Constitutional Law Commons^™

Religious Conflicts In Disguise: The Limits Of The Law In Tackling Conflicts With Religious Dimensions, Yael Efron

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

In previous publications, we have established the crucial differences between conflicts with religious dimensions (CRDs) and other types of conflicts. We claim that a legal solution to CRDs is rarely sufficient to terminate the conflict and often might lead to further damage to communities and persons, sometimes even harsher than the original dispute. Since not all CRDs are similar, a theorized model of their distinguishing elements—time, intensity, and proximity to core values—assists us in differentiating them. By analyzing the elements of CRDs in accordance with the TIV model, we can more easily determine which conflicts are suitable for legal process …

Pursuing Restorative Justice For The Legacy Of Federal Indian Boarding Schools, Jilly Horowitz

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note examines the United States’ federal boarding school policy, designed to eliminate Native populations, and the federal government’s efforts from June 2021 to December 2024 to acknowledge and address its harms. For 150 years, Native children were subjected to this brutal policy and were removed from their communities and placed in boarding schools. These schools were focused less on providing education and opportunity for Native students, and instead were tools to carry out a concentrated federal policy of cultural assimilation and forcible removal from Native lands. The federal government implemented this policy throughout the country, operating or funding 451 …

Blazing A New Path: How Regulatory Negotiation Can Resolve Cannabis Legalization’S Shortcomings, Natalie Pearson

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

New York’s ambitious cannabis legalization effort has fallen short of its promises, burdened by regulatory confusion, industry roadblocks, and an unchecked illicit market. Despite state-level approval, legalization remains riddled with contradictions and obstacles, leaving businesses and policymakers struggling to navigate an unstable framework. This Note explores how regulatory negotiation, an alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanism, can address key industry challenges, particularly those arising from conflicting federal and state laws.

Do Civil Penalties Punish? The Fbar Penalty And The Case For An Emboldened Excessive Fines Clause, Scott Oatkin

Cardozo Law Review

The Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) regime authorizes the IRS to impose severe penalties—up to the greater of $100,000 or fifty percent of the account balance—for failure to report foreign bank accounts exceeding $10,000. While the Eighth Amendment protects Americans from “excessive fines,” circuit courts are split on whether the FBAR penalty constitutes a fine and is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Some courts have found that the FBAR penalty is wholly remedial and beyond the reach of the Excessive Fines Clause, but this Note argues that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the history and case law …

Scotus Term Preview, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Kate Levine, Alexander Reinert

2025–2026 Flyers

No abstract provided.

Coffee & Constitutions, Office Of Student Services

2025–2026 Flyers

No abstract provided.

No More Mixed Message, Missing Money: Revisiting The Birth Of Icl’S Victim Restoration-Reparations Regime To Conceptualize Its Modern Reform, Gregory S. Gordon

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The article argues that the International Criminal Court's (ICC) system for victim reparations is fundamentally flawed due to mission dissonance between its punitive and restorative goals, insufficient funding, and procedural limitations. It proposes the creation of an independent Atrocity Victim Reparations Tribunal (AVRT) under the UN to address these issues, ensuring more effective and victim-centered reparations.

Is It Time To Scrap Stare Decisis?, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

Shortly after returning to the presidency, Donald Trump terminated several independent federal officers, prompting legal action by employees who occupied government positions covered by statutory for cause removal protections long held constitutionally permissible and valid. Eventually, one or more suits alleging unlawful termination owing to the removal without cause will reach the Supreme Court to be decided on the merits. Having steadily narrowed the Humphrey’s Executor line of cases that insulate these officers, the Court now seems poised to displace that precedent entirely. In isolation, the overruling would mark a seismic doctrinal shift and major advance in legal conservatism's pursuit …

What Are “Wartime Authorities” And When Can The President Use Them? An Expert Q&A, Tess Bridgeman, Rebecca Ingber, Scott Roehm

