Touro Law Review BLOG

Summary:

On the last day of the 2024-25, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. CASA, involving the validity of universal injunctions. By a 6-3 vote, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request to limit the availability of such injunctions in a case in which the plaintiffs challenged the legality of President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. CASA may seem like a somewhat technical case about equitable remedies, but in fact CASA tells us a great deal about the current Supreme Court, especially regarding its views on presidential power and separation of powers in a time of political and legal transition. Jessica Silbey, Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, discusses CASA with Associate Dean Rodger Citron on this Touro Law Review podcast.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn More About Jessica Silbey:

Jessica Silbey is the Associate Dean for Intellectual Life, Professor of Law, and Honorable Frank R. Kenison Distinguished Scholar in Law at Boston University School of Law. Professor Silbey teaches and writes in the areas of intellectual property, constitutional law, and law and the humanities. In addition to a law degree, she has a PhD in comparative literature and draws on her studies of literature and film to better account for law’s force, both its effectiveness and failing as socio-political regulation.
Professor Silbey was honored to clerk for Judge Robert E. Keeton on the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and Judge Levin Campbell on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Before becoming a law professor, she practiced law in the disputes department of the Boston office of Foley Hoag LLP focusing on intellectual property, bankruptcy, and reproductive rights.

Summary:

“Orwellian” is a critical term in our current political discourse.  The phrase is often invoked in connection with the novel 1984, written by George Orwell and published in 1949.  On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Associate Dean Rodger Citron and Professor Allison Caffarone discuss what it’s like to read 1984 in 2025.  They discuss the novel’s literary merits as well as its political insights.  Interestingly, neither is particularly enamored of 1984 though they agree that the novel continues to be relevant more than 75 years after it was published and 40 years after 1984.    

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn More About Allison Caffarone:

Allison Caffarone is an Assistant Professor of Law at Touro University’s Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center where she teaches courses in Evidence, Criminal Law, and Transnational Criminal Law. Prior to joining Touro, Professor Caffarone served as a Professor of Skills and as the Executive Director of the Perry Weitz Mass Tort Institute at Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University and also served as the Executive Director of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at NYU School of Law.

Prior to joining academia, Caffarone practiced law for nine years as a litigation associate in Sullivan & Cromwell’s Criminal Defense and Investigations Group, where she specialized in white collar criminal defense. She has represented individuals, corporations, and financial institutions in numerous high-profile matters involving allegations of securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions.

Caffarone is a contributing author to the white-collar crime treatise, Defending Corporations and Individuals in Government Investigations, and a recipient of the Burton Award for Legal Achievement in Legal Writing. She has a J.D. from NYU School of Law and a B.A. from Hofstra University.

Summary:

Every day, it seems, brings a new national news story about higher education.  Beyond the headlines, the crisis in higher education poses economic and other risks to state and local governments that support and are supported by universities, colleges and professional schools.  Touro University’s Patricia Salkin and Albany Law School’s Jenean Taranto explore these risks in a forthcoming article in State and Local News, published by the American Bar Association: Higher Education is in Crisis Putting Local Governments at Risk by Patricia Salkin, Jenean Taranto :: SSRN.

Provost Salkin and Associate Dean Taranto discuss their article in this Touro Law Review podcast.  They describe how institutions of higher education boost the economies of state and local governments by, among other things, contributing to a stable real estate market and supporting “local stores, restaurants, hotels and other attractions in the areas where campuses are located.”  Salkin and Taranto also discuss how recent executive orders, as well as the proposed College Cost Reduction Act, may affect the economies of state and local governments.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn More About Patricia Salkin:

Patricia Salkin is the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost for the Graduate and Professional Divisions at Touro University.  Previously she was, among other things, Dean of Touro Law Center from 2012 through 2016.  Salkin holds and has held many leadership positions, including past co-chair of the NYS Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.  She was a member of the City Bar’s Task Force on New Lawyers in a Changing Profession and is a past chair of the American Association of Law School’s State & Local Government Law Section and also of ABA State and Local Government Section.  Salkin also is the author of hundreds of books, articles and columns.  Salkin recently received the 2025 William A. Kaplin Award recognizing her scholarship in the field of higher education and the law.

Learn More About Jenean Taranto:

Jenean Taranto is the Associate Dean of Student Affairs at Albany Law School, a position she has held since August 2022.  Taranto also is a Professor at Albany Law School, having served on the faculty since July 2000 and taught Property, Introduction to Lawyering, Negotiation, and Legal Profession.  Before becoming a law professor, Taranto was a lawyer in private practice for more than ten years and practiced in the areas of property law and insurance defense.

