Constitutional Law Commons^™

Exploring The Limits Of Qualified Immunity Under Harlow’S Discretionary Function Test, James E. Pfander, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

No abstract provided.

Vaccines, Religious Liberty, And The Gvr As Doctrinal Signal, Zalman Rothschild

Articles

This Essay proceeds in four Parts. Part I traces the doctrinal baseline, showing that vaccines have long functioned as the limit case for religious liberty. Part II briefly describes the doctrinal changes of the COVID-19 era — the Supreme Court’s expansion of religious equality doctrine, and its emergency-docket denials that left vaccine mandates formally unresolved — before explaining why the GVR in Miller signals a different move: the extension of the religious liberty framework to vaccine mandates, bypassing the comparability analysis that had allowed most courts to sustain them under the equality model. Part III turns to Miller itself and …

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.

The Territorial Continuum: American Samoa, Criminal Adjudication, And Territorial Administration, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Cardozo Law Review

The standard account of American territorial expansion posits that territorial acquisition moved along a spectrum of sovereignty. The federal government acquired new inhabited land through conquest or purchase, and the Constitution tasked Congress with organizing and administering the new territories until they were ready to become states. That pattern came to an abrupt halt in 1898 when, at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, the Supreme Court, fearing the extension of citizenship to and the permanent integration of non-White populations into the American polity, suddenly pronounced that the Constitution authorized the holding of colonies. The Court thus sentenced new territories, …

A “Consistent And Ongoing” Right: The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel At Initial Bail Hearings, Gemma Sunnergren

Cardozo Law Review

Despite the potentially devastating consequences of pretrial incarceration and the complexity of modern bail applications, many individuals charged with crimes across the country are not appointed counsel to guide them through their bail hearings. Traditionally, application of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in various pretrial proceedings has been evaluated under the “critical stage” framework, finding defense counsel necessary when a proceeding puts one’s trial rights at risk or is sufficiently trial-like—i.e., adversarial and requiring complex legal arguments. In the absence of a clear Supreme Court ruling, states have been left to conduct their own analysis, with many declining to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

The End Of Constitutional Amendment In The U.S. ?, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Brennan Center For Justice, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Richard L. Hasen, Andrea Katz, Julie Suk, Michael Waldman

2025–2026 Flyers

No abstract provided.

The End Of Constitutional Amendment In The U.S.?, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Brennan Center For Justice, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Richard L. Hasen, Andrea Katz, Julie Suk

2026 Event Invitations

Join the Brennan Center for Justice and the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy for a panel featuring leading constitutional law scholars, including Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Betts Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Wilfred U. Codrington III, Walter Floersheimer Professor of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Andrea Scoseria Katz, Associate Professor at WashU Law School; Richard L. Hasen, Endowed Chair in Law at UCLA School of Law; and Julie Suk, Hon. Deborah A. Batts Distinguished Research Scholar and Professor of Law at Fordham Law School, for a self-moderated, fireside-chat-style discussion on whether the formal amendment process has become …

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Covarrubias v. Vergara before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief supports rehearing en banc and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory, no-bond detention of noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and the historical development of immigration detention, the amici contend that such detention authority has historically been limited to individuals seeking admission at the border.

Ix International Moot Court Competition In Law & Religion, Dmytro Vovk, Imcc In Law & Religion

2025–2026 Flyers

After many successful editions, the International Moot Court Competition in Law and Religion (9th ed.) is happening in 2026 in the glittering city of marbles: Rome, Italy!

The Program will run from March 12 to March 14, 2026 at the St. John’s University Rome campus.

Teams from different countries will argue a case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States. Pre-eminent scholars and actual judges from the two jurisdictions will sit as judges of the two Courts.

In the past editions, Teams from the United States, Hungary, Russia, Spain, the UK, Belgium, …

The Case For A Third Reconstruction, Cardozo American Constitution Society (Acs), K. Sabeel Rahman

2025–2026 Flyers

Join the American Constitution Society for a discussion with Professor Rahman about the need for reconstructionist approach to policy-making and institutional change in response to the second trump presidency.

International & Constitutional Law Implications Of U.S. Attacks On Iran, Cardozo Law Institute In Holocaust And Human Rights (Clihhr), Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2025–2026 Flyers

Join the Cardozo Law Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights (CLIHHR) and Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy for a critical discussion on the escalating conflict in the Middle East.

