PODCAST: A Discussion with Associate Professor and Associate Dean Tiffany C. Graham regarding her role on the New York State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

This Podcast featured Associate Professor and Associate Dean Tiffany C. Graham regarding her role on the New York State Advisory Committee (“Committee”) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (“Commission”). Professor Zablotsky moderated this podcast, where he asked Professor Graham questions about her role and work on the Committee, which led to a discussion of the racial disparities that Black families face in the child welfare system. Professor Graham started her discussion of her journey to academia, which occurred when she realized quickly private practice was not her passion but rather, she wished to join a student environment. Professor Graham taught in California, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and now is teaching in New York. When in South Dakota, she was a faculty member and the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the University of South Dakota School of Law.  Throughout her time in that state, she had the ability to work on various civil rights issues, in particular those related to matters impacting the LGBTQIA+ community.  While there, she also served as the chair of the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, where she was leading a project focused on maternal mortality rates for Native American women before resigning to take her current  position at Touro Law Center, which was followed by a recommendation to take a spot on the New York advisory committee. 

When she first joined the New York Committee, it decided to study racial disparities in eviction. Most recently, the Committee has been focusing on racial disparities in the foster care system.  Professor Graham noted the importance of looking at the problems in the child welfare system that exist in New York City – where they are acute – as well as throughout the state to fully understand the situation. She was clear and concise about one of the biggest obstacles that Black families face — they are often subjected to over-surveillance under harsh circumstances that derive from implicit and explicit biases. She then laid out the empirical information that the Committee learned from the witnesses who testified before them. Finally, Professor Graham spoke about the major pushback on the discrimination issues and that these problems were not created overnight. Rather, they were created throughout the centuries. She urged that, even though we have made great strides in eliminating discriminatory practices, society must continue to work on eliminating the structural inequalities that impact our institutions to ensure that they do not reproduce the harms of inequality that have existed in our communities. Professor Graham ended the podcast by asking listeners to pay attention and try to become aware of what is happening under the surface that we may not necessarily see but nonetheless exist. 

Professor Graham expects the Committee’s Report to be released at some point next year.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.   

Our guest today is Associate Professor and Associate Dean Tiffany C. Graham.

Continue reading

PODCAST: The Petitioner’s Path to Victory in the Supreme Court in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.   

As the Supreme Court’s 2022-23 term neared its conclusion, the Court issued an important personal jurisdiction decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  By a five to four vote, the Court rejected a Due Process Clause challenge to Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute.  In Mallory, this meant upholding a Pennsylvania court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Virginia corporation that did business in Pennsylvania when the corporation was sued by a Virginia citizen for injuries that, he alleged, were caused by the corporation’s conduct outside of Pennsylvania.    

Ashley Keller represented Robert Mallory, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, in the Supreme Court.  In this podcast, Keller discusses with Associate Dean Rodger Citron how he came to take the case, his strategy for getting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and presenting original public meaning (or originalist) arguments in defense of the Pennsylvania statute, and why he was surprised that Justice Gorsuch ended up drafting the Court’s plurality opinion.  As Keller explains, Mallory is an important case for a number of reasons, including the fact that it shows that plaintiffs may array original public meaning arguments to support their view of the law.      

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review.   

Our guest today is Ashley Keller, Esq.

Continue reading

PODCAST: What’s Next from the Supreme Court with Professor Thane Rosenbaum

On this week’s episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, Professor Thane Rosenbaum talks with Associate Dean Rodger D. Citron about several recent Supreme Court decisions.   

The conversation begins with Professor Rosenbaum’s views on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  In Dobbs, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade and held that the regulation of abortion is a matter for states to address.  Among other things, as Rosenbaum notes, Dobbs illustrates the challenge for Chief Justice John Roberts of maintaining the Court’s institutional legitimacy.  The conversation then turns to New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, in which the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners challenging a New York law requiring an individual to show “a special need for self-protection” in order to obtain a license to carry a handgun for that purpose.  Bruen, as Rosenbaum explains, illustrates the current Court’s commitment to originalism.  The conversation concludes with a discussion of the “Independent State Legislature” case, Moore v. Harper, that will be argued before the Supreme Court in the 2022-23 term.   

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Our guest today is Professor Thane Rosenbaum.

Continue reading

PODCAST: Justice Frank Murphy: The Man Unafraid to Tell the Truth With Greg Zipes

When we think of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s appointments to the Supreme Court, the legends – Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, and Robert H. Jackson – come to mind.  Yet FDR appointed other justices, including Frank Murphy, who is remembered today for dissenting in the infamous Korematsu case but not much else. 

Greg Zipes, an attorney and an adjunct professor at New York University’s School of Professional Studies, believes that Murphy demands more of our attention today.  He is the author of an engaging biography of Justice Murphy. In this podcast, Zipes discusses his book, Justice and Faith: The Frank Murphy Story, with Associate Dean Rodger Citron. Greg Zipes is speaking on his own behalf and not on behalf of his employer, the Department of Justice.

As their discussion shows, Murphy is as fascinating as any of the legendary justices with whom he served.  He held many interesting positions before joining the Court, was a loyal New Dealer, and, as Zipes states, was “unafraid to speak truth to power.”  Zipes elaborates on these points and addresses others relating to law, history, and biography in this podcast.  

Our guest today is author, Greg Zipes.

Continue reading

PODCAST: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates

In this podcast recorded in December 2021, Professor Marianne Artusio discusses the legality of vaccine mandates in the United States. As she explains, historically courts generally applied a deferential rational basis test when evaluating legal challenges to such mandates. Professor Artusio also discusses recent vaccine mandates adopted in response to the pandemic as well as how courts have responded to lawsuits challenging those mandates.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Our guest today is Professor Marianne Artusio.

Continue reading

PODCAST: A Conversation About Gun Regulation with Edward J. Curtis, Jr.

Listen to our latest podcast where Mr. Curtis discusses his recent publication Of Arms and the Militia: Gun Regulation by Defining “Ordinary Military Equipment.” Mr. Curtis debates that the regulation of semi-automatic riles and other arms can be achieved by defining “ordinary military equiptment” provided to militia members under the Second Amendment. The full text of the article can be found here.

Brought to you by the Touro Law Review

Our guest today is Edward J. Curtis, Jr.

Continue reading