Law Commons^™

“Can I Post This?”: A Call For Nuanced Interpretation Of Dmca Enforcement In The Age Of Social Media, Erin E. Bronner

Fordham Law Review

This Note advances recent scholarship critiquing the notice-and-takedown procedures used by online service providers (OSPs) under the safe-harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)—specifically in the context of user-generated content (UGC) posted by end users on social media. Rights holders have increasingly put legal pressure on technology platforms to fortify their copyright protection mechanisms. Over the past decade, this imperative has manifested through an increased use of automated content recognition (ACR) technology to remove allegedly infringing UGC. ACR technology has gradually overtaken the manual, human review of UGC that the DMCA envisioned.

However, reliance on mass automated takedowns …

The [De]Value Of Unsubstantiated Allegations Against The Police, Francy R. Monestime

Fordham Law Review

In 2020, New York State repealed Civil Rights Law section 50-a, which formerly prohibited disclosure of police and other civil servant disciplinary records. Shortly after this repeal, New York City’s Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) released thousands of records of civilian complaints for all current and former New York City police officers that dated back to 2000. The release included substantiated findings of wrongdoing and unsubstantiated records in which no wrongdoing was found. Records continue to be released in this manner following the CCRB’s investigations.

Under New York City’s Administrative Procedure Act, agencies like the CCRB must follow certain procedures …

Bottom-Rung Appeals, Merritt E. Mcalister

Fordham Law Review

There are “haves” and “have-nots” in the federal appellate courts, and the “haves” get more attention. For decades, the courts have used a triage regime under which they distribute judicial attention selectively: some appeals receive a lot of judicial attention, and some appeals receive barely any. What this Article reveals is that this triage system produces demonstrably unequal results, depending on the circuit handling the appeal and whether the appellant has counsel or not. Together, these two factors produce significant disparities: in one circuit, for example, an unrepresented appellant receives, on average, a decision less than a tenth the length …

A Living Legacy: The Katzmann Study Group On Immigrant Representation, The Honorable Denny Chin

Fordham Law Review

On March 9, 2023, hundreds of individuals—including immigration lawyers, advocates, government officials, academics, journalists, and philanthropists—gathered for a symposium at Fordham University School of Law entitled Looking Back and Looking Forward: Fifteen Years of Advancing Immigrant Representation. The symposium was organized by the Fordham Law Review and sponsored by law school centers and clinics, nonprofit organizations, and the Katzmann Study Group on Immigrant Representation (the “Study Group”). For members of the Study Group, the day was particularly poignant because several sessions at the symposium honored the life and accomplishments of the Hon. Robert A. Katzmann, the Study Group’s founder and …

The Patent Written Description Requirement: A Requirement In Search Of A Description, Darlene M.J. Staines

Fordham Law Review

Innovation often requires a hefty investment of time and money. The patent system exists to incentivize innovation by granting inventors the exclusive use of their invention for a set period of time. In return, the public receives the benefit of the inventor’s knowledge, as well as the use of the invention once the exclusivity period ends. One of the hurdles for obtaining a patent is the written description requirement, which demands that the inventor disclose enough information to prove that they actually invented what they are seeking patent protection for. This requirement serves to prevent an undeserving “inventor” from obtaining …

Beyond Removal, Jane Manners

Fordham Law Review

The contemporary debate over presidential power often assumes that removal is the primary tool through which a President exercises control over executive branch officers to fulfill the Constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This must be so, the logic goes, because without this authority, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities.” The power to remove, the U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned, also endows the President with the power to supervise. To be sure, other scholars and jurists have pointed out the ways that this fails to capture the range …

Advancing Immigrant Legal Representation: The Next Fifteen Years, Muzaffar Chishti, Charles Kamasaki, Laura Vasquez

Fordham Law Review

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Robert A. Katzmann found that immigration matters represented a severe and growing bottleneck of the cases at the court. Instead of treating this phenomenon purely as a case management problem, he chose to delve deeper to understand the underlying cause for the high level of appeals from immigration agency determinations. Judge Katzmann concluded that lack of effective counsel was a major factor, and he turned that understanding into a cause. In his 2007 clarion call, he implored the enlightened members of the legal community to rise to …

Command And Control: Operationalizing The Unitary Executive, Gary Lawson

Fordham Law Review

The concept of the unitary executive is written into the Constitution by virtue of Article II’s vesting of the “executive Power” in the President and not in executive officers created by Congress. Defenders and opponents alike of the “unitary executive” often equate the idea of presidential control of executive action with the power to remove executive personnel. But an unlimitable presidential removal power cannot be derived from the vesting of executive power in the President for the simple reason that it would not actually result in full presidential control of executive action, as the actions of now-fired subordinates would still …

The President's Approval Power, Christine Kexel Chabot

Fordham Law Review

This Essay introduces the President’s approval power as it was originally understood in the United States. Leading proponents of a unitary executive President have asserted that the President’s absolute power to control subordinate officers includes power to veto or approve subordinates’ discretionary actions before they take effect. This Essay reconsiders the approval power’s purportedly unitary function and presents previously overlooked evidence of the originalist foundations of a presidential approval power. My comprehensive analysis of every public act passed by the First Congress shows that the founding generation never understood Article II to grant the President general authority to approve subordinates’ …

Bastions Of Independence Or Shields Of Misconduct?: Increasing Transparency In Judicial Conduct Commissions, Katarina Herring-Trott

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Access To Medicines And Pharmaceutical Patents: Fulfilling The Promise Of Trips Article 31bis, Ezinne Mirian Igbokwe, Andrea Tosato

Fordham Law Review

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has long stood accused of reducing access to medicines for the poorest and most vulnerable nations. Enacted in 1994 as one of the founding pillars of the World Trade Organization, TRIPS has enabled pharmaceutical companies to enforce their patent rights in almost every country, precluding cheaper generics from being distributed, save for very limited exceptions.

But in 2001, TRIPS was amended expressly to address this issue, allowing countries with limited resources to lodge a formal request to obtain patented medicines at a sustainable cost. Generics manufacturers worldwide can answer this …

Interpleader As A Vehicle For Challenging The Constitutionality Of Private Citizen Action Statutes, Delia Parker

Fordham Law Review

The rise of vigilante-esque statutes creates obstacles for litigants seeking to challenge a statute’s constitutionality. State legislatures in Texas and California enacted laws regulating constitutionally protected activity (abortion and firearm possession, respectively) through statutes enforced solely by private actors. The state legislatures cleverly crafted Texas S.B. 8, as well as other copycat statutes, as bounty hunter statutes to block litigants’ usual path to pre-enforcement adjudication—filing a claim against the state to enjoin its actors from enforcing the improper provisions.

The Texas and California state legislatures attempted to forbid constitutionally protected conduct by granting enforcement power to an infinite number of …