As the U.S., Israel and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, questions remain about the legal and ethical boundaries of the rhetoric that defined the conflict. Judge , director of the Institute for Security Policy and Law and a professor in both the and the at Syracuse University, addresses those questions directly in our latest Q&A.

Baker also serves as a judge on the Data Protection Review Court, bringing a rare combination of academic expertise and active judicial experience to issues at the intersection of national security, military law and international legal norms.

To schedule an interview, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Recent coverage in and an earlier article in the have questioned the increase in disability accommodations for students and recent graduates. A Syracuse University law professor and leading national expert says that framing is missing critical context.

The Expert

, professor of law and director, disability law and policy program in Syracuse University’s College of Law

What She Can Address

• Why rising accommodation numbers reflect a pipeline success story, not a system being gamed
• How the American with Disabilities Act’s broad definition of disability shapes what qualifies—and what gets denied
• The accommodations that never make headlines: requests that are routinely rejected
• How successful implementation of anti-discrimination laws at the K-12 level has expanded the population of students with disabilities entering higher education

In Her Own Words

“An increase in accommodations is a natural consequence of the increased presence of students with disabilities in higher education. The Americans with Disabilities Act defines disability broadly, and without knowing more about each individually approved accommodation, it is difficult if not improper to conclude that any increase is suspicious.”

Recent Work

Macfarlane’s article “” was recently published in the Georgetown Law Journal.

President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will begin a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Retired Vice Adm. , professor of practice in Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and deputy director of the , is available for interviews as this news evolves, especially as NATO allies refuse to support.

Members of the media looking to schedule an interview, please email Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Professor Murrett’s Comments

“Today’s announcement today that the U.S. will commence ‘blockading any and all ships’ trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) represents a military option with certain advantages, and moreover, possible international support:

• First, full and unconstrained access to the SoH is in the interests of all nations (including Iran), and one that is vital to global economic interests. None of the nations adjacent to the SoH (Iran, Oman and the UAE) should hamper this freedom of navigation, as they have not in the past.
• Nearly all nations have an interest in free access into and out of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and there is potential for conducting this operation as a combined naval effort with participation from several allied nations, which is preferable. The goal would be to have free and open access for all nations, or none.
• Geography matters: The blockade can also be enforced in areas that are not as advantageous for Iran a others, that is, in the Gulf of Oman rather that in the SoH narrows adjacent to Larak/Qeshm Islands.

These are just some initial thoughts, as the operational dimensions, participants, implementation and tactics evolve in the hours and days ahead.”

Will the Blockade Work?

“The blockade ‘can work’ from my estimation from the standpoint of the naval forces’ ability to stop traffic in and out of the Gulf,” Murrett says. “On the other hand, it is an open question as to whether or not will this military operation will ‘work’ as a means to compel the Iranian leadership to re-open the SoH for free access, as was the case before the current fighting started. The second question is the more important one.”

In 2025, Samsung Electronics had 7,054 patent grants in the U.S. alone. Apple Inc. had 2,277, and Google/Alphabet, Inc., received 1,782. And, it is estimated that more than 152,000 patent applications specifically related to artificial intelligence�� were recorded in the U.S. last year with Google, Microsoft and IBM leading the charge. Add to that the thousands of innovators and researchers across the country filing individual patents every day, and it’s apparent why patent agents and patent attorneys are in high demand.

The College of Law’s (ILC) received a gift from Rodney A. Ryan L’97 that will be used to officially establish a patent law program in summer 2026 to academically and financially assist students preparing for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registration examination, commonly known as the patent bar. Passing the patent bar is a significant achievement as doing so gives students credentials to become a patent agent who can draft, file and prosecute patent applications. It is a necessary step to becoming a patent attorney.

To be eligible for the new program, students must have an undergraduate degree in science, engineering or tech-related fields; complete required coursework and be actively engaged in the ILC.

For prospective students, the program represents a rare opportunity to enter the legal profession already credentialed as a patent agent and positioned for immediate career impact at law firms, corporations and startups.

“We are very grateful for this gift, which will allow the ILC to formally establish a patent law program and reimburse students for the patent bar preparation and exam—removing a financial barrier that will open this opportunity to even more qualified students,” says Professor of Practice Brian J. Gerling L’99, executive director of the ILC. “The program is designed so students will complete the patent bar exam well before having to study for state bar exams after graduation, while also giving them the opportunity to hone those skills as a patent agent during law school.”

