Fordham Law’s office of professionalism has launched a new one-year fellowship program for six upper-year students with an interest in and commitment to promoting professionalism, mentorship, and inclusion within the Law School.

The six fellows will play a key role in the Law School’s house system, which aims to enhance the student experience by creating smaller communities of support within the Law School. The house system provides students with a curated co-curriculum consisting of lessons, resources, and information students need as they navigate their first year. The fellows will work closely with the associate dean for academic affairs, the director of professionalism, and faculty house leaders to develop and execute programs designed to help students hone the social, emotional, and professional competencies they will need to flourish academically and throughout their careers.

Five of the fellows will be assigned to one of Fordham Law’s five houses, and will be responsible for organizing social and community-building initiatives within that house and helping the house leader and liaisons implement substantive house programs. The sixth fellow will serve as the inter-house fellow, and will be responsible for overseeing inter-house initiatives and facilitating those collaborations.

“We are thrilled to be launching the professional fellows program and to have such an exceptional set of inaugural fellows,” said Director of Professionalism Jordana Alter Confino. “While we were extremely pleased with the success of the house system rollout this year, it’s become clear that a robust series of social and community-building initiatives is what’s needed to bring the house system to the next level. The professionalism fellows will enable us to achieve this, and will also bring fresh ideas, insights, and perspectives that will allow us to expand and enhance our wellness and professionalism offerings. We look forward to partnering with them on these important projects.”

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Linda Sugin added, “Incorporating student leadership into the House System is the logical next step in a program designed to empower students to succeed as professionals. The house system was off to a great start in 2019-20, and I am excited to see how the student experience will benefit next year from the enthusiasm, imagination, and compassion of the Professional Fellows.”

The 2020-21 Professionalism Fellows

Cassandra Basile ’21

Cassandra Basile ’21

Hometown: Schenectady, New York

Education: M.A. in Museology/Museum Studies, Columbia University ’16; B.A. in Classics and Classical Languages, Binghamton University ’15

Basile is active within Fordham Law, serving as one of the 2020-2021 media and communications editors for the Brendan Moore Trial Advocacy Center and a BSA advisor for House 9, in addition to being an Environmental Law Review citation editor and a research fellow in the Urban Law Center.

Basile’s interest in this program initially began when she helped out at a few Admitted J.D. Student Days and the LSAT Fair last fall as a student ambassador. “I remember answering prospective students’ questions at the fair, and it was really refreshing to meet so many people who were specifically interested in Fordham because of our evening program and because of our capabilities in public interest,” she said. “I think that’s something that we can really emphasize in the Professional Fellows Program too.”

Basile hopes to shine as a leader during the year-long fellowship and to give back to the incoming class of first-year students. “It would be great to be able to impart the things I learned and the advice I got to someone else – even if they don’t know what they need to ask, which was the biggest issue I had as a 1L,” she explained. “There were so many things I didn’t know, but I didn’t know what to ask. I also want 1Ls to feel comfortable and to realize that it’s ok to reach out and say, ‘I’m just generally confused, can we talk?’ because I know that I wasn’t the type of person to do that.”

Hema Lochan ’21

Hema Lochan ’21

Hometown: Queens, New York

Education: B.A. in Anthropology, Princeton University ’16

Lochan is a current Fordham Law Stein Scholar, a research assistant for Professor Russell Pearce, an Urban Law Center fellow, and a member of the Coalition of Concerned Students organization. She said she wanted to be a professionalism fellow because she struggled during her first year. “I had a rough transition adapting to law school and navigating the space because I am a first generation, low-income woman of color,” Lochan said. “I’m really interested in diversity and inclusion efforts, and I know how important community matters are. I think fostering a healthy and supportive community helps a lot with the transition into law school, and I can’t wait to be part of that to make a difference.”

Lochan’s most excited to incorporate physical wellness activities into the weekly 1L meetings – like running a 5K, doing yoga sessions, or having dance lessons – since she’s an ultramarathon runner and a certified physical trainer.

Cristina Lombardi ’21

Hometown: Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey

Cristina Lombardi ’21

Education: M.A. in Political Science, Villanova University ’15; B.A. in Political Science and Economics, Villanova University ’14

Lombardi serves as the vice president for the Student Bar Association and Symposium Editor for the Urban Law Journal. She is also a research assistant in the Federal Tax Clinic and a student representative for the law school’s COVID-19 Task Force. After graduation, she’d like to work in corporate law, particularly advising on corporate governance issues, because she enjoys learning about companies’ business structures and management strategies. “You have the chance to engage directly with the Board or the leadership of a company, develop relationships with the individuals making the big decisions, understand their goals and concerns, and help them reach a good, thoughtful outcome,” Lombardi explained. “I think my background in political science and comparative politics is conducive to practicing in this area of law.”

Lombardi believes that many students go into their 1L year focused exclusively on grades – because they believe it will solely determine their entire career. Her goal, while being a part of this fellowship program, is to emphasize that while grades are important, it is also necessary for students to have opportunities to assume leadership and responsibility, to develop their skills as an advocate, and to work in a team setting. Lombardi believes that such opportunities will make students better lawyers, while also enabling them to make valuable connections with potential mentors. “I hope that students are given a glimpse into how important it is to have mentors and guidance throughout the law school process. Law school, particularly for someone like me who is a first generation professional, can be an extremely confusing landscape,” Lombardi added. “The support and guidance I received from my mentors were instrumental in getting me through the first two years of law school.”

Brian Sarfo ’22

Hometown: Bronx, New York

Brian Sarfo ’22

Education: M.S. in Education at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania ’19; B.A. in Urban Studies, Columbia University ’17

Currently, Sarfo is the community service chair for the Black Law Students Association and Northeast Director of Advocacy and External Initiatives for the National Black Law Students Association. He believes there is value in having some structured fun on a law school campus where a lot of students tend to be really overwhelmed, stressed, and busy. “If there are designated events with house members, like Trivia Night or going to a sports event, students can be more aware of and participate in these moments that I think, collectively, a lot of students didn’t realize were necessarily there,” Sarfo suggested.

Given the current shelter-in-place circumstances resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, Sarfo is excited to work on implementing remote activities with the other fellows. “We’re currently living in a unique situation where physical interaction isn’t guaranteed, and we have to think outside of the box to really ensure that this program can carry out its purpose, without compromising the health and safety of students,” he said. “It’s also really unique to be able to deal with these challenges now, so that once things go back to ‘normal,’ there’s still a back-up plan in place to coordinate events. I think that’s going to be a part of this program’s fabric moving forward and it’ll be a great benefit to all parties.”

Taryn Saum ’21

Hometown: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Taryn Saum ’21

Education: B.A. in History with a Secondary in African American Studies, Harvard University ’14

Saum is a member of the Urban Law Journal and will serve as a notes and articles editor for the upcoming year. She wants to make meaningful connections with the 1L students and be a go-to resource for them, personally knowing that the first year can be such a daunting time. “It’s possible to overcome obstacles and stress during the 1L year and still have a really good experience moving forward,” Saum said. “I’ve had such a positive experience at Fordham Law and have felt so uplifted by students and faculty that I wanted to share that positive experience with others, and help enable them to have a similarly great educational experience. I’m truly excited to share my enthusiasm for this institution at orientation and other events that are planned throughout the year.”

Kimya Zahedi ’22

Hometown: Bergen County, New Jersey

Kimya Zahedi ’22

Education: M.A. in International Relations and International Economics, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies ’16; B.A. in International Development Studies and Philosophy, Sarah Lawrence College ’13

Zahedi is the chapter director of the International Refugee Assistance Project at Fordham Law. She entered law school at a later age than the average law student, knowing that she wanted to practice international law and human rights law. Since attending Fordham Law, Zahedi has focused on public interest law with an emphasis on human rights.

During her 1L year, Zahedi felt a real responsibility to try to actively combat the toxic culture that’s often associated with the law school environment by organizing trust and community building events within the house system. “I reached out to students who were voicing their opinions inside and outside of class and made them feel encouraged for making themselves vulnerable and enhancing the quality of conversations,” she explained. “I did my best to make everyone feel like our house wasn’t particularly competitive and that we were collaborative, fun, and easygoing instead.”

The post Fordham Law Names Inaugural Class of Professionalism Fellows appeared first on Fordham Law.

Prior to the coronavirus shutdown, recent graduate Katherine Anne Boy Skipsey ’20, along with Nina Riegelsberger ’21 and Ruadhan McKeone ‘20, had the remarkable and rare opportunity to argue an appeal before the U.S. District Court for the Second Circuit.

Preparing and rehearsing for nearly two months, the three Federal Litigation Clinic students, under the supervision of Professors Michael W. Martin and Ian Weinstein, immersed themselves in the law and the facts of a criminal case to primarily argue the unconstitutional vagueness of a New York State correctional rule. Boy Skipsey credited the Fordham Law faculty and peers for her readiness to argue before the bench, composed of Judge Leval, Judge Hall, and Judge Lynch. “There are attorneys that hope their entire lives to argue before the Second Circuit, some of the brightest legal minds in the country,” Boy Skipsey reflected. “I feel extremely honored by this opportunity. I had never felt so passionate about my work, and it’s because I knew that I was fighting for something bigger than myself: constitutional rights. That was a powerful motivation.”

Parsing the Meaning of “Gang-Related”

The client—who was sentenced to 25 years in maximum-security prison—was found guilty of violating New York State Department of Corrections (NYS DOC) Rule 105.13 in 2014 and spent six months in solitary confinement––what may be considered an atypical and significant punishment––for possessing old family photos that allegedly depicted gang affiliation. Rule 105.13 states, “An inmate shall not engage in or encourage others in gang activities or meetings, or display, wear, possess, distribute, or use gang insignia or materials including but not limited to, printed or handwritten gang or gang-related material.” The pictures in question included a photograph from the client’s niece’s 12th birthday party, portraying only children gathered around a cake, and one of a little girl wearing blue beads in her braids. The photos had been in the client’s possession approximately 10 years in which he was transferred to more than a dozen correctional facilities. Not one facility, including Shawangunk Correctional Facility in 2012, had challenged the photographs during that time. In 2014, when he was transferred back to Shawangunk, correctional officers, without notice, confiscated the images deeming them gang-related material in violation of Rule 105.13.

