Supreme Court Appointments: The Supreme Factor

By Brooke Riscica

Brooke Riscica graduated magna cum laude from Albany Law School in May 2026, receiving a Stone Family Prize in Business and Entrepreneurship.

While at Albany Law, Brooke served as Executive Editor for Submissions for Volume 89 of the Albany Law Review, worked as a Teaching Assistant for Professor Bonventre in Criminal Law, completed two semesters in the Edward P. Swyer Justice Center’s Community Economic Development Clinic, served as a Team Captain in the Admissions Office, and served as Editor-in-Chief of the Center for Judicial Process. She also completed summer internships with the DeAngelus Group, PLLC her 1L summer and Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC her 2L summer.

Prior to attending law school, Brooke graduated summa cum laude from Utica University, where she earned a B.S. in Criminal Intelligence Analysis, with minors in Cybersecurity and Philosophy of Law.

Brooke returned to Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC in September 2026, where she is a full-time litigation associate trainee. 

Supreme Court scholars and constitutional law enthusiasts have spent decades in a battle of the wits over the who, what, why, and how behind nominations to the Court. Some maintain that candidates are nominated based on merit, while others cite factors like geography, race, religion, gender, and ideological compatibility as the considerations weighed when deciding who to seat on this country’s highest court.

Having access to such a wide range of research, data, and scholarship centered around the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices tells a historical tale of the political and social climate in this country during different periods. Studying the history, evolution, and current state of nominations to the Court reveals that the different factors cited are not necessarily correct or incorrect. Rather, these factors are reflections on where the process started and how it changed, which reveals that one factor reigns supreme: ideological compatibility.

This paper introduces the different factors cited as considerations weighed during a candidate’s nomination and appointment to the Court. After a description of each factor’s—geography, race, religion, and gender—role at different times during Supreme Court appointments, a discussion of ideological compatibility as the determinative factor follows.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Center Editorial Board, 2026-2027

Director

Vincent Martin Bonventre

Editor-in-Chief

Kelly Maney is a third-year law student at Albany Law School.

Prior to attending law school, Kelly graduated Cum Laude from the University at Buffalo with a Bachelor’s of Science in Biology.

While at Law School, Kelly served as a teaching assistant for Torts and Property and as an Associate Board Member for the Anthony V. Cardona Moot Court Program. Kelly is also the treasurer for the Women’s Law Caucus.

Kelly was a Summer Associate at Harris Beach Murtha for both her 1L and 2L summers.

Executive Editor

Kathryn Doner will graduate from Albany Law School in December 2026. Before matriculating at Albany Law, Kathryn graduated summa cum laude from Providence College, where she majored in Sociology and Global Studies, and minored in Black Studies and Latin American Studies. Throughout her undergraduate years, Kathryn presented at various sociological conferences, which culminated in the publication of “Seventy Years Later: Caste in the Indian Bureaucracy.”

Between college and law school, Kathryn interned in the Financial Crimes and Homicide Bureaus at the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office. Additionally, Kathryn was a judicial intern for Justice Christopher Quinn before interning at the Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County.

_______________________________________

For previous years' boards, click HERE.  

The Chief’s Choice: Strategic Opinion Assignments by Chief Justice Roberts

By Olivia Ford

Olivia Ford is a graduating 3L at Albany Law School (May 2026). While at Albany Law, Olivia served as Executive Editor for Notes and Comments for Volume 89 of Albany Law Review, worked as a Sponsler Fellow Teaching Assistant for Federal Civil Procedure, and completed two semesters as a law clerk at Lemery Greisler, LLC.

Prior to attending law school, Olivia graduated summa cum laude from the State University of New York at Geneseo, where she earned her B.S. in Business Administration, with a minor in Political Science. She previously clerked at Wilcenski & Pleat PLLC before law school, and at R.A. Fuerst Law Group, P.C. during her 1L summer. 

Beginning in September 2026, she will be returning as a full-time litigation associate at Phillips Lytle LLP, where she previously worked as a summer associate.

The power to assign majority opinions is one of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s most influential authorities. It helps shape not only the reasoning of individual cases, but also the development of precedent.

Although opinion assignment is often viewed as an internal administrative function, it also serves as a powerful tool through which the Chief Justice can affect the substance of the law, preserve majority coalitions, and influence public perception of the Court and its decisions.

This paper examines the strategic significance of opinion assignment and the varying approaches adopted by different Chief Justices to advance their broader goals for the Court. By comparing the assignment strategies of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Chief Justice Roberts, it demonstrates how these differing approaches can shape case outcomes as well as the internal dynamics on the Court. It then analyzes Chief Justice Roberts’ recent strategic assignments, drawing on salient Roberts Court decisions between 2022 and 2025.

