Digital Commons Network^™

The Nlrb’S Authority To Make Workers Whole, Wanny Mei

Fordham Law Review

In December 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) announced a modified make-whole remedial framework in Thryv, Inc.For all standard make-whole relief orders, the Board would order relief for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms that employees suffer as a result of an unfair labor practice. Proponents of this remedial design assert that this is consistent with the Board’s authority under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On the other hand, opponents find that this design exceeds the Board’s statutory authority and conflicts with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

This Note …

The Dead Hand And Frozen Lives: Embryonic Personhood And The Disruption Of Property Interests, Emma Miloglav

Fordham Law Review

Advances in assisted reproductive technology and the expansion of fetal personhood laws are colliding with a body of property doctrine built on assumptions about reproduction that no longer hold. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., the Supreme Court of Alabama held that extrauterine embryos—fertilized and frozen in a laboratory—are “children” under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. LePage represents a dramatic extension of fetal personhood.

This shift carries profound consequences for trusts and estates. If frozen embryos are treated as legal persons, they may qualify as heirs under intestacy statutes and as beneficiaries of wills, …

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, …

Remote Access Restrictions To Immigration-Related Court Records, Doris H. Zhang

Fordham Law Review

Journalists today often report on newsworthy federal court cases by remotely accessing the court records online. However, thanks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c), remote access is not available by default in immigration-related cases. To obtain any court records in immigration cases, journalists must go to the courthouse, hire someone to go on their behalf, or ask the court to exercise its discretion to lift the Rule 5.2(c) remote access restrictions. These alternatives are burdensome, hindering the ability of the press and the public to keep track of immigration cases in federal courts. Despite the burdens on the press …

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 …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Ai Procurement As Regulatory Reconnaissance, Sam Adler

Fordham Law Review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a black box technology in a black box industry. Some view AI as a life-changing technology capable of advancing society and perhaps even saving the world, while others fear its capacity to harm. Like Dr. Frankenstein, developers fear the unpredictability of their own creations; deployers fear the unknown risks of third-party AI tools that market pressures drive them to assume; members of civil society fear AI’s capacity to oppress the already oppressed and degrade trust in institutions; and everyday users fear the undisclosed potential of AI to cause harm by means they cannot readily comprehend. These …

Not So Firmly Settled: How The Inconsistent Jurisprudence Of The Firm Resettlement Bar Serves As A Tool For Asylum Seeker Exclusion, Caroline V. Garrido

Fordham Law Review

The firm resettlement bar to asylum, designed to limit protections to those without refuge elsewhere, has become a source of inconsistency, confusion, and exclusion in U.S. asylum law. Circuit courts have adopted two different approaches for determining whether an asylum seeker has firmly resettled in a third country. Despite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ attempt to unify these approaches through the introduction of a burden-shifting framework, courts remain divided, and there is no clear guidance on what constitutes firm resettlement. This Note argues that this lack of guidance has led to inconsistent court holdings and interpretations that conflict with the …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the president, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.

Bringing together two …

The Equal Pay Act’S Hidden Loophole: Eliminating Prior Compensation As A “Factor Other Than Sex”, Madeleine Bol

Fordham Law Review

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA or the “Act”) prohibits employers from engaging in sex-based wage discrimination. The Act includes four exceptions that allow an employer to circumvent liability, the last of which allows for pay disparities when the “differential [is] based on any other factor other than sex.” The language of this exceedingly broad exception raises questions among courts on what “other than sex” entails—specifically, whether a court can rely on an employee’s prior compensation to justify a pay disparity between employees of the opposite sex. This Note examines how federal circuit courts have interpreted this catchall exception. …

A True Fact Should Not Be Controversial: Analyzing The Zauderer Standard And Defining “Uncontroversial”, Edina Hartstein

Fordham Law Review

In Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the compelled speech doctrine that allowed the government to regulate commercial speech if it was “purely factual and uncontroversial.” However, the Court failed to define what it meant for a disclosure to be “purely factual” or what it meant to be “uncontroversial.” This lack of clarity led to lower courts inconsistently applying the Zauderer standard. In 2018, the Supreme Court decided National Institute for Family Life & Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA), which held that the Zauderer standard cannot apply when the disclosure …