Online Publications

The first several months of President Donald Trump’s second administration have been marred by the chaotic and often unlawful use, or threatened use, of wartime and terrorism-related authorities for what are essentially domestic immigration or criminal law enforcement purposes. This is not the first time a president has sought to push the boundaries of his wartime powers, or outright claimed those he did not have, but it may well be the most extreme. Indeed, Trump’s reliance on wartime authorities in contexts entirely divorced from armed conflict, or even the threat of force against the United States, puts the country on …

The Right To Exit Religion, Zalman Rothschild

Articles

This Article argues that just over fifty years ago, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court recognized what might be called a right to exit religion. In this decision, the Court expressed appreciation for preserving insular religious communities, while simultaneously articulating the principle that accommodations for such communities must not unduly restrict community members’ ability to exit should they wish to do so. Yet courts and scholars have largely overlooked Yoder’s recognition of a right to exit religion. To make this “right” more concrete, the Article examines impediments to it through a case study of one large insular religious community—the …

Brief Of Amici Curiae 775 Law Professors In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And Declaratory And Permanent Injunctive Relief, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Haiyun Damon-Feng, Rebecca Ingber, Rachel Landy, Jacob Noti-Victor, Alexander A. Reinert, Anthony J. Sebok

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by 775 law professors in support of Susman Godfrey LLP's motion for summary judgment and request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President. The brief argues that Executive Order 14263 unlawfully targets a law firm based on its clients, advocacy, and litigation activities, in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Sixth Amendment. The amici contend that the order constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, interferes with the right to counsel, and threatens the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law.

A Conversation With Judge Shira Scheindlin, Burt Neuborne & Jeffrey Toobin, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, Judge Shira Scheindlin, Burt Neuborne, Jeffrey Toobin

2025 Event Invitations

Join us for a discussion on judicial independence and impartiality with Judge Shira Scheindlin, NYU Law Professor Burt Neuborne, and author Jeffrey Toobin. In Floyd v. City of New York (2013), Judge Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional, ordering reforms and oversight. Days later, the Second Circuit reassigned the case, citing concerns about the appearance of impartiality due to her public statements. Professor Neuborne, who objected to her removal in a brief to the court, and Toobin, who covered the case for The New Yorker, will join Judge Scheindlin to examine the implications of this decision and …

Justice, Human Rights, And The New Charisma Of Anti-Democratic Ideologies, Cardozo Law Institute In Holocaust And Human Rights (Clihhr), Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Matthias Mahlmann

2025 Event Invitations

Democracies are under pressure worldwide – externally by authoritarian states and internally by political forces that spread anti-democratic ideologies even if masked by avowed concern for the people. While reasons are intensely debated, this talk critically revisits explanations for the charisma of post-democratic ideologies by (1) investigating normative foundations of the exacting and fragile project of democracy and its relation to human rights and (2) discussing human rights theory in times of widespread human rights skepticism and its meaning for crises of democracy. How can we defend the project of democracy in theory and practice?

Conservative Caution V. Progressive Originalism: How Justices Barrett And Jackson Are Paving Their Own Paths On The Court, David Rudenstine, Michael Waldman, Eric Freedman, Haiyun Damon-Feng, William D. Araiza, Mark Anthony Frassetto, Jake Meiseles, Michael Pollack, Linda Greenhouse, Earl M. Maltz

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The Conservative Caution v. Progressive Originalism symposium, hosted by the Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice on March 7, 2025, brings together leading constitutional scholars to examine the emerging judicial philosophies of Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Through three expert panels—presidential immunity, gun rights, and judicial ideology—the symposium analyzes how both Justices are shaping contemporary originalist discourse from opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Panelists explore the Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Trump v. United States (2024), emphasizing its unprecedented expansion of presidential immunity and its implications for separation of powers and democratic accountability. Discussions …

Graphic Design Is (Not) My Passion: How A Hypothetical Wedding Website Upended Lgbtq+ Public Accommodations Law And Where We Go From Here, Skylar Corby

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note examines the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which upheld the First Amendment protection for a website designer refusing to create designs contrary to her beliefs, thereby invalidating part of Colorado's antidiscrimination law. This ruling undermines LGBTQ+ public accommodations protections, highlighting the need for federal legislation, such as the Equality Act, to safeguard these rights and address First Amendment concerns.