This paper argues that Roberts has increasingly used opinion assignment to maintain control of the court, strengthen fragile majorities, and further his broader vision of the Court’s role during a particularly polarizing era in American politics.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Amy Coney Barrett: Carving Her Own Path on the Court

By Dana A. Wakeman

Dana Wakeman is the Editor-in-Chief of Albany Law Review, Volume 89 and a member of the Albany Law Class of 2026. During her time in law school, Dana has interned twice in the Northern District of New York for two different judges as well as with the United States Government Accountability Office. Dana has also been selected as a Teaching Assistant for Torts, Constitutional Law I, and Constitutional Law II classes.

Prior to law school, Dana earned her Master's in Public Administration from American University and her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Siena University. While in graduate school, Dana worked for a research consulting firm, which also included presenting at the 2023 American Association for Public Opinion Research Conference. During her time at Siena, Dana participated in the Bonner Service Leaders Program, culminating in 2,500 hours of community service as well as a community engaged thesis project on drug diversion programs.

Dana has two forthcoming publications in Albany Law Review including “Setting a Higher Bar: Reforming Presidential Immunity” and “What's Next: Expanding State Constitutional Independence in New York.”

This paper provides an overview of who Justice Amy Coney Barrett is, why President Trump nominated her to fill a vacancy on the U.S Supreme Court, and how she has fulfilled or defied others’ expectations of her.

The paper describes the Fischer v. United States case, and Justice Barrett’s opinion that garnered criticism by conservatives. It also explains the Trump v. United States case, with a focus on Justice Barrett’s opinion that concurred with the majority only in part.

The paper then analyzes any common trends in Fischer and Trump in order to identify potential factors involved in Justice Barrett’s decision-making. Finally, the paper concludes by illustrating how Justice Barrett’s philosophy may impact future cases or opinions of the Court. 

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Victoria Graffeo: Steady Hand, Lasting Impact on the New York Court of Appeals

By Jennifer E. Forward

Jennifer Forward is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School and graduated from Cazenovia College in 2022 with a B.S. in Psychology and Criminal Justice. While at Albany Law, she was deeply involved in the Anthony V. Cardona ’70 Moot Court Program, serving on the Moot Court Board for two years and leading the program as its Executive Director in her final year. Originally from Morrisville, NY, Jennifer now resides in Syracuse, NY, where she has worked at Lippes Mathias, LLP since her law school graduation, focusing her practice on health law and labor and employment law.


Judge Victoria Graffeo’s fourteen years on the New York Court of Appeals were defined by meticulous statutory interpretation, clarity, and a commitment to bright-line rules that continue to shape state jurisprudence.

Defying early expectations that she would be strictly pro-prosecution, her majority opinions expanded criminal jurisdiction in People v. Kassebaum and curtailed police overreach in People v. McIntosh. They safeguarded press freedoms in Holmes v. Winter and affirmed municipal zoning authority in Wallach v. Town of Dryden.

Across criminal law, intellectual property, constitutional protections, and land use, Judge Graffeo combined respect for precedent with adaptability to modern realities, leaving a steady and lasting imprint on New York law, even after her controversial non-reappointment.

________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

The Ups and Downs of New York's Right to Counsel: The Cooke, Lippman, and DiFiore Courts

By Chloe Petry

Chloe Petry is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School. Prior to attending Albany Law School, she earned a bachelor’s degree from SUNY Fredonia, studying Biology and Botany. In law school, Chloe was the Managing Editor for Production, Research, and Writing for the Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 35. She was also the President of the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.

New York’s state constitutional right to counsel is far more robust and expansive than its federal counterpart due to the New York Court of Appeals’ (“the Court”) extensive review of the right, which furthered constitutional protections for the accused. However, as this paper will discuss, the Court’s review has not always been as progressive, nor has it continued to build on existing precedent.

It appears the Court has taken steps backwards and weakened the right. The New York Constitution holds that any “suspect in a criminal matter . . . who requests representation may not be questioned further in the absence of an attorney.” Also, “[b]y extension, a suspect who has invoked the right cannot voluntarily waive the right to counsel without an attorney present.”  This right is described as “indelible:” s defined as “marks that cannot easily be removed.” 

