Volume 24.1

We are excited to publish Volume 24.1, see below for specific articles:
Introduction: Editors’ Note

Articles
Marginalizing Mothers: Child Maltreatment Registries, Statutory Schemes, And Reduced Opportunities For Employment by Colleen Henry and Vicki Lens

Public Interest Practitioners Section (PIPS)
The Court Of Appeals Should Abandon The Corroboration Rule Governing The Admissibility Of Expert-Identification Testimony by Matthew Bova
Movement Lawyering During A Crisis: How The Legal System Exploits The Labor Of Activists And Undermines Movements by Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, Pilar Gonzalez Morales, and Jaqueline Aranda Osorno

Notes and Comments
How The Fallout From Post-9/11 Surveillance Programs Can Inform Privacy Protections For Covid-19 Contact Tracing Programs by Emma Mendelson

Footnote Forum
Lawyering In The Wake: Theorizing The Practice Of Law In The Midst Of Anti-Black Catastrophe by James Stevenson Ramsey
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, And Economic Security For Whom? IRS Overreaches In Denying Cares Act Economic Impact Payments To Migrant Workers And Incarcerated Individuals by Justin Schwegel

CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WHOM? IRS OVERREACHES IN DENYING CARES ACT ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENTS TO MIGRANT WORKERS AND INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS

CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WHOM? IRS OVERREACHES IN DENYING CARES ACT ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENTS TO MIGRANT WORKERS AND INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS

By: Justin Schwegel

INTRODUCTION

 Individuals who received advance refunds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act met the eligibility criteria in their 2019 tax filings (or 2018 filings if they had not yet filed 2019 taxes).[1] Advance refunds are treated as a refund of an overpayment of 2018 or 2019 taxes.[2] Subsequent changes in tax filing status in 2020 do not retroactively make one ineligible for an advance refund.[3] On May 6, the IRS issued guidance on its Economic Impact Payment Information Center website instructing incarcerated individuals and certain resident aliens[4]that they should return the economic impact payments (also called advance refunds or stimulus payments) they received from the IRS.[5] This guidance is not legally binding for two distinct reasons. First, it was issued without conforming to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, the guidance exceeded the IRS’s rulemaking authority because it contradicts unambiguous statutory language.

Continue reading

Volume 23.2

We are excited to publish Volume 23.2, see below for specific articles:

Articles
Why Matter of Devera Matters: Universal Pre-K, Quality, Oversight, and the Need to Restore Public Values in New York Statutory Interpretation by Natalie Gomez-Velez

Notes and Comments Section
The Fight for NYCHA: RAD and the Erosion of Public Housing in New York by Kyle Giller
Ethical Mediation in an Unjust World: Claiming Bias and Negotiating Fairness by Jessica Halperin
The Impact of the #MeToo Movement on Defamation Claims Against Survivors by Shaina Weisbrot

Public Interest Practitioner’s Section
Permanently Residing Under Color of Law: A Practitioner’s Guide to an Ambiguous Doctrine by Steven Sacco and Sarika Saxena

Footnote Forum
Traumatized to Death: The Cumulative Effects of Serial Parole Denials by Richard Rivera

Footnote Forum Podcast
Interview with Dilley Delegation Staff
CUNY School of Law Dilley Delegation FOIA Request by CUNY Dilley Delegation

Dilley Delegation Staff Interview

Footnote Forum Podcast, a CUNY Law Review Production

Recommended Citation: Footnote Forum Podcast, ​Interview with Dilley Delegation Staff, 23 CUNY L. Rev. F. 40 (2020)

Click here to view a pdf version of this article

INTERVIEW WITH DILLEY DELEGATION STAFF

Part I

Reena Novotnak: You’re listening to Footnote Forum, a production of the law review at City University of New York School of Law. I’m your editor and host, Reena Novotnak, and I’m joined by our guests, two CUNY Law students.

Joanna Lopez: My name is Jo Lopez, I’m a 3L in the full-time program.

Jacklyn Mann: Hi everyone, I’m Jackie Mann, I’m also a 3L here.

Reena Novotnak: This year, on the podcast, we focused on the Freedom of Information Act and Freedom of Information Law, or FOIA and FOIL. Jo and Jackie joined us to talk about their experience with the Dilley Delegation, and the challenges and lack of transparency they faced when preparing their clients for asylum hearings. Right now, you’re listening to part one of two of this interview. In this episode, you’ll also hear the voices of two law review staffers: Maya Kouassi and Cesar Ruiz. But it’s Jo here who’ll start us off.

