Cognitive Rigidity at New York’s High Court: The Court of Appeals’ Approach to Actual Innocence

By Andrew Jensen

Andrew Jensen is a 3L at Albany Law School and Associate Editor of the Albany Law School Government Law Review, Volume 20. While at Albany Law School, Andrew has served as a Veterans Pro Bono Project Board Member, Government Law Center Fellow, Student Representative to the Government Law Center Advisory Board, and an intern with the New York State Comptroller’s Office Division of Investigations, Rensselaer County Supreme Court, and with New York State United Teachers.

Prior to attending law school, Andrew graduated Magna Cum Laude from Augusta State University with a B.A. in Political Science and a Master’s in Public Administration. Following graduate school, Andrew Commissioned as an officer in the United States Air Force, serving as an aviator and instructor for 10 years. He then transitioned to civilian life, serving as the Deputy Director of Emergency Management for the City of Augusta, GA. 

This paper offers a novel insight into the jurisprudence of New York's highest court. Instead of using traditional legal lenses to analyze and conceptualize the judicial decision-making of the Judges on the Court of Appeals, a cross-disciplinary approach to understanding how the jurists think and approach problems offers a unique perspective on the state of the Court and its future.

Cognitive Rigidity, often found in Right-Wing Authoritarian personalities, leaves little room for ambiguity or innovation. Rigidity requires a thinker to apply old models and approaches to new problems, even when the solution does not fit the question presented to the thinker. Operationally defining Cognitive Rigidity within the sphere of judicial decision making provides a useful way of understanding how a court may approach novel or complex legal issues.

This paper uses two actual innocence cases from 2018 to display rigid thinking in judicial approaches and how it was countered in dissent by the now-Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, along with his frequent voting partner, Judge Rivera. These cases illustrate the different wings of thought among the Judges and how they functionally approach legal issues across the spectrum of cases brought before the Court.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Modern Lawfare at New York's High Court: Chief Judge Wilson’s Battle Between Stare Decisis and Modernization

By Alexa Reilly

Alexa Reilly graduated magna cum laude from Albany Law School in 2026. While at Albany Law, Alexa served on the Board of the Albany Law School Veterans’ Pro Bono Project and was a Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Lawyering I and II.

Alexa also interned with O’Connor, O’Connor, Bresee & First, P.C., the New York State Assembly Minority Counsel’s Office, and the New York State Department of Veterans’ Services. She also served as the 2025-26 Editor-in-Chief of International Law Studies, an independent forum for the publication of international law and comparative law research.

Prior to attending law school, Alexa graduated magna cum laude from Siena University where she earned a B.A. in Political Science. She then went on to serve on active duty as a Field Artillery Officer in the U.S. Army.

In August, she returned to O’Connor First as a full-time law clerk until she is admitted to the bar, at which time she will remain with O’Connor First as an associate attorney. 

Modern problems require modern solutions. But how do courts manage to maintain laws that will remain relevant and efficient in a modern society while respecting precedent?

This paper seeks to answer that question through the examination of the jurisprudence of a single judge–Chief Judge Rowan Wilson of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Wilson’s opinions reflect an ongoing struggle between stare decisis and the evolving demands of contemporary society. By analyzing a selection of his opinions and dissents, this article explores how Chief Judge Wilson balances institutional stability with the need for legal evolution in areas facing social, political, and technological changes.

Ultimately, this paper demonstrates how Chief Judge Wilson masterfully navigates the tension between stare decisis and modernization, and how such tension continues to shape the judiciary in a rapidly changing society.

________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ Judicial Restraint: “Freedom From Doubt I Cannot Share”

By Victor K. Gelfuso

Victor Gelfuso will received his J.D. in May 2026 from Albany Law School. Before law school, he attended Richfield Springs Central School and then earned a B.A. summa cum laude from Siena College with a major in philosophy, double minors in political science and history, and a certificate in pre-law.

At Albany Law, Victor was the 2025 Domenick Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition Champion, a Second Place Finalist in the 2025 Karen McGovern Senior Prize Mock Trial Competition, and a Second Place Finalist in the 2026 Donna Morse Negotiations Competition. He was a teaching assistant for Professor Vincent Bonventre's criminal law class, and he has been published in the New York State Bar Association's Municipal Lawyer journal.