The patent agent law program at the ILC will also assist early stage entrepreneurs through filing of provisional patent applications, thereby avoiding public disclosure bars or risking their ideas to commercial theft.

Students Work as Patent Agents at Local Firm

Carl J. Graziadei L’26 and Madison McCarthy L’26 helped pilot the idea for the formalized program. Both have already passed the patent bar and are currently working as senior research assistants at the ILC and part-time law clerks at local law firm Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

Graziadei earned an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering with a minor in electrical engineering at Clarkson University and passed the patent bar right out of college. When researching law schools that allowed him to mesh his engineering background with the legal field, he discovered Syracuse Law’s ILC.

“Professor Gerling is really the reason I decided on Syracuse, as he showed me how my engineering background would be a great fit for the ILC,” Graziadei says. “He confirmed my belief that going into patent law was the right move and explained the demand was high, and the opportunities were endless in law firms, corporations and startups.”

McCarthy studied biological sciences and neuroscience as an undergraduate at the University of Buffalo and also came to Syracuse with the goal of becoming a patent attorney. While working in the ILC, she passed the patent bar as a second year student.

Both excelled through the ILC, honing their research and writing skills and building confidence communicating with actual clients, while also gaining experience through internships. Graziadei interned at Lallemand, a French company optimizing natural fermentation processes. McCarthy was an extern in patent litigation at Kiklis Law Firm, PLLC, in Virginia, which focuses on trials at the USPTO’s Patent Trials and Appeals Board, and a general counsel extern at Upstate Medical University.

“I fell in love with the faculty and the ILC because I had so much freedom and the chance to interact with entrepreneurs and innovators about their inventions through the law,” says McCarthy, who is currently editor-in-chief of the .

As third-year law students, McCarthy and Graziadei are senior research assistants at the ILC helping second years assist clients. Both are also working part-time at Bond, Schoeneck & King, using their skills as patent agents. They each have been offered positions as full-time associates at the firm upon graduating this spring.

“Because I am already a patent agent, I will be a licensed patent attorney once I pass the New York State bar, and the experience I have had through Syracuse Law has been incredible preparation,” says McCarthy. “I’m grateful to have found a program where I could combine my interests in science, innovation and the law, and I look forward to what’s ahead.”

G’01, L’01, the Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Teaching Excellence 2024-2027 at the College of Law, has spent her career teaching at the intersection of constitutional law, disability law, human rights and international security. The Meredith Professorship has given her sustained support to pursue her focus on universal design in higher education, not as an abstract principle, she says, but as a lived challenge institutions are navigating in real time.

As part of her teaching award, she has organized a daylong symposium on April 10 at the College of Law, sponsored by multiple University partners, including the Burton Blatt Institute, Center for Disability Resources, Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF) and the College of Law’s Disability Law and Policy Program. The event will examine the transformative global impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the evolution of universal design principles in higher education.

That global lens is grounded in True-Frost’s own research. Studying accessibility law at the European Court of Human Rights, she has found that the ADA’s most significant international influence has been conceptual rather than doctrinal: the foundational idea that disability is a rights issue, not a welfare issue and that the burden of accommodation belongs to institutions rather than individuals.

True-Frost hopes the event will prompt a harder look at how higher education institutions approach accessibility.

“Inclusion is not a disability resources office problem,” she says. “It is a campuswide design challenge—and getting it right is how we honor the promise that higher education makes to everyone who comes here seeking to grow.”

Below, True-Frost shares what she hopes students, faculty and administrators take away from the symposium.

The (BBI) at Syracuse University sponsored students from the College of Law to attend the . The annual symposium is a leading national disability law meeting, bringing together disability rights practitioners, educators and scholars to advance the civil rights of people with disabilities. The annual event honors the legacy of tenBroek, who founded the National Federation of the Blind in 1940. The theme for the 2026 symposium was “Collaboration and Creativity: Addressing Challenges and Advancing Opportunities Now and in the Future.”

The students participating in the symposium were Kaitlin Sommer and Emely Recinos, both third-year law students and co-presidents of the Disabled Law Students Association at the College of Law, sponsored by BBI, Carly Bastedo, a third-year law student and Sydney Sheffield, a first-year law student.

BBI’s goal in supporting the students was to further their shared commitment to advancing opportunity and access in the legal profession. “Our participation at the symposium deepened our understanding of issues in disability law and helped us to build professional networks that support our careers in public interest law, policy and advocacy,” says Sommer. “I hope to attend the symposium for years to come.”