Disabled And Disenfranchised: The Fight For Reproductive Freedom And Democracy Post-Dobbs, Robyn M. Powell

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court has thrust abortion onto ballots nationwide, transforming fundamental rights into political battlegrounds. In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, people with disabilities face a perfect storm of eroded reproductive freedoms and persistent barriers to democratic participation. This Article exposes the hollow promise of the Court's purported deference to "the people's elected representatives," revealing instead a landscape where those most affected by abortion restrictions struggle to have their voices heard. The Court's invocation of democracy is arguably disingenuous, serving more as a rhetorical device than agenuine commitment to democratic principles. Nevertheless, engaging with this …

U.S. Territories And The Criminal Law Curriculum, Emmanuel H. Arnaud

Articles

No abstract provided.

Springboard To Article V (Or Electoral Democracy And The End Of Constitutional Amendment In The Nation And States), Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

Drafted in exceedingly sparing terms and notoriously difficult to amend, the U S. Constitution is falling short in one of the most important functions of a government charter: establishing and maintaining a fair and just electoral framework-marked by rules that promote the values of equality, participation, competition, and transparency in elections. That is, the Constitution increasingly fails to preserve electoral democracy even as the nation's systems for voting and elections are plagued by a cascade of problems. State constitutions, though not uniform, are uniformly easier to amend than the national charter and tend to be better stewards of electoral democracy. …

The Bro-Economy And The Bro-Democracy, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Michael C. Pollack, Michael Abramowicz, Jennifer Lawless, Craig Holman

2024–2025 Flyers

Cardozo’s Professor Michael Pollack will host Michael Abramowicz (Professor, George Washington University Law School), Jennifer Lawless (Professor, University of Virginia), and Craig Holman (Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen) to discuss the manosphere, election betting, and prediction markets, and how these forces shape our democracy for good and for ill.

The Bro-Economy And The Bro-Democracy, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Michael Pollack, Michael Abramowicz, Jennifer Lawless, Craig Holman

2025 Event Invitations

Cardozo’s Professor Michael Pollack will host Michael Abramowicz (Professor, George Washington University Law School), Jennifer Lawless (Professor, University of Virginia), and Craig Holman (Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen) to discuss the manosphere, election betting, and prediction markets, and how these forces shape our democracy for good and for ill.

Turning Over The Ballot: Direct Democracy And State-Level Change, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Phillip Ensler, Susan Lerner, Miriam Seifter

2024–2025 Flyers

No abstract provided.

Turning Over The Ballot: Direct Democracy And State-Level Change, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Phillip Ensler, Susan Lerner, Miriam Seifter

2025 Event Invitations

Join Phillip Ensler ‘17 (Alabama State Representative), Susan Lerner (Executive Director, Common Cause-NY), and Miriam Seifter (Professor, Univ. of Wisconsin Law School) who, with Cardozo’s own Professor Wilfred Codrington, will discuss ballot measures, direct democracy, and effecting change at the state level. Registration is encouraged but not required for current Cardozo students.