Victor's main legal interests are in the areas of constitutional law, property law, and the philosophy of law. Following a clerkship at the Appellate Division, Third Department, Victor will be joining Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C. in Albany, with a practice concentration in municipal law, education law, and civil rights. 

With two decades of service on the United States Supreme Court since his appointment by President George W. Bush in 2005, Chief Justice John Roberts has authored consequential decisions on presidential power, the authority of executive agencies, the constitutional implications of pressing contemporary social questions, and the relationship between different branches of government. These two decades of judicial decision-making have provided the Chief Justice with many occasions to discuss his underlying theory about the proper role of the judiciary in the American constitutional system.

This paper analyzes how Chief Justice Roberts’ jurisprudence reflects a philosophy of judicial restraint embodied in deference towards legislative policymaking, deference towards the judgment of the executive branch in foreign affairs, a preference for Congressional lawmaking rather than administrative regulation, a hesitancy to overrule past judicial precedent, and a desire to insulate the Supreme Court from political controversies.

Despite this underlying philosophy of judicial restraint, Chief Justice Roberts has himself authored landmark decisions that have overruled past precedents and had significant impacts on the relationship between different the branches of government. This paper also analyzes how the Chief Justice decides when the Supreme Court should intervene or stay its hand, and when it should reverse its past decisions.

________________________

To read the paper, open 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.

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.

New York’s “Forever Wild” and the Chiefs

Three Chief Judges Opining on the State Constitutional Mandate

By E. Conor Graham

E. Conor Graham is a 2024 graduate of Albany Law School. He earned his bachelor's degree from Siena College, studying philosophy and international relations and affairs.

In law school, Conor was the Executive Editor for Lead Articles of Volume 87 of the Albany Law Review. He also interned at the United States Court for the Northern District of New York and at K&L Gates LLP.

Conor began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard K. Eaton at the United States Court of International Trade. 

Article XIV, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution, “the Forever Wild clause,” sets out that “[t]he lands of the state . . . constituting the forest preserve . . . shall be forever kept as wild lands.  They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed, or destroyed.” It is a unique provision, unlike any other found in the federal or another state constitution, and it protects nearly three million acres of state-owned Forest Preserve land in New York State.

The aim of this paper is to consider both the history and the trajectory of the Forever Wild clause as it comes before New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, through examining three important decisions related to the Forever Wild clause authored by three different Chief Judges of the court. Further, this analysis has the added benefit of focusing on the court’s leaders—the Chief Judges—presiding at the time of each case. Each section includes a brief discussion of the respective Chief Judge whose opinion will be discussed, followed by that judge’s opinion dealing with the Forever Wild clause.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Justice Jackson’s Square Deal

His Judicial Opinions Through the Lens of His 1940 Speech

By Michael J. Caggianelli 

Michael J. Caggianelli is a 2025 graduate of Albany Law School. 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 was accepted into the Government Law Review as a subeditor. The following year, he was selected to serve on the journal’s editorial board as an Article Editor. He also interned twice at the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office, the second time 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 (OPD) and collaborated with attorneys from the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV).

Following the bar examination, Michael will begin his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney at the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office.

In 1940, U.S. Attorney General Robert H. Jackson gave an address titled “A Square Deal for the Court.” At the time, critics of the Supreme Court were concerned that the justices were frequently overturning precedent and increasingly lenient towards the policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jackson was critical of the idea that the Court was becoming “Roosevelt’s Court,” or that overturning precedent was a problem to be fixed. Instead, he argued that overturning previous decisions could be a positive development if new rulings brought US jurisprudence closer to the words of the Constitution.

Jackson would soon receive an opportunity to influence federal jurisprudence and address his concerns with judicial decision-making. Upon his appointment as an Associate Justice, Jackson quickly established himself as a strong adherent to constitutional principles. He authored numerous opinions, many of which remain relevant in the modern era.

This paper seeks to examine a few of his most influential judicial writings through the statements uttered in “A Square Deal for the Court” to accomplish two goals: 1) to determine whether Jackson’s jurisprudence remained consistent with his previously expressed views, and 2) further explore his attitude towards the role of the judiciary.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Roberts’ Strategy as Chief Justice

Narrow or Not Amidst Recent Court Shifts?

By Priscilla Capuano

Priscilla Capuano is a graduating third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, she earned her bachelor’s degree from Siena College, where she majored in Philosophy and minored in Creative Arts.