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Echoes from the Minority: The Power of Judge Rivera’s Dissent on New York’s Highest Court

By Alessia Tumminelli

Alessia Tumminelli, a December 2025 graduate of Albany Law School, did her undergraduate work at SUNY Brockport. At the Honors College there, she earned a B.S. in Psychology with a minor in Legal Studies, graduating summa cum laude with Dean’s List recognition every semester. Her undergraduate honors thesis examined wrongful convictions in the American criminal justice system, with an emphasis on deceptive psychological tactics used by law enforcement, the fallibility of memory-reliant evidence, and the influence of socially conditioned associations on jurors and legal actors.

Alessia’s legal experience includes internships with the Monroe County Supreme Court, the Office of the Federal Public Defender, the Monroe County Public Defender’s Office, and Tumminelli Law, as well as serving as a criminal law research assistant during her first summer of law school.

This paper examines the judicial philosophy and impact of New York Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera, with a particular focus on her powerful dissents. Although Rivera’s dissents may not carry the force of law with them, they nonetheless serve as powerful interventions that prioritize humanity alongside legal doctrine and challenge conventional narratives within the legal system.

Drawing from her unique professional background rooted in advocacy, public interest, and civil rights, Rivera brings a perspective to the table that contrasts with many of her colleagues whose careers were rooted in prosecution or corporate practice. By analyzing her writing style and recurring themes throughout her dissents, this paper argues that Rivera’s dissents function not only as rigorous legal reasoning, but also as an invitation for courts, scholars, and practitioners to reconsider preconditioned ideas of justice, fairness, and the voices that have been historically excluded from mainstream jurisprudence.

________________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Joseph Bellacosa: A Tough-on-Crime Judge Who Argued for the Victims of Law Enforcement

By Michael J. Caggianelli

Michael J. Caggianelli is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School. This is the second time he's been published by the Center. See his paper this past spring on Justice Robert Jackson.

Before attending law school, he earned a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from the University at Albany, SUNY. He also worked as a student research assistant at the Office of the New York State Attorney General, aiding staff members at the Robert Abrams Law Library in downtown Albany.

During law school, Michael served as an Article Editor for Volume 18 of the Government Law Review. He also interned at the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office, including as a student in the Domestic Violence Prosecution Hybrid (DVPH) Clinic. Following these experiences, Michael interned at the New York State Education Department’s Office of Professional Discipline and collaborated with attorneys from the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence.

Upon his admission to the bar, Michael will begin his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney, returning to the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office.

Throughout its history as the state of New York’s highest judicial body, the Court of Appeals has been tasked with addressing appellate issues in cases of all areas of law. However, no type of proceeding is more essential to the field of constitutional law than that of a criminal appeal. Indeed, the court’s rulings on procedural issues and matters of due process determine whether government actors protected and abided by a defendant’s constitutional rights throughout the criminal justice process.

Upon his appointment to the Court of Appeals in 1987, Judge Joseph Bellacosa swiftly asserted himself as an independent voice on the state’s highest court. In criminal cases, Bellacosa often aligned staunchly with the interests of the police and prosecutors. Due to his outspoken nature, he sometimes found himself dissenting alone in favor of law enforcement.

Despite this tendency, Bellacosa sometimes confronted cases where the state’s violations of due process were too excessive or a trial court’s error fell well beyond that of a “harmless error,” thereby necessitating the reversal of a conviction. He also displayed a sensitivity to the plight of crime victims and sought to promote their rights when possible.

This paper seeks to examine Judge Bellacosa’s efforts to protect the rights of others involved in the criminal justice process, including those of the accused and victims of crime, to determine the scope and limits of Bellacosa’s attitudes towards law enforcement.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

A Court in Crisis: The New York Court of Appeals in American Conflict

By Alec G.H. Levesque

Alec Levesque graduated cum laude from Albany Law School in 2025. Before attending Albany Law School, he earned a B.A. in Classics from the College of the Holy Cross.

During law school, he interned twice at the Albany County District Attorney’s Office, as well as for the Third Judicial District Administrative Office. In addition, he interned in the Health Law Clinic at the Edward P. Dwyer Justice Center.

Alec wrote this paper for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Intensive Seminar.

When conflict arises that threatens a society’s very existence, every parameter of that society is put to the test–especially, perhaps, its legal institutions. Although perilous, it is this test that often provides the amplest opportunity for the law to evolve. In the case of the United States, while many may believe that this evolution stems exclusively from the Supreme Court, that court is far from alone.

This paper examines how New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has contributed to the nation’s law during periods of major conflict in the United States. This was true for the Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and modern civil rights movements.

The purpose of the paper is to show that (1) the Court has historically played a leading role in shaping the law during such periods, and (2) that the conflict has conversely had a substantial effect on the Court’s own evolution.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.