The Trump Administration’S Theory Of Constitutional War Powers: “The President Could Decide”, Rebecca Ingber

Online Publications

President Donald Trump has launched another unlawful war, this time in the service of regime change in Iran. The administration has been threatening the use of force for weeks, but provided very little public justification, description of what the president hoped to accomplish, or explanation for how the use of force would effectuate such goals. It has also to date presented no legal justification whatsoever. Much of what we know at this moment about how the administration views, and how it lawyers, questions of war powers can be derived from the one legal memorandum the administration has released on the …

Complicit Nullification: The Illegitimate (Abrogation) Of School Religious Liberty Precedent, Amanda Harmon Cooley

Cardozo Law Review

Louisiana has enacted legislation that mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This statutory mandate directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s extant precedent in Stone v. Graham. Legislators in Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Kentucky have also indicated plans to introduce similar unconstitutional legislation, defying the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. Similarly, Texas and Florida now permit public school chaplains or Bible-based public school curricula, which violates the Court’s longstanding prohibitions on such actions, as established in its 1948 ruling in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education …

Supreme Court Decision: Skrmetti And The Future Of Trans Rights, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Zalman Rothschild, Jessica Clarke, Ben Eidelson, Katie Eyer, Kate Redburn

2025–2026 Flyers

No abstract provided.

Testimony Of Professor Zalman Rothschild Before The House Subcommittee On Early Childhood, Elementary, And Secondary Education Regarding Mahmoud V. Taylor, Zalman Rothschild

Testimony

On February 10, 2026, Professor Zalman Rothschild, Horn Family Distinguished Research Scholar in Law and Religion at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, testified before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Committee on Education and Workforce. His testimony addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor and its implications for parental rights, religious liberty, public education, vaccination mandates, and compulsory schooling.

Professor Rothschild situates Mahmoud within the broader constitutional tradition shaped by Pierce v. Society of Sisters, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, and Wisconsin v. Yoder …

President Trump & Control Of Administrative Agencies: The Firing Of Mspb Member Cathy Harris, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Cardozo Chapter Of The American Constitutional Society, Cardozo Labor And Employment Law Society, Cardozo Outlaw, Jessica A. Roth, Cathy Harris

2025–2026 Flyers

Former Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris will join her attorney, Nathaniel Zelinsky, for a discussion of her lawsuit challenging President Trump’s removal of her from the MSPB. The case tests the limits of presidential control over independent administrative agencies.

Bauer Lecture 2026, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, Michael Waldman

2025–2026 Flyers

Join us for a keynote address by Michael Waldman, President and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems  of democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform and constitutional law.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner-Appellee, Supporting Affirmance, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief filed by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Herrera Avila v. Bondi. The brief examines the scope of mandatory immigration detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens seeking admission at the border rather than individuals apprehended within the interior of the United States.

How The Supreme Court’S Inconsistent Approach To Granting Emergency Relief Will Exacerbate, Rather Than Mitigate The Disruption Its Emergency Stay Policy Is Supposed To Address, Harvey L. Reiter

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The federal government has used the Supreme Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket to great effect this past year, securing stay after stay of lower court rulings that had blocked many of the President’s executive orders. But the Court’s rulings have come, almost invariably, without any explanation of its reasoning. And its opaque and uneven rulings have also come at a potential cost to the Court’s credibility. This Article illustrates the uneven nature of the Court’s rulings by contrasting two lines of cases: (1) the Court’s stays of lower court rulings restoring to their positions FTC, NLRB, EEOC, and MSPB members …

Justice In Erotic Spaces, Elena L. Cohen

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

This Article posits that the concept of "erotic justice" could be used by courts to push back against the current cascade of anti-LGBTQ+ laws and meaningfully improve the lives ofgay and trans people. The beginning of the twenty-first century was widely seen as a time of great progress for LGBTQ+ people, with the legalization of gay marriage in countries across the world seen as the ultimate triumph. Yet there is a strong contemporary movement to re-criminalize the lives of LGBTQ+ people and to remove protections that have been granted by courts. In the U.S., the 2020s have seen an ongoing …

Data Sanctuaries: Rethinking Technological Progress To Preserve Federalism, Nathan S. Lee

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

Why are sanctuary states and cities in the present moment largely failing to protect immigrants and other vulnerable people from federal enforcement of an agenda based on mass deportation and fear? While federalism was painted during the Civil Rights Era as a weapon of states to protect policies of discrimination and segregation, federalism was also a powerful tool used by Northern States before the Civil War to resist Southern and federal laws enabling the dehumanizing capture and transport offugitive slaves (or suspected fugitive slaves). What has changed in the passing years to make federalism seem like such a thin concept, …