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 Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act As A Model Of Cultural Sovereignty For Protecting Indigenous Sacred Site, Michalyn Steele

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

When The Taxpayers Are Not Innocent: The Need For Punitive Damages Against Municipalities Under The Fair Housing Act, Charlotte Saltzman

Fordham Law Review

Combatting housing discrimination by municipalities is a core function of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Courts disagree, however, as to whether punitive damages can be awarded against municipal defendants. The purpose of this Note is twofold. First, it compares the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, which held that punitive damages were appropriate against the Town of Cromwell, with the reasoning of district courts that came to the opposite conclusion in reliance on § 1983 precedent. Second, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the statutory analysis, it evaluates the public policy concerns of awarding …

Recalibrating Risk Under Dobbs, Yvonne Lindgren, Michelle Oberman

Fordham Law Review

In response to mounting evidence of the devastating harms patients have experienced under abortion bans, abortion opponents and the Supreme Court of Texas have argued that the bans are clear but that doctors are willfully refusing to provide care. Instead of reforming the bans, they argue that doctors should be sued in medical malpractice for their failure to meet the standard of care. This Article interrogates that claim, investigating whether the crisis in reproductive healthcare that has resulted from delayed and denied care can be remedied by suing doctors. Specifically, can medical malpractice litigation provide guardrails against the erosion in …

Remarks, Amassador Abubakar Jidda

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

Cultural Property Protection As A National Security Enforcement Priority, Andrew C. Adams

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporeal Property And The Limits Of Nagpra, M. Alexander Pearl

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seeing The Humanity In Each Object: Finding Justice Amid The Law, Gideon Taylor, Ruth J. Weinberger

Fordham Law Review

The restitution of Nazi-looted cultural and religious property remains an important aspect of providing a measure of justice for Holocaust victims and their heirs. The United States has played a leading role, from early postwar restitution efforts to shaping international principles, such as the Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (the “Washington Conference Principles”), the Terezin Declaration, and the recent Best Practices for the Washington Conference Principles. Yet restitution within the United States continues to rely largely on litigation, with varying outcomes and limited provenance research compared to some European countries. The following Essay examines America’s contributions and challenges and …

Oligarchy, State, And Cryptopia, Julie E. Cohen

Fordham Law Review

Theoretical accounts of power in networked digital environments typically do not give systematic attention to the phenomenon of oligarchy—to extreme concentrations of material wealth deployed to obtain and protect durable personal advantage. The biggest technology platform companies are dominated to a singular extent by a small group of very powerful and extremely wealthy men who have played uniquely influential roles in structuring technological development in particular ways that align with their personal beliefs and who now wield unprecedented informational, sociotechnical, and political power. Developing an account of oligarchy and, more specifically, of tech oligarchy within contemporary political economy therefore has …

It’S A Balancing Act: Analyzing The First Fair Use Factor, Taylor Gluckman

Fordham Law Review

Fair use has always been an important element of copyright law. The first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use,” has become especially important after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. The “purpose and character” is typically analyzed by determining if a secondary work is “transformative,” but lower courts do not agree on what it means to be transformative. There is also disagreement on how to balance a secondary work’s transformative nature with its commercial nature when deciding whether the first factor favors fair use.

This …

Venturing Into Health, Rachel E. Sachs

Fordham Law Review

In recent years, the landscape of venture capital (VC) investment in healthcare technologies has been altered by the introduction of new types of VC firms: those that have emerged from hospital systems and health insurers. However, the legal literature has not yet analyzed these new VC firms, the role they may play in healthcare innovation, and how innovation law and policy ought to consider their involvement. Hospital system and health insurer VC firms operate very differently than traditional VC firms, even those that have historically developed healthcare specializations. Instead of simply investing capital into start-up firms, hospital system and health …

The Roberts Court Paradox, John C. P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Fordham Law Review