The client had two correctional hearings in 2014 and 2016 with procedural deficiencies and significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of multiple correctional officers about whether these photographs actually depicted gang-related material. This resulted in a guilty verdict and the sentence of six months in solitary confinement in violation of the client’s due process and liberty interests. Two years later, the Federal Litigation Clinic students argued in their appeal that Rule 105.13 was unconstitutionally vague, as applied, because the text of the rule did not provide notice to the client that his family photos violated the rule and because the rule did not cabin the discretion of correctional officers, thereby leading to an arbitrary application of the rule.

Going Face-to-Face with the Second Circuit Bench

Before Boy Skipsey and Riegelsberger walked into the courthouse on March 4, they learned the six-year-long case inside and out. The two students spent the first six weeks of the Spring 2020 semester working to understand the law and the case’s record, reading and rereading the parties’ briefs, conducting additional research, and preparing their case theory. Boy Skipsey would only have 10 minutes to argue before the court but she had to practice her delivery for a month.

“Every week I was getting stronger on the arguments and in managing my time because, in those 10 minutes, I had to put forth our most persuasive argument forward,” she said. “The Second Circuit makes law. This is why they ask tough questions that highlight the weaknesses of both sides’ arguments, to ensure they make an informed decision and get the law right. My goal was to answer the judges’ questions clearly and directly, even if the questions raised difficult issues for our side. I needed to be flexible in my approach to my argument’s roadmap in an effort to balance my duties to assist the judges in understanding the law and the case and to zealously advocate for our client.”

One of the most significant challenges that Boy Skipsey faced midway through the six-week preparation period was to track the hearings’ testimonies regarding each photograph in question––lawyers are trained to make a clear record, but prison officials are not. So, she approached Riegelsberger in what Boy Skipsey called a “movie moment.” Together, they laid the photographs out on a table at the clinic and spent countless hours matching hundreds of transcript pages to the respective images.

On March 4, Boy Skipsey was prepared to argue for the allotted 10 minutes—seven minutes to argue and then three minutes to rebut. However, the appeal, which should have taken a total of 20 minutes, lasted nearly an hour and a half. Due to the case’s complexity, her arguments alone totaled nearly 50 minutes, part of which were spent assisting the Court make sense of the confusing record––the painstaking work in matching all of the testimonies to each photograph paid off as it played a key role in the clinic’s argument. “It was intense and exceptional for arguments to go for that long,” Boy Skipsey said. “Standing on my feet that whole time fighting for our client and grappling with the judges’ involved questions was exhilarating.”

The Fordham Law Faculty’s Commitment to Students’ and Students’ Fellowship

Boy Skipsey credits Fordham Law’s faculty, her teammates, fellow classmates, members of the Fordham Law Moot Court team, and other Fordham friends for assisting her prepare for the rigorous oral argument––which was based on the publicly available briefs filed with the Second Circuit. Collectively, they helped her understand what her argument’s strengths and weaknesses were, how to deliver a better argument, and even what to expect from the judges the day of the argument.

“It took a village to get me ready for this argument. It was incredibly challenging and demanding, but due to my professors’ support and guidance, I was able to prepare for the rigorous oral argument,” she said. “Professor Martin and Professor Weinstein were crucial in my preparation, but even professors outside of the clinic contributed greatly to my preparation. Professor Daniel J. Capra, my Evidence professor, kindly took time and genuine interest in helping me prepare for the argument. His perspective on the case and our arguments, as well as his deep understanding of the Second Circuit panel, were invaluable,” Boy Skipsey explained. “Fordham’s distinguished faculty is the school’s most valuable asset, and students are extremely fortunate to have access to and count with the support of such prominent faculty members. I am very grateful to all my professors for their mentorship throughout my three years at Fordham,” she said. “What’s more, I truly experienced Fordham’s sense of community and solidarity throughout this process. The people from Moot Court and so many of my other peers were  deeply invested in this case and my preparation over the six weeks. I think that speaks to the quality of Fordham Law’s culture and relationships. The fellowship in this school is extraordinary.”

The Coronavirus Effect

Because the coronavirus crisis significantly and quickly escalated by the second week of March, Boy Skipsey and Riegelsberger have been unable to visit their client at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility to give him the play-by-play of the argument. They have, however, kept in touch through mail correspondence, and they say they are looking forward to visiting him as soon as pandemic restrictions are lifted.

Boy Skipsey noted that she is thankful to have argued in-person before New York was locked down and before she graduated two months later. “I’m glad our oral argument wasn’t virtual because it would have taken away from the special moment of walking through the magnificent Second Circuit courtroom and standing up before the judges,” she said. “As a student, I was very fortunate to have such a remarkable opportunity before even beginning my legal career, and I am grateful to God, the Federal Litigation Clinic, Professors Martin and Weinstein, and, of course, our client who trusted me to represent him and fight for his constitutional rights.”

The Second Circuit has yet to issue its opinion on the constitutionality of Rule 105.13, which could potentially affect 50,000 people in New York State’s correctional system.

The post Federal Litigation Clinic Students Argue Appeal Before Second Circuit appeared first on Fordham Law.

Martha Rayner (far right), co-director of the Criminal Defense Clinic, and Kaela Economos, the Clinic’s social work supervisor, traveled to Albany last month along with two future CDC students, Rachel Patterson (left) and Jackie Prosky, to meet with New York legislators about two pending bills seeking to reform New York’s parole laws. They carry a sign with a quote from Pope Francis, “Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty.”

There are nearly 9,000 people serving life sentences in New York state. The process of deciding who should be paroled is highly discretionary and vulnerable to political pressure resulting in repeated denials of parole despite strong evidence of rehabilitation and low risk to public safety. The Fair and Timely Parole bill seeks to change the backward-looking standard currently in use by the Parole Board, to a forward-looking standard that considers who the person is today. Many of the men and women serving life sentences without parole have served multiple decades in prison, committed their crimes at a young age, engaged in meaningful programming and education, and transformed. Yet, under the current law, they will never be considered for release. The Elder Parole bill, would permit anyone at age 55 or older, who has served at least 15 years, to be eligible for parole.

The post The Criminal Defense Clinic Goes to Albany appeared first on Fordham Law.

Fordham Law School’s Stein Scholars program is designed to cultivate the next generation of public interest lawyers. Selected students with a demonstrated commitment to public interest participate in the academic and service program during law school to prepare for their careers as attorneys. The program includes specialized discussion series, mentorships, and working with public interest organizations. 

“We are so excited to welcome this newest group of students to the Stein Scholars community. Stein Scholars are public interest leaders, not only while they are at Fordham, but in the broader New York, national, and global communities after graduation,” said Aisha Baruni, director of Public Interest Scholars and Counseling. “Stein Scholars make their mark as passionate attorneys who fiercely represent their individual clients in matters including housing and education, work on important policy matters, and help ensure that government institutions work for the people.”

Each year, the Stein Scholars program admits a few new students in the spring. All are members of the Class of 2022, with some new Stein Scholars in the Day Division and others in the Evening Division.

Julia Hatheway ’22

Julia Hatheway graduated from Middlebury College in February 2018 where she majored in International Politics and Economics. While living in Vermont, she interned and volunteered for WomenSafe, an organization supporting survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Following graduation, Julia moved to New York City to work in the Appeals Division at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office before beginning at Fordham. Julia is passionate about gender justice and is particularly interested in reproductive rights. She plans to continue learning about these issues while at Fordham and is excited to join the Stein community and learn from fellow Stein Scholars.

David Marx ’22

After several years of herding cattle on a kibbutz and serving in the Israeli army, David Marx earned his BA in psychology from Yeshiva University in 2009. He worked for several years in gang violence prevention, foster care, and with other at risk youth. David received an MSEd in childhood special education from Hunter College in 2015 and worked as a special education teacher in the South Bronx until he chose to pursue law. While teaching third graders, he observed the intersectionality of injustices his students faced based on their race, family income, immigration status, and disability classification, making them particularly vulnerable to harm and marginalization. This compelled him to pursue a career change that would work towards putting an end to the systemic oppression they faced. He interned his 1L summer at the Mississippi Center for Justice and is interning his 2L summer at Neighborhood Defender Services Youth Law Practice. David is interested in pursuing a career that will help put an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and mass incarceration.

Collin Murdock ’22

Collin Murdock’s background is in education, mental health, and youth development. In 2011 he was an AmeriCorps member with City Year Washington D.C. where he worked with an 8th-grade class. Following that he attended the Smith College MSW program and provided outpatient and in-school services to youth. After graduating from Smith he worked for the Washington D.C. State Board of Education as an educational advocate and later in New York City as an educator and advocate on special education issues for transition-aged youth and their families. He hopes to meet other passionate students and plans to use his legal training to continue working on issues in education and youth development.

Eli Salamon-Abrams ’22

Before starting at Fordham, Eli Salamon-Abrams spent three years working as a paralegal at a small firm doing mostly court-appointed federal criminal defense work in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. He has interned with organizations such as the Innocence Project and National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Eli graduated from Tufts University in 2016, where he studied political science and music. He has enjoyed getting to know the public interest community at Fordham through his work with Fordham Law Defenders and is honored to join Stein Scholars.

Huma Shah ’22

Huma Shah most recently served as the Chief of Staff at FWD.us, a political advocacy organization focusing on immigration and criminal justice reform. She previously served in the Obama White House as the Special Assistant and Policy Advisor to the Senior Advisor to the President. Before joining the White House, she was a political appointee in the Department of Homeland Security. She has an M.Phil with Distinction from the University of Cambridge, where she was the Harvard University Paul Williams Scholar in International Government and Public Affairs, and the recipient of the C.A. Bayly award for best dissertation. A New York native, she is a graduate of Harvard College.

The post Meet the Newest Members of the Stein Scholars Program appeared first on Fordham Law.

