On March 31, 2021, New York became the 19th state/territory to legalize recreational marihuana/cannabis (Chapter 92 of the NY Laws of 2021).
Now that recreational marihuana is legalized, there will be an impact on the land used to grow both cannabis and hemp. There will also be issues at the local level as different communities react to the change in the law. Join Professors Patricia Salkin and Peter Zablotsky as they discuss “The NYS Marihuana Regulation & Taxation Act of 2021” (MRTA) and its impact on local land use and community development.
Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.
Our guest this episode is Provost Patricia E. Salkin.
Our guest today is Richard C. Cahn, Esq., a frequent contributor to the Touro Law Review. In this interview, Mr. Cahn gives a preview of his upcoming article Restoring Trust in the Judiciary: A Critical, High-Priority Project for the Biden Administration, which will appear in the next issue of the Law Review this month. Listen as Mr. Cahn discusses his opinion regarding the loss of judiciary prestige.
Our guest today is Lawrence A. Steckman, Esq.. In this podcast, Mr. Steckman offers advice to young attorneys and scholars on how to publish, as well as interview techniques. Topics also include an introduction to various practice areas, including securities and derivatives private and class suits, Rule 10b-5 litigation, federal and state complex commercial litigation, prosecuting and defending civil RICO private and class suits, and corporate litigation. Tune in for a fascinating discussion with a unique and interesting attorney. Mr. Steckman graduated from Touro Law Center in 1988 and has been a prolific contributor to the Touro Law Review.
Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.
Our guest this episode is Lawrence A. Steckman, Esq.
Adjunct professor and practicing attorney Robin Burner Daleo meets with Professor Rena Seplowitz to discuss working in the field of will, trust, and estate planning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Daleo started her own firm during the pandemic and has faced first-hand many issues associated with the pandemic. Professor Seplowitz teaches and publishes in the field. Join us for a discussion about the problems associated with COVID and estates practice, such as clients who live in congregate care facilities, not being able to have witnesses available during a will execution, and issues of undue influence, fraud, and duress.
Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.
Our guests this episode are Professors Rena Seplowitz and Robin Burner Daleo.
Ms. Dyer is currently a full-time third year student in the accelerated 2-year program at Touro Law Center. She has over 15 years of professional experience in writing and sales, and hopes to become a litigator after graduation
I. Introduction
Thousands of foster children now find themselves in the crosshairs of one of the more contentious constitutional debates in recent history; a battle between two competing legal rights that exist under the American legal system: religious freedom and LGBTQ+ equality.[1] The right wing contends that when it comes to religiously-affiliated foster and adoption agencies, the right to free exercise includes the freedom to abstain from conduct that directly conflicts with an agency’s sincerely held religious beliefs, which in this case, is the placement of foster children with same-sex couples.[2] The left wing argues that, as evidenced by state licensing practices and funding allocations, these religious agencies are acting as government contractors, and are effectively forcing the state and its taxpayers to sponsor discrimination by turning away same-sex couples.[3] In the midst of an already stormy political climate and a newly six to three conservative majority Supreme Court, this battle will finally come to a head on the steps on the Supreme Court, in the notorious Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case.[4]
This article considers the clash that arises at the intersection of religious conservatives who seek broad legal exemptions, and the laws seeking to ban conduct such as anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination without exception. It will delve into the history and legislation behind the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, as well as anti-discrimination laws and the emergence of the LGBTQ+ community as a protected class. It will also consider the implications that a broadening of religious free exercise could have on protected classes. In light of these implications, the article will ultimately argue that the Supreme Court should affirm the Third Circuit’s rejection of a foster agency’s right to discriminate in the name of religious liberty.
*Saba Khan is an Honors Scholar and graduated magna cum laude from Touro Law Center in 2017. She previously served as the Articles Editor of the Touro Law Review. Ms. Khan is currently a Director and Regulatory Compliance Counsel at UBS. Prior to UBS, she worked at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
As with the turning of each new Administration, regulatory priorities shift, and that is no different for banking regulations, particularly in the area of securities laws. That being said, we can soon expect the pendulum to swing towards tighter securities regulations, greater oversight, and a higher number of enforcement cases.
When Biden assumed office in January 2021, he nominated Gary Gensler to replace Jay Clayton as Head of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) (1). Gensler’s own professional background provides some insight into what lies ahead in the near future. He is a former partner at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and past Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (2). During his time at the CFTC, he implemented new rules and made clear of his goal to “protect the public and market participants through a robust enforcement program.” (3)
As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyberlaw cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence of officer inadvertence, despite its lack of necessity, are properly doing so as a means of analysis for cyber cases to more suitably adjust to the searches of computers and related technology. The Tenth Circuit has knowingly disregarded Supreme Court precedent, and this continues its disagreement with the Fourth Circuit and perpetuates a circuit split that should be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.
Our guest this episode is Professor Michelle Zakarin.
You must be logged in to post a comment.