While in law school, Priscilla interned at the Albany County District Attorney’s Office in the summer of 2022. She continued her work there by completing a Field Placement over the fall of 2022 and by volunteering in the spring of 2023. During the summer of 2023, Priscilla worked as a Summer Associate for Goldman Sachs. In the fall of 2023, she completed a field placement in the chambers of the Honorable Mae D’Agostino.

Priscilla was a member of Albany Law School’s Criminal Appellate Travel Team where she competed in the 2023 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition. She also competed in the 2023 Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition, where she was a finalist, and won the third best oral advocate award. She and her partner won the 2023 McGovern Senior Prize Trials.

As the Managing Editor for Production, Research, and Writing on the Journal of Science and Technology, Priscilla was involved in organizing and running the Journal's Write-on Competition in the summer of 2023. Until graduation, she is continuing her involvement in the Journal of Science and Technology and is serving as an Executive Editor for the Center of Judicial Process.

Amidst scandal, controversial decisions, and dramatic ideological shifts on the Court, Chief Justice Roberts attempts to maintain the Court’s reputation and legitimacy.

However, Roberts does not wield his former power as the deciding vote in closely divided cases. Roberts’ diminished power on the Court was hastened by the replacement of two liberal fixtures with new conservative Justices, tipping the balance of the Court to an overwhelmingly conservative majority. 

While Roberts does not dominate the Court as he did in recent years, as Chief Justice, he decides who writes the majority as long as he is not in dissent. The author of the majority opinion has a profound impact on the law, and has discretion over how broadly or narrowly the Court rules. Roberts’ proclivity to render narrow rulings is now in conflict with the conservative majority’s broad and dramatic decisions. Furthermore, a non-partisan and legitimate court is not easily achieved on a Court that renders partisan and often controversial decisions.

Thus, it is questionable how Roberts will achieve his goals on the distinctly conservative Court. Although it is unlikely that Roberts will regain his former power or lead a Court that is above legitimate reproach, he can implement different strategies to maximize results that best align with his vision for the Court.

_______________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Being Chief Judge with Rowan Wilson and Jonathan Lippman, April 25

Albany Law School's Annual Cooke Symposium

Open to the Community

Rowan Wilson and the Injured Plaintiff

Trying to Avoid Insult upon Injury During the DiFiore Court

By Lukas Moller

Lukas Moller is a 2023 graduate of Albany Law School. He grew up in Altamont, NY. Prior to law school, Lukas received his Bachelor of Arts, Summa Cum Laude, in Honors History from SUNY Albany.

While at Albany Law School, Lukas interned for the Albany County District Attorney’s Office, Goldman Sachs Ayco Personal Wealth  Management, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York.

Lukas joined Goldman Sachs Ayco Personal Wealth Management after graduation, focusing on tax, trust and estates, and securities matters. Lukas wrote this paper for Professor Bonventre’s Court of Appeals Seminar.

The great Court of Appeals Judge Benjamin Cardozo characterized dissents as “the gladiator making the last stand against the lions.”[1]  For now-Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, the lions had been the more conservative majority in the DiFiore Court.

Judge Wilson joined the Court of Appeals in 2017 when he was selected by then-governor Andrew Cuomo after six nominations to the court.[2] The DiFiore Court was riddled with split decisions and unsigned memoranda, with strong dissents often spearheaded by then-Associate Judge Wilson and Associate Judge Jenny Rivera.

The attention delegated to the minority opinions has been dominated by criminal procedure.[3] Dissents by Judge Wilson, such as those in People v. Tiger[4] and People v. Dawson,[5] have gained notable attention for the “indifference to justice” by the majority to highlight what many see as a weakened court.[6] But more attention should be given to civil cases, especially personal injury cases, both for what they say and what they do not say.

Much like in criminal cases, Judge Wilson’s decisions in the personal injury context provide insight into the direction that he plans to steer New York's highest court as the new Chief Judge. This paper will focus on the opinions of Judge Wilson, mostly dissents, in divided court decisions in plaintiff injury cases to contextualize the frame of mind of the DiFiore Court and Wilson's disagreement therewith. 

  [1] BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO, LAW AND LITERATURE AND OTHER ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES 34 (F.B. Rothman 1986).