As perhaps the most conservative Supreme Court of the past century, the Roberts Court regularly touts its commitment to traditional ideals, including the rule of law. Yet Trump v. United States seems ready to place presidents entirely or largely above the law by granting them absolute or near absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for official conduct. And Trump is not a one-off: from judicial recusal to qualified immunity to due process decisions, the Court frequently seems to display indifference to values of accountability and impartiality that have long been thought integral to the rule of law. What is going on? …

Emotionally Unstable: Addressing Emotional Distress As A Concrete Injury In Data Breach Cases Post-Transunion, Anna P. Cox

Fordham Law Review

Data breaches and data breach litigation are exponentially on the rise. Plaintiffs whose information is stolen in a data breach often claim emotional distress for fear of future harm the data breach may cause. However, plaintiffs who bring suit in federal court must show that they have suffered an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing before a federal court will exercise jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez requires that plaintiffs who seek money damages under a theory of risk of future harm show that they have suffered a present concrete injury to …

Fixing The Fix: The Case For Unifying The Remedial Framework Of Apa Rulemaking Challenges, Dea Devlin

Fordham Law Review

Vacatur is the default remedy for successful administrative rulemaking challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Yet its broad and sweeping effects raise critical questions regarding its appropriateness as a one-size-fits-all remedy. Unlike injunctive relief, which is subject to a rigorous heightened standard, and remand without vacatur, which has a comparable standard of its own, vacatur is routinely awarded without similar scrutiny, leading to inconsistencies in the judicial application of remedies in APA challenges.

Although vacatur can provide a plaintiff with relief, its award conflicts with underlying principles of equity and proportionality. In rulemaking challenges, vacatur can create regulatory …

The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality And Wire Fraud, L. Jackson Howell Jr.

Fordham Law Review

As globalization and technology increasingly blur geographic boundaries, federal prosecutors have turned to the wire fraud statute as a powerful tool for targeting transnational misconduct. Despite its popularity in international fraud prosecution, the statute’s application to foreign conduct continues to raise unresolved and pressing questions under the presumption against extraterritoriality. Specifically, courts have struggled to identify when a domestic wire communication is sufficient to bring a largely foreign fraudulent scheme within the reach of U.S. law. With the U.S. Supreme Court silent on the wire fraud statute directly, and zigzagging in its extraterritoriality jurisprudence more generally, lower courts are split …

Is Your Data Good, Bad, Or Neutral?: Redefining Concreteness For Data Breach Harms, Jeeyoon Lim

Fordham Law Review

In recent years, the Supreme Court has tightened federal court standing requirements for intangible harms, including statutory harms. In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Court held that a mere statutory violation, absent a common-law analogue, is not sufficiently concrete to grant standing. The Court did not provide clear guidance as to how stringent the common-law analogue analysis must be, other than that it does not require an “exact duplicate.” Because of the ever-evolving nature of digital data, data breach victims attempting to enforce their statutory right to privacy in federal court have struggled to rely on tradition and history …

When The Screen Lies: Navigating Privacy And Publicity In An Ai World, Nancy M. Menagh

Fordham Law Review

A key issue of the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike was the use of generative AI in the entertainment industry and, more specifically, the creation of uncanny digital replicas of performers being used without their knowledge or consent. Since then, concerns have only intensified around the unauthorized creation and use of digital replicas and the ease with which they can be made and disseminated online. Currently, there is a patchwork of state laws that attempt to target these issues, but they have proven ineffective against the challenges presented by digital replicas.

This Note analyzes the problems digital replicas have raised in the …

Are Your Secrets Safe?: Imposing A Fiduciary Duty On Healthcare Ai Developers Dealing With Sensitive Health Information, Lauren Quinn

Fordham Law Review

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to establish standards for transmitting health information. For decades, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has operated as the primary regulation protecting health information in the United States. However, in the decades since HIPAA was enacted, new technologies have demonstrated the shortcomings of the Privacy Rule. In particular, the development of healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) has created new privacy concerns and exacerbated existing ones. This Note examines the current healthcare privacy framework in the United States and considers how healthcare AI complicates it. This Note also explores how AI developers …