Contributions – Page 13 – N.Y.U. Proceedings

by Kristin Mulvey*

When an automobile is parked in a driveway in the curtilage of the home, does the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment still apply? In this Contribution, Kristin Mulvey (’19) argues that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment should not apply when the vehicle is in the curtilage of the home. Further, this Contribution demonstrates that the underlying justifications for the automobile exception do not support a warrantless search of an automobile parked in a driveway.

Arrests and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Towards a Unitary Reasonableness Standard

By Ryan Knox

On April 30, 2018

In Contributions

by Conor Gaffney*

How should police officers take into account the different needs of a person with disabilities during an arrest? In this Contribution, Conor Gaffney (’18) examines the role of the Americans with Disabilities Act in governing arrests and investigations by police of persons with disabilities. Ultimately, this Contribution argues that the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement modifies what searches and seizures of individuals with disabilities are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Permitting Around the Constitution: Gun License Process After Heller

By Michael Klurfeld

On April 23, 2018

In Contributions

by Deepa Devanathan*

To what extent can state actors limit an individual’s Second Amendment right after District of Columbia v. Heller? In this Contribution, Deepa Devanathan (’19) argues that to properly balance Second Amendment rights with a State’s need to protect people from gun violence, gun permit schemes that cover both open carry and concealed carry must include a procedural right to appeal permit denials and “good cause” requirements to get permits.

Disclosure Duties as Public Policy?: Setting Aside Arbitration Decisions Under New York State Law

By Ryan Knox

On April 16, 2018

In Contributions

by John Muller*

In 2008, federal trial and appellate courts found against the NFL Players Association on the appeal of an arbitrator’s decision on the grounds that the league and policy administrators had breached their fiduciary duties to players. The trial court held that the steroid policy’s strict liability regime precluded any breach of fiduciary duties, and the Eighth Circuit found on appeal that plaintiffs had failed to offer authority under New York law for a public policy encouraging the performance of fiduciary duties. Did the NFL case get it right? In this Contribution, John Muller (’19) argues that to preserve New York’s public policy, courts should set aside the result of arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement on state common law grounds in these breach of fiduciary duty cases.

Always a Monopoly, Never a Monopolist: Why Antitrust is the Wrong Regulatory Scheme for Protecting Competition in Technical Standards

By Ryan Knox

On April 9, 2018

In Contributions

by Randi Brown*

When patent holders gain standard-essential status, should antitrust law treat the monopoly conferred on them like every other monopoly? In this Contribution, Randi Brown (’19) argues that the best approach to such monopolies is not to expose them to antitrust scrutiny, but instead to allow contract and patent remedies to maintain the benefits to competition and innovation afforded by standardization.

Is This What We Bargained For?: Allowing the Preemption of State Law through Collective Bargaining Agreements

By Michael Klurfeld

On March 29, 2018

In Contributions

by Micaela Heery*

Can a term in a collective bargaining agreement displace state law under any circumstance? How should a court balance the need for consistent, nationwide labor standards with constitutional concerns for preserving States’ police powers? In this Contribution, Micaela Heery (’19) offers an analytical framework for resolving these preemption issues under the Labor Management Relations Act. This Contribution argues that the right legal analysis must consider both whether a claim arises independently of the collective bargaining agreement and whether preemption would be appropriate given Congress’ power over interstate commerce and notions of state sovereignty.

Everywhere at Once: The Tinker Framework and Off-Campus, Online Speech

By Andrew Debbins

On February 23, 2018

In Contributions

by Avery Medjuck*

May a school restrict a student’s online speech without violating the First Amendment? In this Contribution, Avery Medjuck (’18) explains how the omnipresence of digital communication challenges the Tinker framework for determining when a school administrator can lawfully restrict speech. This Contribution argues that only a test that considers the intent of the student speaker can adequately balance students’ free speech rights against administrators’ need to protect the school environment.

Sustaining Academic Freedom: The Need to Redefine the Threshold Question in First Amendment Claims Brought by Public University Professors

By Ryan Knox

On February 1, 2018

In Contributions

by Emily Several*

Can a public university terminate a professor for speech made related to the university? In this Contribution, Emily Several (’18) analyzes the scope of public employees’ First Amendment rights with regard to speech made in their personal and professional capacities. This Contribution ultimately argues that the Supreme Court should establish an exception to the threshold requirement set in Garcetti v. Ceballos in order to preserve academic freedom on public university campuses.

Caveat Utilitor: A Tort Regime for Outer Space

By Andrew Debbins

On January 26, 2018

In Contributions

by Jason A. Driscoll*

Is damage to a lunar mining facility actionable under the Outer Space Treaty when the facility is built on the surface of the Moon and made entirely from lunar rock? In this Contribution, Jason A. Driscoll (’18) analyzes a wrinkle in the law of outer space, contemplating whether the current outer space tort regime protects damage to property crafted entirely from materials mined in outer space. The Contribution argues that the current regime does not protect and cannot account for the unprecedented, though possible, practice of manufacturing objects in outer space using extraterrestrial materials.

Rethinking Qualified Immunity: Making America Accountable Again

By Michael Klurfeld

On January 18, 2018

In Contributions

by Victoria del Rio-Guarner*

Should the qualified immunity doctrine be revisited to better allow civilians to sue government officials for violations of fundamental rights? In this Contribution, Victoria del Rio-Guarner (’18) discusses how the Supreme Court’s decisions in Harlow v. Fitzgerald and Pearson v. Callahan essentially rendered qualified immunity to Section 1983 claims unqualified. This Contribution argues that qualified immunity doctrine should be recalibrated in order to better fulfill its underlying purpose while not disabling Section 1983 claims.

Enter your email Address

Exploring New Approaches to Unsettled Legal Questions

Category: Contributions Page 13 of 17

Cars in Castles: The Fourth Amendment’s Automobile Exception and the Curtilage of the Home

Arrests and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Towards a Unitary Reasonableness Standard

Permitting Around the Constitution: Gun License Process After Heller

Disclosure Duties as Public Policy?: Setting Aside Arbitration Decisions Under New York State Law

Always a Monopoly, Never a Monopolist: Why Antitrust is the Wrong Regulatory Scheme for Protecting Competition in Technical Standards

Is This What We Bargained For?: Allowing the Preemption of State Law through Collective Bargaining Agreements

Everywhere at Once: The Tinker Framework and Off-Campus, Online Speech

Sustaining Academic Freedom: The Need to Redefine the Threshold Question in First Amendment Claims Brought by Public University Professors

Caveat Utilitor: A Tort Regime for Outer Space

Rethinking Qualified Immunity: Making America Accountable Again