  [2] Vincent Bonventre, NY Chief Judge Nominee Rowan Wilson (Part 1), NEW YORK COURT WATCHER (Apr. 15, 2023), http://www.newyorkcourtwatcher.com/2023/04/ny-chief-judge-nominee-rowan-wilson.html.

  [3] See Symposium, The Role of the “Victim” in the Criminal Legal System: Rotten Social Background and Mass Incarceration: Who Is a Victim?, 87 BROOK. L. REV. 1299 (2022); Jonathan Cantarero, Fixing Appeal Waivers in New York, 84 ALB. L. REV. 189, 207 (2021).

  [4] People v. Tiger, 32 N.Y.3d 91 (2018).

  [5] People v. Dawson, 38 N.Y.3d 1055 (2022).

  [6] Vincent Bonventre, NY Chief Judge Nominee Rowan Wilson (Part 2), NEW YORK COURT WATCHER (Apr. 16, 2023), http://www.newyorkcourtwatcher.com/2023/04/part-2-ny-chief-judge-nominee-rowan.html.

________________________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Caitlin Halligan: Past Precedent and Future Predictions

By John K. Penman

John Penman is a third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to his legal education, John received his bachelor’s degree from Syracuse University where he won the school's undergraduate short fiction competition. At Albany Law, John is a Government Law Center Fellow and participant in Moot Court. 

John has additionally interned with the New York State Justice Center For the Protection of People With Special Needs, New York State Department of Education, and Office of Minority Counsel in the New York State Assembly.

Presently, John is working with clients through the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York’s Right to Counsel Program and Community Economic Development Clinic at the Edward P. Swyer Justice Center.

This paper presents a profile of Caitlin Halligan, an accomplished legal professional who recently secured an appointment as an Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. Drawing from various sources, including her early life, education, career trajectory, and past judicial nominations, this paper sheds light on Halligan’s journey and provides insights into her potential role as an Associate Judge.

The analysis explores Halligan’s academic achievements, notable clerkships with federal courts, private practice experiences, and her tenure as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.  This paper also addresses concerns and expectations regarding Halligan’s corporate background, her pro bono work, and her ability to interpret the law fairly and equitably.

Finally, this paper discusses the potential impact of Halligan’s appointment on key legal issues in New York State, such as workers’ rights, corporate liability, and criminal justice.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Constitutional Individuation: The Jurisprudential Übermensch

By Clarence Felix Nyiri

Clarence Nyiri will be graduating from Albany Law School in December of this year. Before attending Albany Law, he received a bachelor’s degree in political science from Marist College.

Clarence spends most of his free time as the frontman and lead writer for the internationally acclaimed alternative rock band “The Dissidents.” He also works as an independent novelist and screenwriter and is involved in a music-centered AI startup known as “Haven Music.”

Currently, Clarence is in the process of drafting a thesis that links foundational legal and moral values to necessary constants and synchronous systems within the fields of psychology, physics, and neuroscience.

Does the law have a shadow?

Among the most significant intellectual thinkers of the Western canon is Friedrich Nietzsche, whose works have offered a rounded and nuanced explanation for how people process their environment through gradually changing moral prisms. Carl Jung, a student and successor of Nietzsche, made great strides in applying the concepts inherent in Nietzsche’s teachings to the archetypal foundations of the human psyche. Jung’s career and contributions have greatly enhanced mankind’s understanding of how psychology relates to human interaction with reality, making him a highly respected figure in the field.

Central to the teachings of both thinkers is the idea that the creation of a psychologically balanced system of beliefs and morals relies on a process of gradual change through introspection, the confrontation of fears, and the integration of the ideologically opposite “shadow” complex with the conscious persona which governs our day-to-day operations.
 
In this paper, the ideal role of judges is examined and redefined through this method of thinking. A new “ideal judge” is posited which rivals the “Judge Hercules” proposed by Ronald Dworkin. In lieu of a judge with the absolute mental command of legal precedent and tradition of the United States, an alternative is proposed which seeks to balance the judicial self-interests inherent in legal realism, the moral archetypes which would not be out of place in a natural law conception, and their application to community interactions as would be seen in a positivist perspective.

Through a case study of the history of the incorporation doctrine; the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, a legal parallel is made to the processes of Nietzsche and Jung. An argument is presented that incorporation is an apt representation of American Jurisprudence confronting the essential dominant and suppressed elements of its legal “psyche,” and that effective and moral law is the byproduct of this union.
_____________________
To read the paper, open HERE.