A Message from Dean Diller to Students:

July 7, 2020

Dear Students,

• Provide our typical robust course offerings, grade on our traditional curve, and ensure clinics can use the building for legal practice.
• Offer a good selection of upper level courses taught in the building. The schedule will be available shortly and registration will begin July 20.
• Redouble faculty efforts with virtual learning through a series of summer training sessions that will enhance students’ online learning.
• Support co-curricular activities so these remain a vibrant part of the academic program.
• Ensure that the law library delivers engaging remote research assistance and other services and remains open as a controlled, physically distanced study space.
• Reserve additional study space in the building.
• Enable students to build an all-online schedule, including all required courses and a robust selection of electives.

The post Fall 2020 Campus Reopening Update appeared first on Fordham Law.

This article was written by Andrew Vazquez ’22, relying on research and analysis that Jenny Brejt ’20 conducted for the Democracy Clinic’s study of the Electoral College. Students in the Democracy Clinic develop non-partisan reforms to the nation’s institutions. The clinic’s report on the Electoral College is among a slate of reports released earlier this year.

In a case that has implications for the upcoming presidential election, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that State laws enforcing a pledge by a member of the Electoral College to vote for a specific candidate are constitutional. In the Court’s opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington, Justice Elena Kagan reiterated states’ plenary power over conducting elections. Justice Kagan was joined unanimously in the judgment, with Justice Thomas issuing a concurring opinion.

Although the Court approved checks on “faithless electors,” there is still uncertainty surrounding the role of electors. A majority of states still have laws that allow for counting votes of electors who break their pledges to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their states. An amendment to the Constitution eliminating the office of elector is the only way to ensure stability in our presidential elections.

When Donald Trump won enough electoral votes in the 2016 election to become president but lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, the Electoral College drew ire across the country. Opposition to Trump taking office spurred a campaign to usurp the election results by pressuring electors to “vote their conscience” and cast their ballots for a consensus candidate, such as John Kasich. A group of electors, called the “Hamilton Electors,” believed they were embodying the will of the Constitution’s framers by acting as a stop guard against Trump, who they viewed as uniquely unfit for the presidency. But Hamilton Electors in multiple states were undermined by statutes that bound them to their states’ popular votes.

The State of Washington fined electors who cast their votes contrary to their pledges. Three electors from the 2016 election who violated their pledges brought suit against Washington state, claiming that the fine violated their First Amendment rights and Article II of the Constitution. Simultaneous with its decision in Chiafalo, the Court decided Baca v. Colorado. Michael Baca, a former elector from Colorado and a leader of the anti-Trump Electoral College effort, attempted to vote for John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton, but Colorado’s faithless elector law triggered his automatic replacement. Baca and two other electors brought challenges to the Colorado statute that removed them from office and replaced them with alternate electors.

Elections in which the electoral vote is close will always be uncertain if the electors are allowed to vote with discretion. Al Gore lost the 2000 election by five electoral votes, despite winning the popular vote. A handful of unbound electors could have swayed the election for Gore. To ensure that electors do not override voters, thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to pledge their support to a presidential candidate prior to their appointment. Nineteen states with anti-faithless elector laws still count a faithless elector’s vote even if it is contrary to their pledge. Thirteen states interpret an electors’ faithless vote as a resignation and replace them with an alternate elector. Five out of the thirty-two states also fine electors who violate their pledges. The Court’s ruling in Chiafalo upheld the constitutionality of these laws.

Justice Kagan’s opinion built off of the Court’s 1952 decision in Ray v. Blair, which upheld requirements that electors pledge to support a candidate prior to their appointment. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution allows States to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Ray held that States may condition the appointment of an elector in any way it sees it fit, including through pledges. Ray, however, left open the question of whether these pledges were legally enforceable.

In ruling that the pledge requirements are enforceable, the Court in Chiafalo relied on the wording in Article 2 and the Twelfth Amendment as well as the established practices of presidential elections. Justice Kagan’s opinion noted that the Framers designed the Electoral College to be a deliberative body, but she asserted that this intention was not conveyed by the wording of Article 2, Section 1. The wording, quoted above, was left ambiguous, Justice Kagan observed, in contrast to contemporaneous state constitutions that outlined systems similar to the Electoral College and specifically called for elector discretion.

The Electors who brought the suit maintained that the words “vote by ballot” in the Twelfth Amendment necessitated elector discretion. The Court dismissed this argument by citing many examples in which a person casts a vote without discretion, such as casting a proxy vote. Justice Kagan reasoned that, if the Framers wanted electors to have permanent discretion in voting for the president, they would have written the Constitution to specifically say so.

The second basis of the Court’s opinion emphasized the long history of pledged electors and its importance for constitutional interpretation. Since 1796, states have selected electors who pledged to vote for a designated candidate. This development was compounded with the ratification in 1804 of the Twelfth Amendment, which provided for separate votes for the president and vice president. The Twelfth Amendment, passed in the wake of a dysfunctional election in 1800, created room for party-line voting for both executive offices. Additionally, scholars throughout the 19th century and the Court in McPherson v. Blacker asserted that the electors were chosen merely to convey the will of those that appointed them, whether that be via the state legislature or the popular vote. Furthermore, many States only list the names of the presidential candidates on ballots, under the assumption that the electors will vote according to their pledges. This lengthy history, Justice Kagan concluded, permits the States to bind electors to their pledges.

What does Chiafalo tell us about the Constitution and the future of the Electoral College? First, the decision reaffirms that established practices can influence interpretations of the Constitution. In this case, past practice was given greater weight than the Framers’ clear intent. Although Article II does not say it, the Framers unambiguously believed that the electors had the freedom to choose the president. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reasoned that the subsequent two hundred years of electoral practice outweighed these beliefs.

The Framers created the Electoral College as a compromise between opposing plans for selecting the president: direct popular election and selection by the legislature. Alexander Hamilton described the Electoral College as a body “capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation…” But the deliberative nature of the Electoral College never came to fruition, as the College’s discretion began to degrade as soon as 1796. Instead of deliberating on the election of the president, the electors pledged themselves to support candidates favored by the emerging political parties. The voters would then vote for the electors as proxies for their preferred candidate for president. This unanticipated development ended the Framers’ vision of a deliberative body made up of the greatest political minds in the country.

Out of 58 presidential elections in American history, there have only been 165 faithless votes for president or vice president, 71 of which the electors cast because their pledged candidate died before the vote took place. Over the course of the last century, many scholars relegated the role of electors to one of ceremony, akin to the process of the Crown in England giving its assent to acts passed by Parliament. These scholars’ arguments, which were validated by Justice Kagan’s opinion, asserted that the two hundred plus years of electoral history created a tradition by which electors merely carry out the will of voters.

Members of Congress have proposed over 700 constitutional amendments to change the Electoral College. The strongest effort for reform was sparked by Segregationist George Wallace’s attempt in 1968 to use electors’ discretion to enhance his political clout. Wallace strongly opposed the Civil Rights Movement and sought to use his concentrated support among white southerners to garner enough electoral votes to sway the 1968 presidential election. Knowing he had no chance of winning outright as a third-party candidate, Wallace intended to use his pledged electors to play kingmaker, and force concessions out of one of the candidates to support segregation. Although he won the votes of five states, Wallace’s plan never came to fruition. But the fear of his threat prompted many to advocate for reforming the Electoral College. An amendment proposed in 1969 seeking to replace the Electoral College with a direct national popular vote passed the House by an overwhelming majority but was filibustered in the Senate.

Concern that faithless electors can disrupt presidential elections remains—and may have impacted the Court’s decisions in Chiafalo and Baca. During oral arguments, Justice Kavanaugh appeared to fear that unbound electors would create chaos by possibly deciding elections against the will of the people. So how do we best avoid the “chaos” that the Court feared? The amalgamation of State laws, even when sanctioned by the Supreme Court, do not provide complete protection from volatility in presidential elections. Eighteen states still have no requirement binding electors to their state’s popular vote. A majority of states still count faithless votes. And there is no uniform “faithless elector” statute across the states. “Chaos” can still reign. The only way to truly rid our country of uncertainty over the discretion of electors is to abolish the role of electors. Voters’ choice for president does not need to be sanctioned by a group of gatekeeping political party members.

A constitutional amendment to rid our country of this anachronistic and ceremonial role will quell fears that unbound electors are a recipe for turmoil. Also, the eradication of the office of presidential elector is not partisan; candidates of both parties are equally vulnerable to losing faithless electors’ votes. An amendment will stabilize our presidential elections and prevent an undemocratic body from potentially overriding the will of millions of voters. If all of the States that already restrict elector discretion approved the amendment, only two more states would need to ratify it. These states are represented by 267 members of the House of Representatives and 64 senators—close to the two-thirds majority required to pass an amendment.

This amendment must consider the concerns of those who advocate for allowing unbound electors. These advocates’ main concern relates to what would happen if a candidate died after the general election, but prior to the Electoral College vote. These scholars argue that electors are crucial in this scenario because they could use their discretion to select a qualified replacement candidate. An amendment abolishing electors must incorporate presidential succession guidelines mirroring those in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. If a presidential candidate dies before the Electoral College meets, the electoral votes should be allocated to the deceased candidate’s vice-presidential running mate. Congress should also provide for a scenario where the vice-president elect also dies or there is no clear vice-president for the incoming administration.

In the meantime, states should adopt a uniform statute that removes and replaces nonconforming electors with alternates who will vote according to each state’s respective popular vote. The law should contain exceptions for scenarios like the ones described above. The adoption of a uniform statute will avoid uncertainty in contentious presidential elections until an amendment is passed. Nevertheless, an amendment is the only way to ensure that the will of the people is carried out.

The post It’s Time to Abolish Electors appeared first on Fordham Law.

Rising 3L Christina John ’21 won LSAC’s 2020 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Writing Competition in the second-year law student category with her essay, “It’s Your Choice: Diversity and Inclusion or Irrelevance and Extinction (PDF).”

Read more about this achievement.

The post Christina John ’21 Wins LSAC’s 2020 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Writing Competition appeared first on Fordham Law.

Recent graduate Elias Wright ’20 was awarded first place and a prize of $1,000 in the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy’s second annual James R. Cleary Prize competition for his student note, “The Future of Facial Recognition Is Not Fully Known: Developing Privacy and Security Regulatory Mechanisms for Facial Recognition in the Retail Sector.” Prizes are awarded to three authors of published scholarly papers that most creatively and convincingly propose solutions to significant problems in the field of media law and policy. 

