Legal Community Strikes Back on #F17

Today CUNY Law Review will join New York City’s legal community at Legal Community Strikes Back at 60 Centre Street.

We hope to see you all there.

#LawStrikesBack #GeneralStrike

 

Image from the National Lawyers Guild Facebook Event Page.

A HYBRID MODEL FOR FAMILY DEFENSE: COMBINING A PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM, A LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM AND A POWERFUL PRO BONO NETWORK TO FORGE CUTTING-EDGE LEGAL ADVOCACY FOR FAMILIES IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

Diane L. Redleaf *

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

A. Introduction to the Family Defense Center’s Model for Family Defense

This article discusses the key ingredients to the success of an unusual family defense organization, the Chicago-based Family Defense Center (the “Center”), which I founded in 2005 after a long career at both a legal services office and a public interest law firm. The Center uses a hybrid public interest law firm/legal services/pro bono network model, along with a sliding scale fee-for-service program, to fulfill its mission of advocating for justice for families in the child welfare system. The Center is devoted to addressing the needs of families, especially families who are targets of child protection investigations. By design, the Center works in a unique and highly specialized niche. But because child protection investigations arise from a wide range of allegations against family members, from domestic violence, to medically complex cases involving fractures and head injuries, to claims of sexual abuse, the practical and substantive expertise of the Center is very broad.

Continue reading

Transformative Immigration Defense: Law in Support of an Intersectional Movement

This spring, the CUNY Law Review will host a Symposium exploring the role of legal practitioners at the intersection of aggressive federal immigration enforcement and emerging people’s movements for racial, economic, and social justice. Responding to a dramatic expansion of the deportation and criminal enforcement infrastructure in the United States in recent decades, multiracial movements from #BlackLivesMatter to #Not1More continue to organize, march, and build toward a more just future.

Organizing and legal action have reached a fever pitch following executive actions by the Trump administration. As thousands of Americans take to the streets to combat these racist and xenophobic policies, this Symposium asks how members of the legal community can be part of an alternative vision for the future in which we can all be free.

By bringing together legal practitioners and organizers working on the front lines of multiple justice movements, this Symposium will explore what works (and what does not work) in past and current legal interventions. We will also ask how legal practitioners can best work in collaboration with intersectional movements for racial, gender, economic, and social justice towards a transformative and expansive vision for immigrant defense.

The Symposium is free and open to the public. Lunch and a concluding reception will be provided. Please RSVP here.

CLE credit available.

 

 

SPRING 2017 EVENTS

 

Join CUNY Law Review for some exciting spring events!

Welcome Back Happy Hour

We invite the whole CUNY School of Law community to join us for a welcome back happy hour!

Tuesday, January 17, 2017 | 6:00pm
Bierocracy
12-23 Jackson Ave.
Long Island City, NY

Bluebook Training

Join us for our semiannual Bluebook Training! We’ll review common errors, oft-forgotten rules, and correct some sample law review citations together. Please bring your Bluebooks, any office supplies you use to mark important pages, and your computers!

Thursday, January 18  | 1:45-2:45pm
Room 1/202

CUNITY Conversation

Join us for a discussion with Cassie Veach, CUNY School of Law 2017, and Shailly Agnihotri, Founder and Executive Director of The Restorative Center (TRC), about their article Reclaiming Restorative Justice: An Alternative Paradigm for Justice that will be published in CUNY Law Review’s 20th volume, issue 2.

Wednesday, February 8  | 6:00 – 7:30pm
Room 1/202
Dinner & refreshments provided.

Editor to Editor

Join us for a discussion with Jorge F. Gómez, our current Editor-in-Chief, and Paul Keefe, former CUNY Law Review Editor-in-Chief Class of 2007 and Supervising Attorney at NYC Human Rights Commission.

POSTPONED DUE TO SNOW DAY. MORE INFORMATION TO FOLLOW.

Thursday, February 9  | 7:00 – 8:30pm
Room TBD
Refreshments provided.

Symposium

CUNY Law Review will host a symposium exploring the role of legal practitioners at the intersection of aggressive federal immigration enforcement and emerging people’s movements for racial, economic, and social justice.

More information to follow.

Friday, March 31 | Half Day
CUNY School of Law
CLE Credit Available

 

Medical Marijuana Post-McIntosh

Robert L. Greenberg*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

On August 16, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a landmark decision on a series of cases relating to businesses and individuals in the state-legal cannabis business. In United States v. McIntosh,[1] the Court heard ten cases challenging the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecution of medical marijuana patients. These cases involved criminal defendants who were charged with violations of federal narcotics laws while ostensibly in compliance with the laws of their respective states.[2] The court determined that federal law prohibits the prosecution of these cases when the defendants are otherwise in compliance with state law. The impact of this decision is discussed infra.