A Theory Of Major Questions, Nicholas Almendares

Cardozo Law Review

The major questions doctrine has been fiercely criticized as an example of the Supreme Court’s “imperial” turn where it concentrates ever more power in its own hands. The doctrine is sweeping, vague, and lacks a clear justification. Not only does the Court get to decide when the doctrine applies and when the heightened standard is satisfied, but it has also not offered good reasons behind this rule. A well-defined theory would give the doctrine structure, clarity, and consistency. While majority opinions have been conspicuously quiet on the theory behind the major questions doctrine, concurrences, namely by Justice Gorsuch, have argued …

Property Rights V. Taxpayer Rights: The Battle Over Tax Foreclosures, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

No abstract provided.

How The U.S. Constitution Shapes International Tax Law: Instrument Choice In Tax Agreements, Noam Noked, Young Ran (Christine) Kim, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

The U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, which requires Senate approval by a two-thirds vote for treaties, has significantly influenced the development of international tax law. This Article examines the implications of Senate supermajority requirements on bilateral and multilateral tax treaties and agreements, alternative instruments, relevant international tax standards, and global tax governance.

Historically, tax treaties have been approved exclusively as Article II treaties requiring Senate approval. The difficulty of entering into treaties with the United States has influenced the instrument choice and design of U.S. and international tax standards. To address this challenge, several U.S. and international tax reforms have employed …

Brief Of Edward A. And Doris Zelinsky In The Appellate Division, Third Department, New York Supreme Court, Edward A. Zelinsky, Doris Zelinsky

Amicus Briefs

To combat COVID, New York in 2020 forbade an out-of-state employee like the petitioner to commute into his New York office, forcing him to instead work at his home in Connecticut. New York now takes the remarkable position that it can tax the income Governor Cuomo forced this out-of-state employee to earn at his home exclusively outside New York. That position is as wrong as it sounds.

Both as a matter of New York law and of federal constitutional law under the Due Process and dormant Commerce Clauses, New York may not tax the income the petitioner earned exclusively at …

President Trump And Control Of Administrative Agencies: The Firing Of Nlrb Commissioner Gwynne Wilcox, Gwynne Wilcox, Daniel Silverman, David Rudenstine, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Public Interest Law Student Association (Pilsa), American Constitution Society (Acs), Cardozo Chapter, National Lawyers Guild, Cardozo Chapter, Cardozo Federalist Society

2025 Event Invitations

On November 18, Gwynne Wilcox will join Dan Silverman at Cardozo to discuss her lawsuit against Trump and his administration for firing her as an NLRB commissioner. This conversation will be moderated by Professor David Rudenstine.

On January 27, 2025, President Trump removed Wilcox from the Board prior to her term’s expiration in 2028. Wilcox was the first Board Member to have been removed in 90 years of the Board's inception in 1935. Wilcox filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Washington, DC, against President Trump challenging her unprecedented and unlawful termination based upon current statutory law and well-established Supreme …

The Voting Rights, Race, Redistricting, & The Future Of U.S Democracy, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Cardozo American Constitution Society (Acs), Sophia Lakin, Wilfred Codrington, Michael Li, Jarret Berg, Carl Unegbu

2025–2026 Flyers

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act, Race, Redistricting, And The Future Of U.S. Democracy, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Sophia Lankin, Michael Li, Jarret Berg, Carl Unegbu, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy

2025 Event Invitations

Join us for a timely and critical moderated conversation on the future of American democracy as leading experts on U.S. voting rights Wilfred Codrington III (Cardozo School of Law), Sophia Lankin (ACLU), Michael Li (Brennan Center for Justice), and Jarret Berg (VoteEarlyNY) unpack the ongoing legal battles shaping representation in the United States, most notably the fight over continued viability of the Voting Rights Act. The conversation will be moderated by Carl Unegbu.

A Conversation With Danielle Sassoon, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law, Cardozo Criminal Law Society, American Constitution Society (Acs), Danielle Sassoon, Jessica A. Roth

2025 Event Invitations

Danielle Sassoon is currently a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Prior to her appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney in January 2025 by President Trump, Ms. Sassoon served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York for over eight years. Among her notable cases as an Assistant U.S. Attorney were the prosecution of Lawrence Ray for racketeering conspiracy, extortion, forced labor, and sex trafficking, related to his abuse and exploitation of his daughter’s college roommates and others. She also investigated and prosecuted Samuel Bankman-Fried and others for the multi-billion-dollar fraud on customers of FTX.com. In …