Wright’s note focused on facial recognition technology—specifically examining how private sector biometric technologies play a role in the wider legal understanding of privacy implications. Wright argued that consumer sensitivities and the opaque nature of the technology have resulted in over- and under-inclusive regulatory regimes. In turn, he proposed that the broad implications of biometric privacy harms justify more extensive privacy regulation than a narrow focus on data security and self-regulation.

“What drew me to this topic was understanding how a legal system should be developed from the ground up for a new issue that demonstrates complexity and difficulty when creating any strong legal regime,” Wright explained. “I was really interested in federal agency powers that already existed—specifically the Federal Trade Commission—and reviewed what powers it has and what the potential limitations of its power are.” He also said serving as a project fellow at the Center of Law and Information Policy during his 1L year significantly increased his interest in the privacy space and how the law was involved in questions related to technology, such as facial recognition. Wright added that Professor Olivier Sylvain, who was his note advisor, and Sylvain’s Information Law course were major contributors to his understanding and passion for the field.

Receiving word about his win earlier this month was a pleasant surprise, according to Wright, especially considering that he submitted his note for competition in February—“when the world was in a different place,” he said. “In this work-from-home environment, everything you receive and send is through email and you can sometimes get a daunting feeling about emails coming in,” Wright continued. “But when it’s something good, like this, it’s a great feeling and it really puts you in a good place.”

The note was also published in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal in late March of 2019 and has been downloaded more than 2,230 times to date. “I went into this trying to write something that’s forward-looking and trying to determine what emerging issues will need to be resolved at a future point,” Wright said. “To have that many downloads is an awesome feeling. People are actually reading my thoughts on this. Maybe this can influence policy, or maybe someone who actually has more control over these levers of power might come across this.”

Wright is currently working as a law clerk at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.

The post Elias Wright ’20 Wins First Place in the James R. Cleary Prize Competition appeared first on Fordham Law.

Second-year law student Winn Periyasamy ’22 and alum Mary Kate Cunningham ’20 co-authored an opinion piece for the Gotham Gazette in favor of diploma privilege, for recent graduates of New York’s law schools, due to the postponed bar exam and the pandemic.

The uncertainty surrounding the New York bar exam has been devastating. After the March news, thousands of job offers were delayed or revoked until the September exam date, leaving students without salaries and health insurance, and with far more uncertainty and insecurity. Unemployed graduates were left to job hunt during an unprecedented pandemic. The lack of clarity for recent graduates has left many in limbo, wondering how or when they can pay for rent, food, health expenses, or their pending debt from law school. It also further exacerbates mental health inequities in a field long known for widespread depression and mental health stigma.

The only compassionate and equitable option for New York’s future lawyers right now is diploma privilege.

Under diploma privilege, applicants can be admitted to the bar without taking a bar exam but following successfully graduating from law school and satisfying certain other requirements like passing the New York Law Exam and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam and completing a “character and fitness” assessment.

Read the full article.

The post Diploma Privilege Now appeared first on Fordham Law.

The article was researched and written by students in Fordham Law’s Democracy Clinic.

Administering the upcoming 2020 presidential election poses unique challenges in light of COVID-19. To say the least, traditional in-person voting at polling sites runs antithetical to social distancing guidelines. Yet the reality is that Election Day will move forward regardless of the pandemic. It is highly unlikely that Congress will vote to cancel or postpone the election. And the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to alter the date of Election Day without congressional approval. The question, then, is how do we ensure that the presidential election occurs safely and smoothly?

There are a variety of proposals for allowing voters to cast their ballots during the pandemic from lawmakers and expert groups, such as the Brennan Center and the Ad Hoc Committee for 2020 Election Fairness and Legitimacy. Proposals typically range from staggered in-person voting, limits on the number of voters per polling site, extended voting hours, increased polling sites, curbside voting options, and enhanced hygiene protocols at polling sites. However, universal access to vote-by-mail is one of the most widely supported proposals. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have introduced legislation to mandate universal access to vote-by-mail in all states. Under this voting framework, voters would not be required to vote-by-mail, but all voters would be guaranteed access to a mail-in paper ballot. 

Expanding vote-by-mail options will encounter political, practical, and legal challenges. 

On the political front, President Trump has complained that under Democratic plans for expanding early voting and voting by mail “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” Trump has said he believed vote-by-mail has been abused to hurt Republicans, and that he would “not stand for it.” Republican leaders have also said that they were committed to fighting state-level statutes that could expand absentee balloting in Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona, and elsewhere.

As for the practical challenges, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has highlighted some logistical difficulties with holding an election using universal access to vote-by-mail. Among other concerns, the NCSL argues that universal vote-by-mail raises security and financial concerns, and could lead to slower vote counting. The security of an all-mail election may be compromised through coercion by family members or others in voters’ homes. Additionally, all-mail elections increase printing costs and require specific equipment to accurately read the ballots. Beyond the cost, there is a concern about whether it is feasible to print enough ballots for all voters in time for the election. Finally, elections with high numbers of mail ballots may slow down the vote-counting process, especially if a state’s policy is to allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted in the days and weeks after the election.

At the root of legal hurdles to Congress taking steps to expand vote-by-mail is the lack of clear constitutional authority for Congress to regulate how votes are cast in presidential elections. Article I, Section 4 gives Congress the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” for choosing members of the House of Representatives and the times and manner of choosing senators. But Congress is not granted the same range of powers over the process for selecting presidential electors. In fact, Article II, Section 1 says the states shall appoint electors in the manner that the state legislatures decide, and that Congress has the power to determine the “time of [choosing]the electors.” The contrast between the provisions for congressional and presidential elections creates an inference that the framers meant to deny Congress broad discretion over how presidential electors were selected. Unfortunately, a robust historical analysis of framing intent is beyond the scope of this article.

The analysis here is focused on four possible approaches to expanding access to mail voting that are consistent with Congress’s powers under the Constitution: (1) relying on Congress’s inherent powers to regulate presidential elections, especially under the Necessary and Proper Clause; (2) finding authority in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; (3) requiring states to implement universal access to vote-by-mail for congressional elections with the expectation that it will lead the states to make the same access available for the presidential contest; and (4) conditioning federal funding on providing universal access to vote-by-mail. Ultimately, the best approach may be the latter option of using funding to incentivize states to expand access to mail voting. 

Constitutional Authority Over Presidential Elections

The Supreme Court has at times asserted that Congress has extensive powers over all federal elections, including presidential elections. The Necessary and Proper Clause has provided a basis for many of these pronouncements. But there is not a clean, doctrinal statement about the extent of congressional authority to regulate presidential elections, especially as it relates to mail voting, so the extent of Congress’s power is unclear. 

One of the original appeals to the Necessary and Proper Clause for congressional authority over federal elections was in Ex Parte Yarbrough, also known as the Ku Klux Cases. In that case, the Court ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorized a statute under which several people were imprisoned for intimidating a Black man who was attempting to vote in a congressional election. The decision held that congressional regulation was legitimate despite an inability to “place [a]finger on words which expressly grant” congressional power. The Court also based its reasoning on Congress’ power over the “Times, Places, and Manner” of elections for members of the House as well as the Fifteenth Amendment, which protects the voting rights of Black people. The decision asserted that the Fifteenth Amendment was based on the “principle” that Congress had the responsibility to protect all citizens’ right to vote. Although Yarbrough involved a congressional election, the Court suggested that Congress had similar powers to protect the integrity of presidential elections. The Court observed that it was a “necessity of the government … that the votes by which its members of congress and its president are elected shall be the free votes of the electors, and the officers thus chosen the free and uncorrupted choice of those who have the right to take part in that choice.” But the Court’s reference to presidential elections was dicta, not binding precedent. 

The Court’s jurisprudence on Congress’s authority over presidential elections is complicated by McPherson v. Blacker, a case decided a mere seven years after Yarbrough. In McPherson, the Court affirmed emphatically that “the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belongs exclusively to the states.” 

Four decades later, in 1934, the Court in Burroughs v. United States drew on the reasoning in Yarbrough to find federal regulatory authority over presidential elections. In Burroughs, the Court upheld a statute that required disclosure of donations meant to influence presidential and vice-presidential campaigns. The Court stated that Congress had “clear” authority to protect presidential elections from corruption, given the importance to the presidency in the country’s system of government. Later decisions from the Court expanded the logic of Yarbrough and Burroughs.

That expansion came in the 1970s and appeared to increase congressional power to regulate elections. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a provision of the Voting Rights Act that changed the minimum voting age. The justices in the majority did not sign onto a single opinion, but in Justice Black’s opinion announcing the Court’s ruling he cited the Necessary and Proper Clause as support for Congress’s authority to set a minimum voting age in federal elections. Black reasoned that the national government must have the “ultimate power … to fill its offices under its own laws.” He continued, “It cannot be seriously contended that Congress has less power over the conduct of presidential elections than it has over congressional elections.” Black cited the Act’s requirement for access to absentee ballots as part of Congress’ attempt to “insure a fully effective voice to all citizens in national elections.” Three years later, in Kusper v. Pontikes, the Court favorably cited the assertion in Mitchell that “with respect to elections to federal office, however, the Court has held that Congress had the power to establish voter qualifications.”

Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark campaign finance case that succeeded Mitchell and Kusper, cited Burroughs to observe that the Court had found “broad congressional power to legislate in connection with the elections of the President and Vice President.” 

But several concurrences and dissents over the decades have favored reading Article II, Section 1 in the same way the Court did in McPherson. For example, in dissenting from the 1983 decision in Anderson v. Celebrezze, Justice Rehnquist cited McPherson as the keystone to state sovereignty in determining the manner of presidential elections. And the Court’s per curiam decision in Bush v. Gore cited McPherson for the proposition that states have broad authority to determine how their electors are appointed. A successful argument for the constitutionality of a federal law that required mail voting would need to rely on Yarbrough and Burroughs and assert that mail voting was essential to protecting voting rights and warding off a threat to the nation’s system of government and democracy.