Correcting Course: How Congress Can Streamline U.S. Engagement With The International Criminal Court, Sophia N. Ramcharitar

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Since its participation in the 1998 Rome Conference, the United States has vocalized opposition to key components of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction. This opposition has informed longstanding positions taken by the executive branch and motivated anti-ICC legislation passed by Congress. Support for the ICC’s investigation in Ukraine challenged these narratives across the legislative and executive branches, but the ICC’s arrest warrants of Israeli officials in 2024 renewed Congress’s heightened skepticism of the court and sowed political divisions on efforts to sanction the ICC. Congress’s oscillation on the ICC within the past several years prompts a larger question of …

Remedying Unconstitutional Immigration Enforcement, Guha Krishnamurthi

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Fearmongering about “illegal immigration” has reached a fever pitch. There is a nearing bipartisan consensus among politicians that “stopping illegal immigration and securing the border” is a paramount priority. The fact that many politicians and institutional actors have displayed animus in discussing immigration enforcement portends that many perils lie ahead. It is precisely during this time that constitutional rights must serve as a bulwark against government overreach. This Essay contends that our constitutional rights framework, specifically its principal remedies for rights violations, are inadequate to protect against government malfeasance. In particular, I demonstrate that there are plausible scenarios where the …

Shoot The Messenger: Why Section 230 Does Not Shield Suggestive Content Delivery, Alexander Heinkele

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Internet companies have frequently relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to avoid liability for third-party content hosted on their platforms. However, over time, companies began to take advantage of the broad cover of Section 230 in circumstances outside the statute’s original scope. This Note advocates for a more nuanced interpretation of the statute as it applies to suggestive algorithms and offers a proposal for amending Section 230 to better reflect the modern digital landscape.

The Score Act Is Unconstitutional: Private Nondelegation Problems With Congress’S Latest Attempt To Regulate College Sports, Sam C. Ehrlich, Ryan M. Rodenberg

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act (“SCORE Act”) is Congress’s most ambitious effort yet to bring stability to college sports, codifying the recent House settlement while granting sweeping regulatory power to private athletic associations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and the College Sports Commission (“CSC”). However, by delegating policymaking authority to these private, self-interested entities without any sort of public oversight, the bill raises serious constitutional concerns under the private nondelegation doctrine. Drawing on parallels to a string of litigation involving the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“HISA”) and recent Supreme Court signals, …

Equitable Incorporation: How History And Tradition Can Progressively Redefine The Fourteenth Amendment, Robert D'Alessandro

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The Fourteenth Amendment, designed to ensure equality before the law, has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court through its incorporation doctrine, leading to rulings that harm marginalized communities. The article advocates for "Equitable Incorporation," a doctrine requiring courts to consider the impact of their decisions on historically discriminated groups, ensuring the Amendment's purpose of equity and justice is upheld. This approach would necessitate the incorporation of unincorporated rights and reinterpret existing ones to reflect the Amendment's equitable intent.

The Immigration Subpoena Power, Lindsay Nash

Articles

For over a century, the federal government has wielded the immigration subpoena power in darkness, forcing private individuals, subfederal governments, and others to help it detain and deport. This vast administrative power has remained opaque even to those who receive these subpoenas and invisible to those it affects most. Indeed, the very people targeted by these subpoenas often don’t know they exist, much less how they facilitate arrest and deportation. For these reasons—and more—this power has escaped the legal battles raging over other immigration enforcement tactics and the scrutiny of journalists, scholars, and courts. Thus, as state- and locality-held information …

The Violence Of Bright Lines, Terrell Woolfolk, Kathryn E. Miller

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Eighth Amendment to prohibit members of certain groups from serving extreme punishments, such as the death penalty and life without parole. For example, the Court has long banned death sentences for people with intellectual disability and for those who were under eighteen years old at the time of their crime. More recently, in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama, the Court extended this reasoning to sentences of life without parole for those under eighteen—prohibiting the sentence altogether for nonhomicide crimes and barring its mandatory imposition for homicides.

Many scholars and advocates have applauded …

Doubting Thomas And Questioning Stare Decisis Under The Roberts Court, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

The article critically examines the erosion of stare decisis under the Roberts Court, highlighting concerns about the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn established precedents. While acknowledging the importance of stare decisis in maintaining stability and equality, the author argues that its practical value is being undermined by ideological polarization and a departure from traditional legal reasoning. The article questions the Court's recent approach to precedent, particularly in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and critiques the conservative majority's aggressive use of judicial power.