, University Professor and chairman of BBI, believes that “the symposium enables students to engage with the broader work of BBI, which seeks to advance the civic, economic and social participation of people with disabilities through research, education and outreach.”

The Syracuse University has launched the nation’s first joint J.D. and M.S. in sport analytics program in conjunction with the . The joint program, to be offered starting the Fall 2026 semester, allows College of Law students to earn their J.D. and M.S. concurrently, typically graduating in three years and at no cost beyond that of the J.D.

College of Law on-campus students entering their second year can apply for the J.D./M.S., the College of Law’s 13th joint program.

The master’s degree requires 36 credits. A total of 15 credits from the sport analytics program can be counted toward the J.D. Further, six designated law credits will count toward both the J.D. and the M.S. electives. Law students enrolled in the joint JD/M.S. must take 72 unique law credits and 30 unique M.S. credits. Therefore, obtaining the joint J.D./M.S. requires completing 102 total credit hours.

“This is a program that only Syracuse can offer,” says College of Law Dean Terence J. Lau L’98. “Our College of Law and the Falk College of Sport are literally next door to each other, and that proximity translates into a truly integrated curriculum. No other law school in the country can pair a J.D. with a world-class sport analytics program under one roof.”

The joint J.D./M.S. is designed for law students interested in working in the front office of sports teams, the legal departments of sports leagues, sport agents, sport gambling companies and others involved in sport.

“Being able to combine a law degree with a master’s degree in sport analytics provides our law students with an advanced credential that will set them apart when entering the workforce,” says College of Law Professor Todd Berger.

The M.S. follows Falk College’s established graduate sport analytics curriculum that emphasizes applied statistics, econometrics, databases and machine learning, R/Python programming, sport gambling analytics and visualization, among other disciplines.

“There is increasing demand for professionals who can navigate the complex intersection of law, analytics and sport business. The combined J.D./M.S. degree prepares graduates to meet this demand by equipping them with both legal acumen and advanced quantitative skills these roles increasingly require,” says Rodney J. Paul, Ph.D., professor and chair in the Department of Sport Analytics at Falk College.

“Analytics has been largely popularized in the sport industry, but it has the ability to impact many other industries. Based on my personal background as a sport lawyer, bringing analytics into the study of law is a natural extension for Falk College of Sport. But it is also an incredibly valuable tool for practicing attorneys and even judges to better understand trends and precedents in the law and to predict probable outcomes of cases,” says David B. Falk ’72, Syracuse University Life Trustee and founder and CEO, Falk Associates Management Enterprises.

Graduates will be uniquely positioned for roles in compliance, regulation, governance, player representation, sport betting and gaming law, collective bargaining and analytical decision-making across professional teams, leagues, sportsbooks and regulatory agencies.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration tariffs are invalid, American businesses anticipate hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds for import tariffs they paid.

Since then, the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered that importers were due refunds for the tariffs paid and a federal court in New York is now taking the first official steps to being the refund process.

College of Law Dean Terence Lau is available to talk to reporters about these refunds. Dean Lau began his career in the Office of the General Counsel at Ford Motor Company in the International Trade and Transactions practice group. His practice focused on U.S. law for foreign affiliates and subsidiaries, among other topics. Later he served as Ford’s director for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Government Affairs.

His comments about the refunds:

• “The Court of International Trade ruling confirms what the Supreme Court already made clear: IEEPA was never designed to be a tariff statute, and if the tariffs were unlawful, the money has to go back. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton’s order that all importers of record are entitled to benefit, not just the ones who sued, is a big deal. That’s a very clear across-the-board refund mandate,” says Lau.
• “But the administration is clearly dragging its feet. Customs and Border Patrol called this ‘unprecedented’ and initially wanted four months just to assess its options, even though, as Judge Eaton pointed out, the agency liquidates entries and issues refunds every single day. Meanwhile, every month of delay costs taxpayers roughly $700 million in accruing interest on the $130 billion-plus in illegally collected duties. The government has acknowledged it owes interest, which makes the foot-dragging even harder to justify and understand,” says Lau.