Equal Protection of Ballot Access

An alternative argument might assert that Congress has a responsibility to ensure equal access to ballots because COVID-19 threatens some voters more than others. For example, elderly voters are less likely to be able to go to the polls because they are at a higher risk of contracting a severe case of the virus. The same could be said of voters who are pregnant or have high-risk family members at home. The Fourteenth Amendment’s assurance of “equal protection under the laws” could provide the ground for congressional action requiring states to expand mail voting. The Supreme Court has used the Equal Protection Clause before to protect voting rights. For example, in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down a poll tax in Virginia on Equal Protection grounds because it impinged on the right of citizens to vote. 

Analysis of vote-by-mail legislation on Equal Protection grounds would need to address whether the proposal was mandatory universal vote-by-mail (where an election is conducted entirely by mail ballots across the country) or universal access to vote-by-mail (where voters have the option of casting their ballots by mail). This distinction is important because an Equal Protection challenge triggers a balancing test based on the level of scrutiny ascribed to a given class. Because the reason that some voters will not be able to access the polls is not within the auspices of an elevated class of scrutiny, such as race, the scrutiny level will be rational basis. That standard means that the state merely needs to provide a rational basis for failing to provide access to mail voting, and the exorbitantly high cost of an all-mail election could likely satisfy this standard. In contrast, merely expanding the absentee option would not be nearly as costly and stands a better chance of surviving the rational basis test should the Equal Protection challenge make it to court. 

Using Congress’s Authority Over Congressional Elections

If Congress used its power over the “Times, Places, and Manner” of elections of members of Congress to expand vote-by-mail in congressional elections, states would probably find it easier administratively to provide the same access to mail voting for the presidential election. As one commentator on the Help America Vote Act put it, “[S]tates will presumably continue to conduct presidential elections in the same way, at the same time, with the same personnel, at the same places, and using the same equipment and procedures as they administer elections for Congress. Thus, changing the rules for congressional elections does so for presidential ones as well, and the power Congress possesses over the former operates as a de facto power over the latter.” This approach to expanding mailing voting would probably be effective, but it would stop short of guaranteeing that voters would have the choice to cast mail ballots in the presidential election. 

Incentivizing States to Expand Mail Voting

Given Congress’ uncertain constitutional authority to regulate the manner of conducting presidential elections, legislation requiring states to expand mail voting could be vulnerable to a challenge based on the Tenth Amendment in that it encroaches on states’ authority. But the legislation could probably withstand such a challenge if it incentivized states to expand access to mail voting in exchange for federal funding. 

The Tenth Amendment states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment and the limits on the scope of Congress’ powers under Article I prevent the federal government from compelling states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. If a federal law compels state legislative or regulatory activity, the statute is unconstitutional even if there is a compelling need for federal action. And the Court subsequently observed that a statute that commandeers state governments to implement a federal mandate undermines political accountability and blurs the separation of powers.

The United States has a highly decentralized election administration system. The entities that do the rubber-meets-the-road functions of running an election are typically on the county or city level, with the state and the federal government occupying roles as well. The result is that no state administers elections in exactly the same way as another state, with variation in election administration even within the states.

It follows that any federally mandated universal vote-by-mail system would be implemented at the state, county, or city level. State governments would be responsible for carrying out the federal universal vote-by-mail program.

The Seventh Circuit in ACORN v. Edgar (1995) rejected an argument that directing states to implement federal election regulations would violate the “anti-commandeering” requirements of the Tenth Amendment. ACORN upheld the validity of congressional regulation of registration procedures for federal elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The court asserted that the Constitution’s Article I, Section 4 clearly contemplates that states have the burden of administering federal elections. It would follow, then, that the clause is direct authority for Congress to regulate states as to the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections.

However, this “direct” constitutional authority is only explicit as to the manner of holding congressional elections—not presidential elections. Therefore, federal legislation mandating the manner of holding presidential elections may be vulnerable to a Tenth Amendment challenge in a way that regulation of congressional elections is not.

While Congress cannot direct states to implement a federal program outright, it is not powerless. To the extent that there are gaps in Congress’s power to regulate presidential elections, Congress might use the Spending Clause to condition the receipt of federal monies upon compliance with federal regulation. The Court in New York held that Congress can attach strings on grants to state governments and through these conditions induce state action that it cannot directly compel. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Court said that the purpose of the program must be related to the general welfare and the condition must be clear, unambiguous and wholly related to the federal interest. Congress generally has broad power to set conditions of receipt of federal funds in areas it might not be able to regulate, but, the Court recently stated, when “pressure turns into compulsion,” the legislation is unconstitutional.

Congress has repeatedly employed the power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning the receipt of federal money upon compliance with federal statutory and administrative directives. The power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public money for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution, as the Court in South Dakota observed. Objectives not thought to be within Article I’s enumerated congressional powers may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and conditional grants of federal funds. In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, the Supreme Court has indicated that courts should defer substantially to the judgement of Congress.

Therefore, Congress can probably condition the receipt of federal funds on the adoption of universal access to vote-by-mail. The vote-by-mail mandate is certainly in the federal interest: The purpose of the program is to keep the public safe and in their homes in the midst of a pandemic. The condition (expansion of vote-by-mail) is wholly related to this interest. So long as the conditional language is stated clearly and unambiguously, such federal legislation could likely withstand a Tenth Amendment challenge.

Conclusion

Congress must consider ways to ensure that no citizen is disenfranchised by COVID-19. Fortunately, universal access to vote-by-mail offers a promising pathway forward for the presidential election. In spite of the aforementioned legal challenges, Congress can implement it by conditioning the state receipt of federal funds on the adoption of universal vote-by-mail.  

The post Congress Can Provide Mail Voting for the Presidential Election appeared first on Fordham Law.

Recent graduate and outgoing Editor-in-Chief of the Brendan Moore Trial Advocacy Center Aishling Fitzpatrick ’20 came in second place at Baylor Law’s 11th Annual Top Gun National Mock Trial Competition—the most prestigious, invite-only individual trial advocacy competition in the country. She was nominated to represent Fordham Law at the tournament, which took place from May 27 to 31, due in part to her stellar cross examination at Faulkner’s Mockingbird Competition in the fall of 2019. Fitzpatrick will be working for Kasowitz, Benson & Torres, a litigation firm in Manhattan, once she takes the bar exam.

What Makes Top Gun Unlike Any Other Competition

Unlike other trial advocacy competitions that invite teams of up to four participating students and two coaches, Top Gun allows only one student to participate in the competition, with just one coach and one second seat. Tension was high as Fitzpatrick had just 24 hours to prepare her entire case before the first round with coach Mike Higgins ’08, an Administrative Appeals Judge with the Social Security Administration, and second seat Carolyn McGuigan, rising 3L and current Managing Editor of the Brendan Moore Trial Advocacy Center. Together, they were responsible for reviewing a myriad of materials, including depositions, records, and photographs. They also needed to prepare arguments for both the plaintiff and the defendant—which meant having ready two openings, two closings, and two direct and two cross examinations for the first four rounds.

“It’s the most unique competition I’ve ever heard of, in that you really get just the 24 hours to do everything you would ordinarily do in a month-and-a-half or two months with a lot more people. That definitely made me nervous, but it was a very exciting way to handle it,” Fitzpatrick said, reflecting on her fifth and final competition at Fordham Law. “But, since this was the first virtual competition I had done, I was a little less nervous because I didn’t have to deal with physically being in a courtroom. That can be very daunting, especially when you have so many things running through your head.”

Fighting Through Zoom Fatigue

Mike Higgins

To prepare for Top Gun, Fitzpatrick and her team recreated the high-pressure atmosphere of the competition, mooting old cases under 24-hour time constraints throughout the month of May. Moore alumni (in particular Rob Iodice ’16 and Megi Belegu ’19), as well as classmates and other Moore alumni rallied behind Fitzpatrick and stepped in to serve remotely as mock judges, opposing counsels, and witnesses—all while the pandemic unfolded around them.

Another unique component of the competition is that real-life doctors and toxicologists are brought in as witnesses for the semi-finals and finals—but students are only given 20 minutes to prepare them for the case. When Fitzpatrick advanced to the semifinals, she and her team had to prepare an additional four direct and four cross examinations with the real-life experts.

“We found that out overnight. By the time her fourth round was over, we had around 12 hours to incorporate and prep those extra direct and cross examinations and get some sleep,” said Higgins, who coached Fitzpatrick for the fourth time during his decade-long career.

When Fitzpatrick was notified that she was going to advance to the semifinals, she and her team worked all night to basically prepare a whole new case with brand new witnesses. “I think Mike may have gotten one hour of sleep that night. I got about three,” she noted.

One aspect Fitzpatrick missed during this tournament was the fact that she couldn’t be with Higgins and McGuigan.

Aishling Fitzpatrick at a previous competition

“It’s much easier to communicate when you’re all physically in one room and working on the same thing together. Instead, we were texting each other and had 24-hour-long Zoom sessions. When I advanced to the finals, that’s when I really realized that I had no one to hug or congratulate. I was alone in my studio apartment in Manhattan, staring at my wall and saying, ‘Ok, I guess I’m going against …'” Fitzpatrick said. “You truly get through these competitions by having your team and coaches with you, so the lack of one-on-one contact was definitely difficult. I was very skeptical about doing a trial online, but Baylor Law School organized a really well-run competition through Zoom, given the circumstances. I think being remote took the focus off of the theatrical side of the trial because it really focused on each individual’s competitive advocacy skills.”

In the same vein, Higgins said that while he missed the experience of visualizing case theories by writing them out in-person on whiteboards, he was happy that no one could see how anxious he was. “There’s a ring in the grass of my backyard where I paced around the table that I had my laptop on while I was watching the court arguments,” he commented.

Fordham Law To Compete Again Next Year

Though Fitzpatrick came in second place, Higgins emphasized the fact that she did extremely well and proudly represented Fordham Law. “Her semi-final round performance was one of the best rounds of advocacy I’ve seen from her,” he continued. “She dominated the round from start to finish.” The semi-finals, which were live streamed along with the rest of the tournament, can be watched here.