Summary:

On this episode, Professors Laura Dooley and John Quinn discuss Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, a recent Supreme Court case involving federal subject matter jurisdiction.  Royal Canin is a straightforward case: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to eliminate all federal law claims and include only state law claims after the case is removed to federal court, the plaintiff’s case can no longer be heard in federal court.  There is no original subject matter jurisdiction because there are no federal law claims and there is no supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.  Accordingly, the case must be remanded to state court.

As Professors Dooley and Quinn explain, Royal Canin is a helpful case for understanding all aspects of federal subject matter jurisdiction: original jurisdiction, removal, and supplemental jurisdiction.  Along with moderator Rodger Citron, who also teaches Civil Procedure, they discuss how they plan to use the case with their students. 

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn more about Laura Dooley:

Laura Dooley is a Professor of Law at Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, where she teaches Civil Procedure and Torts.   Professor Dooley has been teaching about the civil justice system for almost 30 years and published widely in top-tier academic journals, including the flagship journals at NYU, Vanderbilt, Cornell, and Illinois among many others.  Her work has been cited by both federal courts and the popular press, including the Wall Street Journal and most recently Vice News. 

Learn more about John Quinn:  

John R. Quinn is an Assistant Professor of Legal Process at Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, where he teaches a number of courses, including Civil Procedure.  An honors graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Professor Quinn also holds a PhD in English from Stony Brook University.  In his legal career, Professor Quinn served as long-term career law clerk to the Hon. Raymond J. Dearie of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York.  That appointment followed more than a decade in the active practice of criminal and civil law that spanned “big law,” a boutique firm, and a thriving solo practice. Currently, Professor Quinn holds an appointment to the CJA Panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where he serves as court-appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants.

Summary:

On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Professor Tiffany Li describes her journey from law student at Georgetown Law School to faculty member at the University of San Francisco Law School.  As Professor Li explains, she followed her passion for technology into the academy now writes about and teaches courses on intellectual property, privacy issues, and artificial intelligence.    

In her conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Professor Li talks about the importance of professional networking, the ever-present need to write, and ways to distinguish yourself as a candidate even if you did not attend an elite law school.  She reminds listeners that they should highlight their accomplishments during the screening interview and use the callback interview to evaluate whether the school feels like a good fit.  Professor Li has compiled a resources for anyone interested in becoming a law professor here:  So You Want to Be a Law Professor: An Unofficial and Incomplete Guide to Pursuing a Law Teaching Career by Tiffany C. Li :: SSRN]. 

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn more about Professor Tiffany Li:

Tiffany Li is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco School of Law, where she teaches intellectual property and technology law courses. She is also a Fellow at the Yale Law School Information Society Project.

Professor Li is an expert on privacy, artificial intelligence, and technology platform governance. She regularly appears as a legal commentator in national and global news outlets, and she has written for popular publications including the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and Slate, as well as a recurring column on technology and privacy for MSNBC. Her academic scholarship has appeared in the SMU Law Review, American University Law Review, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, and more. Li previously taught for the University of New Hampshire School of Law and Boston University School of Law. She has held past affiliations with Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy and U.C. Berkeley’s Center for Technology, Society and Policy. She serves as the Academic Director of the IPT LLM Program.

Prior to academia, Professor Li gained experience in law and policy at leading technology organizations including the Wikimedia Foundation, General Assembly, Inc., and Ask.com. Li is a licensed attorney and has CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPT, CIPM, and FIP certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. She has a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, where she was a Global Law Scholar, and a B.A. in English from University of California, Los Angeles, where she was a Norma J. Ehrlich Scholar. She is currently completing an MSt (Master’s) in AI Ethics and Society from the University of Cambridge.

Summary:

Professor Jorge Roig teaches Constitutional Law at Touro Law Center.  On this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Professor Roig discusses three recent Supreme Court decisions involving the application of the First Amendment in the context of social media.

Initially Roig discusses TikTok Inc. v. Garland decision, in which the Court upheld a law making “it unlawful for companies in the United States to provide services to distribute, maintain, or update the social media platform TikTok, unless U. S. operation of the platform is severed from Chinese control.”  As Roig explains, the Court rejected the petitioners’ First Amendment claim and held that the law was “facially content neutral” and “justified by a content-neutral rationale.”    

Roig then discusses Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and Murthy v. Missouri, in which the Court’s analysis of First Amendment issues is intertwined with procedural issues that led to remands back to the lower courts for further consideration of the social media platforms’ claims.  In his conversation with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Roig critiques as well as describes existing law and its application in each case.  