Relitigating Dobbs in a Conservative Court: The Potential Road from Justice Thomas and Natural Law

By James C. Ashley

James C. Ashley is a summa cum laude graduate of Albany Law School, class of 2023. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Spanish Linguistics from SUNY Albany, also summa cum laude.

At Albany Law School, James was an Executive Editor for Notes and Comments on the Albany Law Review, a Sponsler Fellow in Civil Procedure, and a Teaching Assistant in Lawyering. He was the winner of the 2022 Domenick L. Gabrielli Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Competition. James interned with the New York State Division of Human Rights, as well as with Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, where he will begin his career after the bar exam.

As early as 1991, reporters predicted that if selected for the Supreme Court, a Justice Clarence Thomas would one day vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

At his confirmation hearing, he was questioned about his prior embrace of the doctrine of natural law—the belief in the existence of a higher law that can be discovered by human reason—to draw out his views on abortion. Thirty years later, the Supreme Court held, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that the Federal Constitution does not provide protection for a woman’s right to have an abortion, with Justice Thomas voting to overturn Roe as predicted. He concurred separately, but with no explicit references to the natural law doctrine.

This paper examines Justice Thomas’s opinions on abortion for either implicit or explicit references to natural law. Then, it weighs the feasibility of several novel arguments that could be used to relitigate Dobbs before a conservative Court.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Supreme Loss: A Largely Ineffective Supreme Court Without the Sandra Day O’Connor Swing

By Elise I. Butler

Elise I. Butler is a third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, she graduated from Hamilton College where she majored in Psychology and minored in Biology.

At Albany Law, Elise serves as Executive Editor for Notes and Comments on the Albany Law Review. She has been a Sponsler Fellow in Federal Civil Procedure, a teaching assistant in Criminal Law, and a Peer Writing Assistant. Elise competed in Albany Law’s Senior Prize Trials, where she finished as a semi-finalist.

In her final semester at Albany Law, Elise is currently interning for Judge Mae D’Agostino in the Northern District of New York.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is often referred to as the most influential woman in American history.  This is largely due to her fair, impartial, and reasoned votes as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

O’Connor put her politics aside and voted not with the Republicans or Democrats, but with the side that deserved to prevail under the Constitution and law.  In today’s political climate, O’Connor’s reasoned, non-partisan voting is sorely missed.  Many hyperpolarized decisions reaching the Court today can be predicted based on the political affiliation of each justice’s appointer, something that was impossible with O’Connor on the Court. 

This paper explores the influence that Sandra Day O’Connor’s reasoned judgment had on the Court and on the law, and why it is sorely missed on the Court today.  This paper begins with a discussion of O’Connor’s judicial philosophy and influence on the Court and the law.  Next, this paper explores the political climate of today’s executive and legislative branches and their influence on the increased polarization of the judicial branch.  This paper concludes with an analysis of two of O’Connor’s opposing opinions on abortion and contrasts her reasoning for both with the reasonings provided in both the majority and dissenting opinions in the Court’s recent case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

The Influence of Judicial Deference on the New York Court of Appeals

By Patricia T. Whelan

Patricia T. Whelan is a third-year student at Albany Law School. Prior to attending law school, she earned her bachelor’s degree from Penn State.

At Albany Law, Patricia is an Associate Editor of the Albany Law Review, a Board Member of the Elder and Disability Law Pro Bono Society, and the 3L Representative of the Student Bar Association. As a second-year student, she was the Chief Justice of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, where she received the Outstanding Law School Chapter Justice Award.

Patricia has interned for the Third Judicial District, Federal Public Defender’s Office, and served as the Law Student Liaison for the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law. She also enjoys competing in various Moot Court Competitions and was a finalist in the 2021 Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition.

In addition to all of that, Patricia is the Editor-in-Chief of the Center for Judicial Process for the 2022-23 academic year, and she is currently working as a law clerk at Pierro, Connor & Strauss.

The legal decision-making process is deeply rooted in the judicial branch of the United States Government.  It is an art that is foundational to our justice system.  The process by which judges interpret and apply the law to arrive at legal conclusions is often perplexing and intriguing.  As such, the process of how judges make decisions is frequently discussed and studied amongst many forums.  Numerous philosophies and principles have been constructed and developed regarding the judicial decision-making process.  One significant aspect of the judicial decision-making process is the legal power of judicial review which grants courts the broad power to determine the constitutionality of government actions. 