Fitzpatrick personally competed against students from five other law schools, winning four of six rounds. Because of her second place performance, Fordham Law will be automatically invited to compete in next year’s Top Gun competition. “We participated last year, and now we’re guaranteed to return. It’s nice that it’s going to be three years in a row for Fordham to be represented at this prestigious competition,” Higgins said.

The post Aishling Fitzpatrick ’20 Takes Second Place at Baylor Law’s Top Gun Competition appeared first on Fordham Law.

After closing its physical campus on March 9 due to the coronavirus outbreak, Fordham Law School reopened the building for the first time this week, welcoming new students for its first-ever hybrid orientation.

This year’s orientation consisted of online elements—watching pre-recorded videos and taking part in interactive Zoom exercises—and optional in-person programming. Incoming 1Ls had the opportunity to speak with their house leaders, professors, fellow classmates, and upper-year students during small-group virtual meetings and coffee chats.

Fordham Law School Dean Matthew Diller welcomed the new class in a video, emphasizing the importance and need for lawyers at this time.

“All societies have lawyers and legal systems, but in the United States, we look to the legal system to resolve fundamental problems to a degree that is extraordinary. All of the major issues in our society get played out through the legal system,” Diller said.

“This means that lawyers play a role in our society that is critically important. Lawyers give voice to individuals, to entities, and to groups in ways that enable them to be heard and have an impact—to be players. How we do this is therefore vital. The skills and values we bring to the table are incredibly important.”

Diller also reiterated Fordham Law’s commitment to helping its students succeed in everything they do during their academic journeys and beyond.

“As you transition to law school, I want to convey two basic messages to you. First, we and the entire Fordham Law community are here to help. Second, this is an important moment in which to commence the study of law. The legal profession needs you—our society needs you,” said Diller.

“Our mission is to prepare you to be the kind of lawyer that contributes to the social good—that works effectively to make our society more fair, equal, and just while representing clients ethically and responsibly. We will do everything we can to give you the tools to do so.”

For students opting for in-person orientation at the Lincoln Center campus, they spent August 20 and 21 learning more about legal writing, legal practice, and legal process.

The week concluded with students meeting one another—in a safe, socially distanced manner—for a gathering hosted by the Student Bar Association outside on the plaza.

The fall semester will begin on August 26 with students either taking classes through 100% remote learning or a hybrid instruction model.

The post Fordham Law Reopens, Welcoming First-Year Students to Orientation appeared first on Fordham Law.

As students descended on campus or logged on remotely for the first day of classes on August 26, the Fordham Law community was joined by its incoming class of 416 first-year J.D. students.

Nearly 5,400 applicants from throughout the U.S. and around the globe competed for the 416 slots in the J.D. program. Women make up nearly 55 percent of the new class, and 34 percent of incoming students self-identify as a minority—including 37 Black students, 45 Latinx students, 41 Asian students, and 17 students who identify as multiracial. The class also includes 23 international students from 6 countries. 

“Our students continue to bring fresh perspectives and unique passions to our law school, and we are excited they have joined the Fordham family during these unprecedented times,” said Dean Matthew Diller. “We are confident that they will do amazing things as Fordham Law students and as future lawyers. Our faculty and staff are here for them, every step of the way, to help them succeed.”

R.J. Paige ’24

R.J. Paige

Hometown: West Hartford, Connecticut

Education: B.A. in Public Policy and International Affairs, Princeton University ’17

Paige currently works at the National Football League (NFL) as senior coordinator of labor relations in the NFL management council. A subdivision of the NFL’s legal department, the council deals specifically with collective bargaining and labor agreements, player contracts, and salary caps.

“Very recently, my group worked tirelessly to get a new labor deal done with the players’ union to try to have an NFL football season this season in the midst of the pandemic,” Paige said. “That’s what has been in the background as I’m beginning law school, which has been pretty hectic. But, I’ve enjoyed the balance.”

Paige not only chose Fordham Law because an education here would allow him to continue working at the NFL, but also because the professors teach topics that he’s most interested in, like labor law and antitrust law that are applicable in the sports business and general sports industries.

“I’ve been around lawyers since I was young and, because of that, I felt like what I could learn and do down the road as a practicing lawyer would allow me to impact the lives that I want to serve—within the justice system generally and in the areas of sports and sports business more specifically,” Paige said. “My ultimate goal is to become someone who can play a huge role in labor deals for the NFL going forward, and a huge part of that is understanding the law and how to use the law.”

Arman Borazjani ’23 (photo by Beth Wynn / © Mississippi State University)

Arman Borazjani

Hometown: Starkville, Mississippi

Education: B.S. in Civil Engineering, Mississippi State University ’19

Borazjani first became interested in law three years ago through his older brother’s work on a senior design project in college. When his research group developed a medical device designed to aid in the scanning of the pelvic floor, they underwent the process of securing intellectual property for the device.

“As he explained the process to me, I thought that the lawyer’s job was really cool because I’m really interested in anything technology-related and engineering-related. That’s just who I am,” Borazjani said.

“I imagine having an opportunity to work in that field in a broader, legal way that could help achieve incentivizing innovation. Through my brother’s work, I saw it as an off-the-cuff avenue that could be an exciting way to start a living and one that I would enjoy.”

Devon Smith ’23

Devon Smith

Hometown: Shreveport, Louisiana

Education: M.A. in Linguistics, University of North Texas ’09; B.A. in International Studies, University of North Texas ’05

Smith wants to pursue a career in the legal field because law represents more than a job to her—it’s a vocation. The previous stages of her career all reflected something she loves: logic in software development, research in linguistics, service in teaching, and language in editing. However, Smith didn’t know how to put them all together. When a friend in law school invited her to sit in on a class, she fell in love with the legal field.

“Here was a way to combine all my interests and skills and experience in a career with real impact and meaningful consequences, where I could not only engage in endless learning and development but also serve others,” Smith said. “I registered for the LSAT immediately, and I haven’t looked back.”

Madeline Johl ’23

Madeline Johl

Hometown: Ossining, New York

Education: B.S. in Sociology and Economics, Wesleyan University ’17

Before coming to Fordham Law, Johl previously worked as a paralegal for Seward and Kissel and served as the communications director for Assemblywoman Sandy Galef. She said she often came in contact with a lot of Fordham Law alumni during her career, noting that everyone she spoke to said they really loved the school. This, Johl said, played a major role in her decision to apply and commit to Fordham Law.

Johl believes being a lawyer is one of the more important professions an individual can pursue.

“I think the idea of finding justice and giving people the access to the justice they deserve is so fundamental in our society,” she said. “It’s one of the most important roles that you can do to help people, and I definitely see myself as someone who will devote my career to helping people.”

Fernando L. Ramos ’23

Fernando L. Ramos

Hometown: San Juan, Puerto Rico

Education: B.S. in Public Health & International Development, Tulane University ’15

Ramos recently served as Political Director to Rep. Nydia Velázquez, who represents New York’s 7th congressional district and chairs the House Small Business Committee. Of working with Velázquez, the first Puerto Rican woman elected to Congress, he said it was a “privilege to support and learn under one of the strongest advocates for New York City, Puerto Rico, and the country.”

Ramos was motivated to apply to law school after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in 2017. “As I saw my family and friends on the island suffer through the worst natural disaster to ever hit the island, I realized I needed to be a changemaker,” he said. “I enter the legal field committed to making an impact using the legal tools at my disposal. I hope to be an effective advocate for my community and other vulnerable communities around the world.“ 

The biggest reason why Ramos chose Fordham Law was because of the friendliness and kindness of the student body and faculty.

“I was connected with Fordham’s Community Economic Development Clinic earlier this summer through my local COVID-19 response work in Bushwick, Brooklyn,” he said. “The team’s commitment to advocating for local organizations and their professionalism led me to realize that Fordham Law was the right place for me.”

The post Meet Five Members of Fordham Law’s Newest J.D. Class appeared first on Fordham Law.

Some Fordham Law students faced uncertainty in the spring when the coronavirus forced summer internships to be shortened or canceled altogether. However, many of the Law School’s alumni quickly stepped up to take those students under their wings and provide remote work opportunities throughout the country, from Miami to Los Angeles and beyond.

From the Big Apple to Albany

Recent J.D. graduate Claudia Bennett ’20 landed a summer internship with Kathy Walter ’17, program counsel with the New York State Division of Consumer Protection. Bennett—who was spending her 3L year abroad at LUISS University in Rome as part of a dual-degree LL.M. program hosted through Fordham Law’s Study Abroad Office—was sent home early in the spring semester. Needing to find a position to earn required internship credits, she discovered Walter’s posting in an email sent by the Public Interest Research Center.

Claudia Bennett ’20

“Normally this program only takes place in Albany and so it probably wouldn’t have been easy for me to participate in since I am based in New York City,” Bennett said. “However, since this position was all-remote, I was able to get an experience that I might not have otherwise had in law school.” 

One of Bennett’s large assignments was working on the Consumer Law Help Manual, which is to be published by the Department of State (DOS) in the Spring. Bennett helped take complex rules and statutes and summarize them in a way that is simple and easy for the average consumer to understand.

“This type of internship gives students—especially those that aren’t taking what a lot of people think of as the typical big law path—the opportunity to have a much broader education and access to much broader opportunities,” Walter said. “Plus, it gives the alumni community the opportunity to have Fordham Law students working for us, regardless of where we are located..”

Providence? No Problem

Associate Editor of Fordham Law’s Intellectual Property and Information Journal Justin Javier ’21‘s original summer internship offer fell through the week after finals. But, he rebounded and applied for a summer clerkship position with Hanson Curran, LLP, where Joshua Carlin ’99 is a partner. This was the first time that Hanson Curran offered a summer clerkship opportunity.

“We decided to give it a shot, but we didn’t necessarily know whether anybody would be interested in doing something with us since we’re in Providence,” Carlin said. “In normal times we wouldn’t have ever thought to do something like that. It took this pandemic to force us to think a little differently, and it ended up turning out great.”

Justin Javier ’21

During the 10-week-long program, Javier researched health information privacy laws, drafted and responded to discovery requests, and worked on a complex motion for summary judgment in a consolidated suit concerning multiple breach of contract claims. He said the internship was one of the most valuable experiences he has had during his law school education.

