) has long engendered criticism from judges, scholars, and practitioners alike. Yet, Rule 17(c) has not been changed, either by judicial opinion or amendment.

Following years of criticism, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules (“Advisory Committee”) …

Asymmetry Of Representation In Poor People’S Courts, Tonya L. Brito, Daniela Campos Ugaz

Fordham Law Review

This Essay examines the asymmetry of representation in poor people’s courts, specifically in child support enforcement cases involving the State. The asymmetry of representation is a common occurrence in various civil law fields, but it is notably prominent in family law, which has the highest number of unrepresented parties. As one of the authors has previously explained, we use “poor people’s courts” to refer to state civil courts that hear family, housing, administrative, and consumer cases. These courts present severe challenges to the civil justice system because they are characterized by a substantial volume of cases, socioeconomically disadvantaged litigants, and …

Should State Trial Courts Become Laboratories Of Upl Reform?, Bruce A. Green

Fordham Law Review

There is a growing “access to justice” movement that is principally driven by lawyers and judges. It has multiple objectives. One such objective is to make state court proceedings fairer, more reliable, and more accessible. This is important because state courts have a significant impact on peoples’ lives. They are where family members lose custody of children, where property owners obtain permission to evict tenants, where creditors are empowered to repossess people’s cars or garnish their wages, and (in some jurisdictions) where judges send people to jail to compel them to pay judgments or fees that they cannot afford to …

Charging Abortion, Milan Markovic

Fordham Law Review

As long as Roe v. Wade remained good law, prosecutors could largely avoid the question of abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has now placed prosecutors at the forefront of the abortion wars. Some chief prosecutors in antiabortion states have pledged to not enforce antiabortion laws, whereas others are targeting even out-of-state providers. This post-Dobbs reality, wherein the ability to obtain an abortion depends not only on the politics of one’s state but also the policies of one’s local district attorney, has received minimal scrutiny from legal scholars.

Prosecutors have broad charging discretion, …

Extraordinary Punishment: Conditions Of Confinement And Compassionate Release, Meredith B. Esser

Fordham Law Review

People experience severe forms of harm while incarcerated, including medical neglect, prolonged solitary confinement, sexual and physical violence, and a host of other ills. But civil rights litigation under the Eighth Amendment—the most common vehicle through which people seek to redress these harms—presents significant practical and doctrinal barriers to incarcerated plaintiffs. Most notably, the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard asks not whether a person has been harmed, but instead requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a criminally reckless mental state on the part of prison officials. Further, Eighth Amendment remedies are limited to damages or injunctions, which may not adequately redress a …

Foreword: The Legal Profession And Social Change, Atinuke O. Adediran, Bruce A. Green

Fordham Law Review

Fordham University School of Law’s Stein Center for Law and Ethics has collaborated with the Fordham Law Review every year since the late 1990s to encourage, collect, and publish scholarly writings on different aspects of the legal profession, including its norms, regulation, organization, history, and development—that is, on themes relating to what law schools loosely call “legal ethics.” The legal profession is an important subject of study for legal scholars, among others. Although one U.S. Supreme Court Justice, himself a former law professor, airily derided legal ethics as the “least analytically rigorous . . . of law-school subjects,” we dispute …

Community Responsive Public Defense, Alexis Hoag-Fordjour

Fordham Law Review

This colloquium asks us to consider how social change is influencing the legal profession and the legal profession’s response. This Essay applies these questions to organizing around criminal injustice and the response from public defenders. This Essay surfaces the work of four innovative indigent defense organizations that are engaged with and duty-bound to the communities they represent. I call this “community responsive public defense,” which is a distinct model of indigent defense whereby public defenders look to their clients and their clients’ communities to help shape advocacy, strategy, and representation.

Methodologically, this Essay relies primarily on qualitative interviews with leaders …

Liberty On Hold: The Constitutional Test And Source For Overdetention Claims, Sarya Baladi

Fordham Law Review

The persistence of overdetention—meaning continued detention after officers knew or should have known that the arrested person was entitled to release—poses major concerns about both the fundamental right against arbitrary detention and other unenumerated constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Baker v. McCollan established a vague constitutional protection against overdetention, but it left lower courts to answer many open questions about its parameters.

Although courts agree that the Constitution prohibits law enforcement from arbitrarily detaining indefinitely an arrested person who protests their legitimate release, the application of this protection has been inconsistent across federal courts of appeals. …