Within the principle of judicial review, lies the philosophy of deference.  Judicial deference is often used by judges in their decision-making process.  It stands for the idea that courts may yield or defer its judgment to that of another legitimate branch of authority.  Under this standard of review, judges recognize that they may be required to uphold a certain interpretation of law, even if they do not believe that it is correct, given that the Constitution does not prohibit the legislature’s determination and there is a reasonable basis for it. 

The purpose of this paper is to consider the decisions of three different New York Court of Appeals judges who all seemingly employ a deferential attitude in reaching a legal conclusion.  First, this paper considers the majority opinion of Judge Charles D. Breitel in Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. Next, it looks at People v. Davis and the majority opinion written by Judge Lawrence H. Cooke.  Lastly, it discusses Judge Eugene F. Pigott, Jr.’s majority opinion in Shipley v. City of New York.  This paper concludes by drawing generalizations about the judges’ and their opinions based on the deferential standard of judicial review. 

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Judge Eugene M. Fahey and Consequentialism

By Claire Stratton

Claire Stratton is 3L at Albany Law School. She is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin.

This year, Claire is serving as the Executive President of the Student Bar Association and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Science and Technology. For the past two years, Claire has been a Student Ambassador for the school. Claire has served on SBA each year she has been at Albany Law, first as a 1L representative and then as 2L Class President.

Additionally, Claire has served on many Executive Boards around campus, including, Phi Alpha Delta, the Business Law Society, the Gaelic Law Society, and the Albany Law Literary Circle.

Claire has been a law clerk for the Towne Law Firm for about a year now and will be graduating this May!

Eugene M. Fahey, who recently retired from New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, can be described as a true New Yorker with a strong sense of devotion to the public. Fahey authored many notable opinions, addressing a wide range of topics, including same-sex marriage and gun violence.

Judge Fahey embraced consequentialism, a method of judicial interpretation, throughout his career on the bench. This is apparent in some of his most well-known opinions.

Consequentialism is a method that factors in the effects and ramifications of a decision when determining the best resolution of an issue. This paper analyzes some of Judge Fahey’s most significant opinions and his use of consequentialism in them.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.

Chief Justice Roberts: Judicial Restraint and Partisan Gerrymandering

By Anthony C. Jenouri

Anthony C. Jenouri is a third-year law student at Albany Law School. Currently, he is a legal intern at both the Justice Center and Government Law Center. He also served as an intern at the law school’s Immigration Law Clinic, where he drafted habeas corpus petitions to help clients challenge their immigration detention. He was also a semi-finalist in the 2022 Donna Jo Morse Negotiations Competition.

Before law school, Anthony earned his bachelor’s degree from Binghamton University, where he majored in Philosophy, Politics, and Law. He also previously interned for Assembly Member Michael DenDekker at the New York State Assembly, where he served as clerk for the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee. Upon graduation, Anthony hopes to pursue a career as a legislative counsel.

Chief Justice John Roberts has made it his mission to preserve the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, and he does so by avoiding the hint of partisanship whenever possible. This is partly why, when confronted with an issue as polarizing as partisan gerrymandering, the Chief Justice decided to punt on the issue. Specifically, he held in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts may not hear partisan gerrymandering cases because they present nonjusticiable political questions. Instead, such cases must be resolved by the political branches of government, namely the legislative and executive branches.

Critics have been quick to point out how partisan gerrymandering is antithetical to democratic principles. After all, it promotes an electoral system where the legislators are choosing their voters, and not the other way around. And it may seem disingenuous to suggest, as Roberts does, to defer to the legislators, since they are precisely the ones who benefit from keeping gerrymandering legal. While the Chief Justice appears to sympathize with his critics’ concerns, they are not enough to overcome his primary concern: preserving the Supreme Court’s legitimacy.  Allowing courts to intervene in the redistricting process, especially without a manageable legal standard, risks plunging the courts into the political thicket, thus damaging the judiciary’s image as the nonpartisan branch of government.

This paper examines the Chief Justice’s opinion in Rucho to understand how his concern for preserving the Court’s legitimacy informs his judicial decision-making. It also questions whether his approach to judicial restraint is prudent or whether it actually emboldens the extreme polarization he seeks to contain.

_____________________

To read the paper, open HERE.