“It was an incredible opportunity to work closely with intelligent, creative individuals, who provided a real sense of what I want to do after I graduate,” said Javier, who will continue his clerkship with Hanson Curran this fall. “I believe that working in a small firm allowed me to work on substantive matters that I may not have experienced elsewhere. Although the events that led me to this internship were unnerving, I am really glad that things happened the way that they did.”

Welcome to Miami

In late May, first-year law student Katrina Codilla ’22 accepted an offer to intern for Judge Lauren Louis ’00, federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Over the course of two months, she drafted memos, briefs, and decisions on motions, such as whether to allow motions in limine by opposing parties.

Katrina Codilla ’22

Codilla says that she gained valuable research and writing skills and learned how to self-delegate and prioritize tasks. She was also able to observe what works and what doesn’t by watching lawyers in hearings that took place over Zoom. “It was definitely very fascinating to hear the lawyers argue,” Codilla noted.

While Judge Louis had regular chamber meetings with Codilla, her three other interns, and her two law clerks over Zoom, she made sure to also hold virtual Friday luncheons.

“For an hour, we might talk about cases and hearings that were conducted and then we talked about Netflix movies and politics—whatever we wanted. I tried as hard as I could, without it being overly forced, to help the interns make a social connection among themselves and the law clerks,” Judge Louis explained. “I think that the ability to develop those friendships and mentorships are a key part of why you intern in the first place.”

“I think working for a federal judge was a great experience and would recommend it for anyone hoping to gain some judicial exposure and hoping to build a solid foundation in legal research and writing,” said Codilla of her internship.

Clerking in California

Gabriele Forbes-Bennett ’21, Associate Editor of the Fordham Media and Intellectual Property Law Journal, applied to three remote internships. She ultimately felt that clerking with Jim Bulger ’03, attorney at Seber Bulger, would provide her with a valuable experience. This summer, Forbes-Bennett drafted complaints, discovery requests, and demand letters on a variety of issues for the plaintiff-side personal injury firm.

This was Seber Bulger’s first time offering a remote clerkship program to Fordham Law students. Bulger said he would certainly do this again if the opportunity presented itself.

“Obviously being in Los Angeles is a challenge during a normal year, but if we could keep this program going—even when everybody’s back—and have an associate who lives in New York or anywhere and is able to work for us, that would be really great,” he said. “I actually hope that it does continue, in some respect, when we all go back to normal.”

Gabriele Forbes-Bennett ’21

Forbes-Bennett said this experience, coupled with the networking she did earlier this year, demonstrates the strength of the Fordham Law alumni network.

“It shows that Fordham Law grads really enjoy giving back and providing opportunities to students, especially during these very strange times,” she continued. “It’s encouraging to see that the Fordham community is so strong.”

Forbes-Bennett will continue her clerkship this semester while balancing her remote classes.

The post Students Spread Their Wings in Virtual Summer Internships Across the U.S. appeared first on Fordham Law.

The Center for Judicial Events & Clerkships, to further the clerkship side of the Center’s mandate, has launched a Peer Clerkship Council (PCC).  The founding members of the PCC are members of the J.D. Class of 2021  who have worked closely with the CJEC to secure their clerkships with state and federal court judges. In the true spirit of Fordham Law, these students will now “pay it forward” by providing guidance and support to their fellow students who seek to pursue clerkships.

The PCC will play a key role in helping the CJEC to foster a broad and inclusive clerkship-oriented culture through:

• Directly engaging with students, including 1Ls, by hosting weekly office hours
• Developing peer-to-peer clerkship programming and resources including workshops on building relationships with faculty and asking for letters of recommendation
• Building bridges among our alumni clerks, current students who’ve secured clerkships, and prospective clerkship applicants. 

Throughout its inaugural year, the CJEC benefited enormously from its cohort of judges and alumni clerks.

“As the CJEC embarks on its second year it is a natural next step to involve current students in our endeavors and to provide student leadership opportunities,” said Assistant Dean Suzanne M. Endrizzi ’96. “The enthusiasm, energy and desire of this inaugural PCC is truly representative of Fordham Law’s motto ‘In the service of others.’  We know that the CJEC and the Law School will be richer for their involvement.”

Echoing that sentiment, Professor Daniel J. Capra, faculty director of the CJEC, said,  “Developing a clerkship-oriented law school culture can only truly be achieved through student involvement.”

Meet the Members of the Peer Clerkship Council

Alexandrea Jacinto ’21

Alexandrea Jacinto ’21

Hometown: Middletown, New Jersey

Education: B.A. in Government and Law, minor in History, Lafayette College

Clerkship: Judge Clarkson Fisher, State of New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, August 2021-2022 term

“I am a member of the Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Board as a Notes and Article Editor. I am also a member of the Brendan Moore Trial Advocacy Team.“

“I chose to clerk after graduation because of the valued experience you can only receive when clerking for a judge. Anyone I’ve ever spoken to only talks about the value and unique experience they gained from their respective clerkships, no matter the state or court for which they clerked.”

“I chose to be a part of the Peer Clerkship Council because I want to be a lifeline for my fellow law students who are interested in Clerkships post-graduation. The idea of applying can be daunting and having someone to reach out to who has just been through the application process is someone I wish I had access to last year.”

Saniya Suri ’21

Saniya Suri ’21

Hometown:  Mclean, Virginia (D.C. suburb)

Education: A.B. in Anthropology and minor in Legal Studies, Washington University in St. Louis ’17

Clerkship: Judge Cathy Seibel, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, February 2022–August 2023 term 

“I came to law school because I am interested in working on issues at the intersection of the health industry and the legal system.  Before coming to Fordham, I worked as a paralegal for a mid-sized firm in Northern Virginia that specialized in medical malpractice and health law.  During my 1L summer, I worked at New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) in their Legal Health Unit. I also was a research assistant for Professor Robin Lenhardt.  In addition,  I was in the International Human Right Clinic with Professor Chi Mgbako and also externed for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York in the Civil Division.   Outside of law school, I love exploring the city with my sister (my new roommate) and dishing up new recipes. I also love music, singing, and dancing, along with reality tv!”

“I am a Stein Scholar, was a bench team member for Moot Court, was the Co-Chair of the South Asian Law Students Association (SALSA), and am the Editor-in-Chief for the Fordham Law Review.”

“I am interested in working in litigation and eventually government service and believe clerking will provide me with a unique set of skills and perspectives to succeed in these positions. I am so interested in understanding how judges approach legal issues and solve difficult problems. This insight will allow me to approach legal issues from a more nuanced and critical lens.” 

“Between not having lawyers in my family and being really passionate about getting a clerkship, I often had many questions throughout the clerkship process and yearned to hear advice from peers/recent alumni. When asked to join the PCC, I saw this as an opportunity to give back and serve in this position for others.”  

Zach Huffman ’21

Zach Huffman ’21 

Hometown: Fairfield, Connecticut

Education: M.A. in International Relations, The University of Chicago ’15; B.A. in Politics, Princeton University ’14

Clerkship: The Honorable Claire C. Cecchi, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, August 2021-2022 term

“I am the Executive Articles Editor of the Fordham Law Review as well as a member of and former interschool competitor for the Fordham Moot Court Board. I am a research assistant to Professor Courtney Cox and previously served as a BSA advisor for House 1.“

“I chose to clerk to have the opportunity to work in an intense research and writing environment, where I’ll grapple with difficult and often novel legal issues every day. I also look forward to the mentorship in chambers from the Judge and her wider network of clerks that is so often an essential part of a clerkship. Finally, with long term aspirations to potentially work in government and practice appellate law, two career paths that often view a clerkship as an employment prerequisite, clerking will open doors to numerous professional opportunities.”

“I am excited and honored to be an inaugural student member of the PCC. The CJEC has been an invaluable resource during my clerkship search, and I firmly believe that all Fordham students should engage with the center, even if they are just remotely considering a clerkship or interested in the judiciary. By joining the PCC, I hope to interact with students to foster general enthusiasm for Fordham’s clerkship program and events, help dispel some of the myths associated with the application process, and serve as a general resource to students curious about pursuing a clerkship.”

Kendra Kumor ’21

Kendra Kumor ’21

Hometown: Toledo, Ohio

Education: B.A. in Communication and Political Science, Boston College ’16 

Clerkship: Judge Paul Kelly, United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, 2021-2022 term

“This year I will be an Articles & Notes Editor for the Fordham Law Review.  I will also be the Environmental Law Editor for Fordham Moot Court, and last year I was a Jessup International Law Moot Court competitor.“

“I first became interested in pursuing a clerkship because I had two fantastic experiences in chambers. Additionally, upon looking at my professors’ resumes and the resumes of other alumni and attorneys that I look up to, a common theme was that each had completed at least one clerkship. This really convinced me a clerkship provides a solid foundation for any career path. Moreover, when asked about their clerkships, professors and alumni emphasized the lifelong mentorship they’ve received from their judges, which is something I am looking for as a young attorney.”

“As an inaugural member of the PCC, I really want to demystify the clerkship application process and make it less intimidating for every interested student. Before the CJEC, the student body didn’t necessarily have one unified place to go for information about clerkships. Now that we have such a great resource, I want to make sure it’s easily accessible to students and becomes part of the student community at Fordham.”

Corey Matthews ’21

Corey Matthews ’21

Hometown: Scarsdale, New York

Education: B.A. in Government with minors in Law & Society and Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences (’16)

Clerkship: Judge Vincent Briccetti, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2023-2024 term

“In addition to the Peer Clerkship Council, I am the Managing Editor of Volume 89 of the Fordham Law Review and a member of the Fordham Law Moot Court Board. As a 2L I competed on the Pepperdine Entertainment Law team for Moot Court and also served as a 1L advisor for the Fordham Law Board of Student Advisors.“

“I had heard throughout my first year at Fordham that clerking was valuable for students interested in litigation, so I was curious about the clerkship experience early on. However, I had the opportunity to really get a view into chambers during my first summer as a judicial intern.” I was blown away by the extent to which the judge relied on his clerks and really involved them in thinking and writing about complex and important legal issues. I found the environment and work in a judge’s chambers to be interesting, exciting, and stimulating. I saw clearly that my own writing and analytical skills grew leaps and bounds in that short period of time. These impressions were confirmed during a judicial externship I completed in my 2L year, in which I had a similarly wonderful experience. My time in chambers also opened my eyes to the ways that clerking could open doors for me later in my career.”