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Learn more about Professor Jorge Roig:

Jorge R. Roig is Associate Professor of Law and Director of Neighborhood Programs at the Touro Law Center. Professor Roig’s primary areas of teaching and research are: Constitutional Law; Internet and Technology Law; Intellectual Property (including Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, Trade Secrets, and other related state law matters); and Copyright Law.

Before becoming a professor, Roig served as Judicial Clerk to then Associate Justice, later Chief Justice, Federico Hernández Denton, at the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. He also served as Judicial Clerk to United States District Judge Salvador E. Casellas at the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Professor Roig then labored in private practice at Fiddler, González & Rodríguez, P.S.C., where he worked, among other things, in complex civil litigation and intellectual property matters for corporate clients. He also served as Assistant Secretary of Justice, in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Legislative Liaison’s Office, and the Contracts and Law No. 9 Division, of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice. As such, Professor Roig advised the Governor, the Secretary of Justice and the different governmental entities of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico regarding legal, communications and public policy issues of high import, including constitutional law matters such as First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process and privacy issues, executive appointments, separation of powers, and national security.

Roig did his undergraduate studies at Harvard University, where he concentrated in Economics, with a focus on Microeconomics, Finance, Game Theory, Derivative Pricing and Econometrics.  He then obtained his Juris Doctor from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, where he also received a “Boalt Hall Law & Technology Certificate” for his coursework in Copyrights and Trademarks, Cyberlaw, Entertainment Law, Sports Law and Art Law, and his thesis: “Speaking in Code: The Question of First Amendment Coverage of Computer Source Code.” 

By Steven B. Duke

1. INTRODUCTION

I became a lawyer – a profession that none of my ancestors, parents, siblings, or even distant relatives had any connection with, a profession that I entered only because of an encounter I had with a magistrate when I was a senior in college.

            Because I did well in law school, I had the opportunity to clerk for Justice William O. Douglas.  As I discuss in this article, working for Justice Douglas was a rewarding and demanding experience.  Douglas probably was the most liberal Justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court.  He had a dazzling intellect and wrote many books on all manner of subjects.  As the Justice’s only law clerk, I worked long hours, assisting him on cases and with speeches, articles, and books.  He was brusque in our interactions at work.  Working for him was thankless and stressful. 

            Nevertheless, I regard my year (1959-1960) as Justice Douglas’s law clerk as the most rewarding professional experience of my life.  I learned a great deal about federal law and the Supreme Court and became more skilled and self-confident as an attorney as a result of the experience.  After the clerkship and a year of graduate studies, I became a professor at Yale Law School.  After I received tenure, I began to represent criminal defendants, mostly on a pro bono basis, which I continued to do for seven decades.  I am sure that Justice Douglas influenced my decision to become a criminal defense attorney while I also was teaching students, writing articles and books, and performing other responsibilities as a professor. 

            I have written this article to trace my journey from Arizona, where I grew up and was educated, to Washington, D.C., and then New Haven, Connecticut.  My experiences growing up instilled liberal values in me; this helped me understand and apply Justice Douglas’s views when working for him.  In certain ways, my father’s way of interacting with me and my brothers resembled the way in which Justice Douglas dealt with me at work.  As a result, it did not disturb me when he was curt or gruff with me in chambers. 

            I was born during the Great Depression and experienced World War II through the prisoners of war quartered in the Arizona village where I grew up.  My success in law school provided me the opportunity to clerk for Justice Douglas during the era of the Warren Court.  At the risk of sounding cliched, that world has vanished.  Change is inevitable, and we can debate whether the changes in law, society, and the Supreme Court since the last century have been for the better.  I have written this article to illuminate some of these changes, to provide insight into Justice Douglas, and to describe how clerking for him influenced my decision to practice criminal law while leading the privileged life of an academic.

*Steven B. Duke is a Professor Emeritus of Law at Yale Law School.  He thanks Rodger Citron, John Q. Barrett, and the editors of the Touro Law Review for their comments on earlier versions of this article.  Copyright Steven Duke (2024).

Read or download the full text of the article below.

About Steven B. Duke:

Professor Steven B. Duke teaches and writes on criminal law, criminal procedure, evidence, and drug policy. From 1981 until 2003, he was the Law of Science and Technology Professor. He received his B.S. degree from Arizona State University and his J.D. from the University of Arizona, where he was editor-in-chief of the first Arizona Law Review. He served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas after which he received an LL.M. degree from Yale Law School. Professor Duke has visited at the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall), the University of California at San Francisco (Hastings College of Law), and Arizona State University. He has submitted many briefs on criminal matters to the United States Supreme Court and has orally argued three cases in that Court. He has also briefed and argued numerous other cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States.