Joanna Lopez: The Dilley delegation was a year-long effort initiated by three students to bring together other CUNY Law students and law professors to be able to provide much-needed on-the-ground work in Dilley, Texas.[1] In a nutshell, we spent a week at the South Texas Family Residential Center and assisted mothers and their children as they prepared for their credible fear interviews. So, much of the work that was done that week was spending 12 to 14-hour days at the detention center and working with women, and listening to their stories, and finding a way to structure their experiences in a way that was palatable to an asylum officer so that they would receive a positive interview and move forward in the asylum process, and also be released from detention, which is a really crucial part of the work that we were doing.

Continue reading

Dilley FOIA Request

CUNY SCHOOL OF LAW DILLEY DELEGATION
FOIA REQUEST

Recommended Citation: CUNY Dilley Delegation, FOIA Request, 23 CUNY L. Rev. F. 70 (2020)
Click here to view a pdf version of this article

TO: U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services
National Records Center, FOIA/PA Office
P. O. Box 648010
Lee’s Summit, MO 64064-8010
FOIA Officer/Public Liaison: Jill Eggleston
Phone: 1-800-375-5283 (USCIS Contact Center)
Fax: 816-350-5785
E-mail: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov

RE: FOIA REQUEST

Dear Ms. Eggleston,

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. We ask to be provided with all guidance and policy on providing notice for credible fear interviews for defensive asylum applicants in federal detention.

I.     Introduction

Fear is at the heart of an application for asylum.[1] Some asylum seekers fear abusive spouses, others fear ruthless gangs or interfaith violence.[2] Whatever the reason, that fear creates a moral imperative for the United States to give shelter, and it creates a defense enshrined in federal law.[3] Credible fear interviews (“CFI”) represent the first threshold towards asylum.[4]

Advocates on the ground report that immigrants in detention receive little to no notice for these interviews, which is a potential violation of the Fifth Amendment.[5] Without proper notice, asylum applicants cannot prepare to discuss what are often the most traumatizing moments of their lives. Therefore, we would like to know what federal policies exist for providing notice regarding CFIs, and what, if any, guidance exists for implementing that notice.

Continue reading

Traumatized to Death: The Cumulative Effects of Serial Parole Denials

Content warning: discussion of suicide.

If you are thinking about suicide, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255).

Recommended Citation: Richard Rivera, Traumatized to Death: The Cumulative Effects of Serial Parole Denials, 23 CUNY L. Rev. F. 25 (2020)

Authored By: Richard Rivera

INTRODUCTION

On August 3, 2016, after forty years of continuous incarceration, seventy-year-old John MacKenzie was locked in his cell for the night and killed himself.[1] He was not discovered until the next morning. A month earlier, John had made his tenth and final appearance before the New York State Board of Parole and was denied release to parole for the tenth consecutive time.[2] Rumors about why John decided to end his life abound among prisoners, especially among those who knew him. “He was killed by the CO’s,” many claimed, subscribing to ready-made narratives about correction officers fed, in large part, by their own fears and apprehensions about all things prison. “He made a pact with himself not to do a day over forty years,” the long-termers[3] asserted,[4] zeroing in on the existential crisis that might drive a man like John to suicide. Whatever speculations surround John’s death, his repeated encounters with the Board of Parole certainly factored into his decision to end it. In a final letter to his daughter, John put it this way: “They’re hell-bent on keeping me in prison,” and “I don’t believe I’ll last much longer.”[5]

Continue reading

CUNY Law Review Statement of Solidarity with the Black Lives Matter Movement

CUNY Law Review – #BLM Solidarity & Reading List

CUNY Law Review expresses extreme sorrow in the wake of the recent killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. Race motivated killings in America have ravaged the communities of African Americans since its inception and it is in this moment that we must reconcile this ugly history. We stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and call for an end to the senseless killings perpetrated under the color of law. Together in this moment we show our solidarity with the movement and express our deepest condolences to all those lost. Please click the link for a more in-depth discussion. #BLM

Announcing the Footnote Forum podcast!

Dear friends,

We’re pleased to announce the inaugural episode of the CUNY Law Review Footnote Forum podcast. The first episode, an interview with Professor Doug Cox, is available on this site and will shortly be available on Apple Music and Spotify as well. Listen here—and stay tuned for the next episode.