“I have always been so impressed with the way that members of the Fordham community look out for one another. The clerkship application process was no exception—I received so much help, support, and guidance at every step. I feel that I owe a lot to my peers and the professors and faculty that have helped me along the way, so I am excited to be able to pay it forward. I also think the topic of clerkships creates a lot of anxiety and apprehension for students (as it did for me) and I want other students to know that the clerkship application process is not a black box. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions and I hope that hearing about the experiences of a peer helps to dispel them.” 

Caroline Schulte ’21

Caroline Schulte ’21 

Hometown: New York, New York

Education: B.A. in Political Science and Spanish, Bucknell University ’16

Clerkship: Judge Peter A. Bogaard, Superior Court of New Jersey – Morris County – Civil Division, 2021-2022 term

“I am serving as a notes and articles editor of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal and as student coordinator of the Uncontested Divorce Project through Sanctuary for Families.“

“I chose to clerk because I wanted to hone my research and legal writing skills, as well as gain exposure to a myriad of different civil litigation practice areas. One of the best ways to learn about practicing law is by reading others’ writing and watching attorneys. As a clerk, I look forward to reading parties’ moving papers, hearing discovery disputes, and watching oral arguments. I am also interested in fostering a mentorship relationship with my judge, who practiced for decades before sitting on the bench. I am excited to learn all that he has to offer and soak in his knowledge.” 

“I am excited to be part of the PCC this year because I want to demonstrate to students that clerkships are accessible to all members of the law school student body. There are a lot of myths surrounding the clerkship application process and the exercise can feel quite daunting. The CJEC is a wonderful resource and I hope to bridge the gap between students and administrators to help foster excitement about clerkship opportunities and a better understanding of the state clerkships that are available. There are so many pathways students can take after clerking, from private practice to public interest and social justice or government work. I relish the opportunity to be a resource for other students and to act as a sounding board for them. No question is too small or too basic!”

The post Judicial Center Launches Peer Clerkship Council appeared first on Fordham Law.

Joe Beery ’20, Alexis Carra ’20, and Emily Viola ’21, students in Fordham Law’s Democracy and Constitution Clinic wrote an op-ed, published in Medium, arguing that presidential backgrounds are necessary and would provide useful information to voters.

Picture a crisp D.C. morning on January 21, the first day of a new presidential administration. An optimistic, likely somewhat nervous president is surrounded by national security officials in the Oval Office for his first intelligence briefing in office. Some of the nation’s most closely held secrets are discussed. Everyone in the room has undergone a background check to receive the highest-level security clearance, except one: the president.

…

The political parties could make undergoing background checks a requirement for participating in primary debates. To accommodate privacy concerns, the parties might only require disclosure of the results to the parties, not the general public. But there is a risk that political parties may not be interested in subjecting their candidates to potentially damaging background checks.

The Federal Election Commission might request background checks from candidates when they declare their candidacies and impose a $10,000 fine on any candidate unwilling to cooperate. This proposal, originally recommended by Fordham Law’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic, would not prevent non-compliant candidates from continuing to participate in the primary process. Instead, failure to pay would inform the electorate that the candidate is unwilling to undergo a background check at a substantial monetary cost.

The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world; an individual exposed to highly classified information, yet inexplicably excused from a background check. This does a disservice to American voters who should cast their ballots knowing that all members of their government are held to the same high standard of integrity.

Read the full article.

The post Presidential Candidates Should Undergo Background Checks appeared first on Fordham Law.

Nicholas D. Sawicki ’21, Fordham Law student and special assistant to the president and editor in chief of America Media, wrote a book review of Dean Emeritus John D. Feerick’s (’61) memoir That Further Shore.

The history of America Media is so steeped in Irish-American DNA and culture that we have been (fairly) accused over the years of an inordinate bias toward sentimental tales of Irish-Americans and their origins “on the other side.”

With that in mind, I understand if anyone is a bit suspicious toward a review of a book about a Bronx-born Irish-American tracing his family history and telling his own story of rising to great success in the United States. I can assure the reader that John D. Feerick’s That Further Shore is no maudlin or sentimental tale. While Feerick has a talent for the craic, this memoir also engages important chapters in American urban, intellectual and legal history.

Feerick’s life epitomizes the American story. The son of Irish immigrants, he was raised in a two-bedroom apartment in the Bronx shared with his parents and four siblings, attended Catholic schools from St. Angela Merici through Fordham Law and worked his way through each stage. A lawyer at the firm of Skadden, Arps for 20 years, Feerick returned to Fordham Law School in 1982 for a term as dean, a position from which he retired in 2002. Never shy of fighting for a cause, he went on to found the Feerick Center for Social Justice at Fordham Law School.

Read the full review.

The post Review: A Bronx Tale appeared first on Fordham Law.

Third-year Fordham Law Student Charlie Metzger, associate editor of the Fordham Urban Law Journal, co-authored an article for Fortune that examines the Opportunity Zones initiative and its potential to positively impact disenfranchised neighborhoods.

Just a few miles down the road from the apartment complex where Louisville police shot Breonna Taylor, a Black-owned business is transforming the way property owners file insurance claims for weather damage. WeatherCheck, cofounded by Y Combinator graduates Demetrius Gray and Jermaine Watkins, identifies weather-related property damage so that homeowners can file claims with their insurers. To date, the firm has 4 million rooftops in its customer base and it employs 11 people, double last year’s headcount. This success happened because of investments spurred by a federal program called the Opportunity Zone (OZ) initiative.

The OZ initiative made WeatherCheck’s growth possible. However, most minority-owned businesses aren’t as fortunate: A study conducted by PitchBook and All Raise found that just 1.9% of startups in Silicon Valley were founded by all-women teams, and a Harvard Business Review article by entrepreneur James Norman reports that less than 1% of all venture-funded teams are all Black.

…

Impact-focused OZ investment is not restricted to urban communities. Colorado-based Four Points Funding invests largely in projects in the state’s rural corridors, which are often left out of the national conversation about economic development and equity. Among these investments is a warehouse food hall in Craig, Colo. The building will be anchored by a coffee shop called Inclusion Coffee, whose mission includes providing job training and employment for young adults with disabilities. It will also house a coworking space and conference center.

Read the full article.

The post Opportunity Zones Haven’t Fully Reached Their Potential, But Don’t Write Them Off Yet appeared first on Fordham Law.

The Office of Professionalism is expanding upon Fordham Law’s annual Mental Health Day by launching the Law School’s first-ever Wellness Week. Doubling down on the school’s already robust wellness offerings, the week is designed to spark conversations about holistic approaches to well-being and to promote mental health awareness in the Fordham Law community.

“We firmly believe that wellness is a community effort,” said Jordana Confino, director of professionalism and special projects. “With COVID-19 and everything else that’s been going on in the world, it has never been so important for us to find ways to help the members of our community care for themselves and one another and to cultivate their mental health.”

The eight virtual events on tap are wide-ranging, including yoga and mindfulness sessions, nutrition advice, and stress management workshops. A number of programs also take a more serious tone. “Recognizing Stress and Burnout, Rebounding, and Managing the Road to Recovery: A Conversation with Attorneys Who’ve Made it to the Other Side,” for example, will feature a panel of lawyers who will share their personal experiences overcoming mental health challenges. Confino said this program—co-sponsored by the Fordham Black Law Students Association (BLSA), Fordham First Generation Students (F1GS), and the Fordham Mental Health Society—will be one of the most important conversations taking place during the week.

“In addition to fostering hope and awareness more generally, this program will specifically focus on some of the unique challenges and considerations people from underrepresented groups face when dealing with and addressing mental health issues,” Confino explained. “We recognize that wellness is not one size fits all, so our goal is to provide as many perspectives as possible to ensure that all members of our community can find something that resonates with them.”

Indeed, that is the precise aim of the Virtual Wellness Gallery the school will be creating on Saturday, October 10, in honor of World Mental Health Day. All members of the Law School community are invited to contribute to the gallery by submitting a photo that captures what wellness means to them. Additionally, a friendly Inter-house Wellness Challenge will take place throughout the week. Students, upper year advisors, and affiliated faculty, administrators, and alumni mentors will have the opportunity to earn points for their House for participating in the programs. Points will be totalled at the end of the week and all participating student members of the winning House will receive a wellness-themed prize, sponsored by Fried Frank.

More information about the full line-up of events can be found here.

The post Fordham Law Kicks Off First Annual Wellness Week appeared first on Fordham Law.

Will Lanier ’23 (recently profiled as one of our #futurefordhamlawyers) was named Patient Advocate of the Year at the 53rd Annual Great Gutsby Gala, presented by the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s Greater New York Chapter. In 2005, he was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and was later diagnosed with colon cancer in 2014, at the age of 28. After doctors discovered the tumor early on, Lanier underwent three surgeries and has been cancer-free for six years.

The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation annually pays tribute to those battling Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, while raising money to support its mission of finding cures for these diseases.

“I’ve been to their galas in person, which are beautiful and amazing, and last night, while all digital, it was something truly beautiful,” he said. “I never thought I would receive this great honor, let alone be nominated for it. But I’m glad and happy to be that voice for all patients.”

On November 12, Lanier was honored alongside his doctor, Ellen Scherl, who established the IBD Center at NY Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine in 2002. Lanier has been working with the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an ambassador for the last six years. Through a blog, he chronicled his journey with colon cancer, which amplified his voice and allowed him to share his story with others.

“Everything you read online about Crohn’s and Colitis is very gloom and doom, but I put a spin on it—writing about the gloom, doom, and silver linings and sharing my true self and real feelings. I think a lot of patients resonate with that and look to that kind of outlook for hope,” Lanier said.

“Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are very lonely diseases, where you suffer in silence because no one really talks about them. But more than three million Americans are suffering from these diseases and I know what these patients are going through. To be that positive voice for them, I think, is so important.”

The post Will Lanier ’23 Honored by Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation appeared first on Fordham Law.