Continue reading

Call for Papers for Publication

cfp-for-word-press-copy

Download the Call for Papers here.

Spring 2017 Staff Applications

On Friday, November 18 at 9:00 AM we will release the Spring 2017 Staff Member application on our TWEN page. Only 2Ls & 3L visiting/transfer students are eligible to apply at this time – but day and evening students are both encouraged to consider the opportunity. Students already on the Law Review staff need not re-apply. The completed application is due by 5:00 PM on Sunday, November 27, 2016 through the TWEN Assignment dropbox. We are looking forward to your submissions!

In order to retrieve and submit the Staff Member application, you will need to add CUNY Law Review as a course on your TWEN page. We strongly suggest you register for our TWEN page now and download the materials as soon as they become available so we can troubleshoot issues in advance. You may then submit your application at any time before the deadline. Applications will not be reviewed if submitted after 5:00 PM on 11/27/16.

Detailed instructions for completing and submitting the application are included in the application itself, but you may know in advance that you will need to submit (1) a writing sample, (2) a personal statement, and (3) a diagnostic Bluebook test.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail us at CUNYLR@mail.law.cuny.edu. Members of the Law Review will also be available from 12:00-4:00 PM in the Beacon on Monday, November 21 and again by appointment to answer any process questions you may have regarding the application or any substantive questions you may have about publishing a note or comment in the Law Review.

 

WHAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS DON’T (HAVE TO) TELL THEIR CLIENTS

Steven Zeidman*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

Introduction

New York State courts, like many other state and federal courts, have seen an increase in cases that pit lawyer versus client; where the lawyer wanted to proceed in one way and the client wanted to go in another direction. The resulting decisions, often inconsistent and irreconcilable, reflect the difficulties in navigating the lawyer-client relationship.

Recently, the New York Court of Appeals again waded directly into the muddy waters of attorney versus client decision-making.[1] On the face of it, the Court was deciding whether counsel needed his client’s consent before telling the prosecutor that his client would not exercise his statutory right to testify in the Grand Jury.[2] However, lurking beneath the surface are the larger and related questions of who, between lawyer and client, has ultimate decision-making power, and what information lawyers must provide clients about their rights.

Continue reading

Morales-Santana Before the U.S. Supreme Court: Gender Discrimination in Derivative Citizenship with Consequences for Gender Equity, Parental Responsibility and Children’s Well Being

Professor Janet Calvo*

Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article.

On November 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Lynch v. Morales-Santana.[1] The case directly addresses the constitutionality of gender differences in the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by statute through parentage.[2] But the case is infused with issues about the historical record of discrimination based in gender, non-marital birth, race and imperialism in U.S. law. The outcome of the case will be legally and socially significant because of the standards the Court may apply to gender discrimination and to a remedy for discrimination in the context of citizenship and because of the societal message sent regarding parental responsibility for non-marital children grounded in gender stereotypes.

Specifically, the case involves the statutory difference in acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth outside of the U.S. through an out of wedlock citizen father as versus an out of wedlock citizen mother.[3] Persons become U.S. citizens at birth through parental heritage based on the statute in effect on the date of the person’s birth.[4] At issue in Morales-Santana is the longer time of physical presence in the U.S. required for a non-marital father before his child is born as versus a non-marital mother, as a condition for the child’s acquisition of citizenship at birth.[5]

Continue reading

Vol. 19.2

Explore the complete digital version of Volume 19.2.

Public Interest Practitioner Section (PIPS)

Demanding a Race to the Top: The 2015 Strike Against MFY Legal Services in Context by Jota Borgmann and Brian Sullivan, members of the National Organization of Legal Services Workers, UAW Local 2320

Can Reproductive Trans Bodies Exist? by Chase Strangio, Staff Attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & AIDS Project

Articles

From Michigan’s Strawberry Fields to South Texas’s Rio Grande Valley: The Saga of a Legal Career and the Texas Civil Rights Project by James C. Harrington, Founder and Director Emeritus of Texas Civil Rights Project

Puerto Rico’s Odious Debt: The Economic Crisis of Colonialism by Natasha Lycia Ora BannanAssociate Counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF

Notes

A Veil of Anonymity: Preserving Anonymous Sperm Donation While Affording Children Access to Donor-Identifying Information by Aliya Shain, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Fast Food Sweatshops: Franchisors as Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Thomas J. Power, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law