• “At the same time, the administration pivoted within hours of the Supreme Court ruling to impose a new 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute no president has ever used before (just like with IEEPA, the administration is more than willing to stretch old statutes in new and novel ways). Secretary Scott Bessent said he expects tariff rates to return to pre-Supreme Court levels within five months through other legal authorities. So the message to businesses seems to be: we’ll eventually give your money back (maybe), but we’re going to keep taxing your imports in the meantime,” says Lau.
• “The Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days unless Congress extends them. That’s a statutory ticking clock. The administration is betting it can build new tariff authority through Section 301 and Section 232 investigations before the window closes. Whether they can do that fast enough, and whether courts will sustain those actions, is the next big legal question. There will be a lot of litigation to settle these questions,” says Lau.
• “For businesses, especially small and mid-size importers, this is a confusing moment. They’re simultaneously paying new tariffs while waiting for refunds on the old ones, and the 180-day liquidation window means companies that don’t act in time could lose their refund rights entirely,” says Lau.

To arrange an interview, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

As conflict between U.S. and Israeli forces and Iran intensifies across the Middle East, Syracuse University faculty and staff are available for media interviews. Their names, titles and areas of expertise are listed below. To arrange an interview, contact Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

• , professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, is a historian of U.S. foreign relations and the modern Middle East. Khalil is the author of “America’s Dream Palace: Middle East Expertise and the Rise of the National Security State”��(Harvard University Press, 2016). He is frequently featured in the media regarding issues in the Middle East, with the latest being and .
• Retired Vice Admiral is��professor of practice in the Maxwell School and deputy director of the . Previously, Murrett was a career intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy, serving in assignments throughout the Pacific, Europe and the Middle East during his 34 years of service. Murrett also speaks with the media often on international relations, national security and military and defense strategy. In relation to the latest with the war on Iran, Murrett was interviewed by (), ��and .
• is deputy executive director of the D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families and a U.S. Army veteran. He can speak to the lived experience of ongoing military conflict—particularly the gap between public perception and the reality faced by service members and their families. Toenniessen’s expertise spans long-term support for veterans and Gold Star families, military family resilience during undeclared or low-visibility conflicts and why national commitment to those who serve must be sustained, not situational. He has about the U.S. service members killed in action following news of their deaths.

Syracuse University will unveil a portrait of alumnus and 46th U.S. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. L’68, H’09 in Dineen Hall at the during a private ceremony with the former president on Tuesday, April 14, 2026.

The artwork, painted by distinguished American portrait artist , is an oil-on-canvas portraiture completed in 2025-2026. The portrait was commissioned by Syracuse University to honor one of its most prominent alumni. Neal is one of America’s foremost portrait artists, whose works hang in the U.S. Capitol, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery and the Pentagon, among other prominent institutions.

“Syracuse Law is proud to count a former president among our many outstanding alumni,” College of Law Dean Terence J. Lau L’98 says. “President Biden has never forgotten where his legal career began, and we have never forgotten him. His portrait in Dineen Hall will remind every student who passes through our doors that a Syracuse Law education doesn’t just open doors. It can change the course of history.”

Biden earned a juris doctor from the College of Law in 1968 and has maintained a close connection with the University ever since. He delivered the College of Law Commencement address on four occasions—in 1994, 2002, 2006 and 2016—and returned to campus in 2009 to deliver the University’s Commencement address and receive an honorary degree.

Biden received the University’s Chancellor’s Medal in 1974; the Law Alumni Association’s Distinguished Service Award in 2003; and the George Arents Pioneer Medal, the University’s highest alumni award, in 2005. In 2018, he was honored with a prestigious Syracuse Law Honors Award from the Syracuse University Law Alumni Association and the College of Law.

The portrait will be on permanent display in the college’s Law Library Reading Room, where the public can view the painting during normal library hours.

Faculty from the Newhouse School of Public Communications and College of Law have teamed up for the seventh consecutive year in an innovative cross-campus collaboration to allow future television reporters and future lawyers to experience the drama of a high-profile murder trial.

Professor Elliott Lewis, graduate program director of broadcast and digital journalism in the Newhouse School, and Professor Todd Berger, director of advocacy programs for the College of Law, brought the students together for the mock trial of State v. Cullen, a fictional case involving the deaths of two bar workers. One of the victims’ coworkers is accused of the double murder.

The law students are playing the roles of prosecutors and defense attorneys, delivering opening and closing statements, questioning witnesses and making objections during testimony.

The Newhouse students are practicing their skills as television journalists, performing live updates during breaks in the trial and producing a narrated report after its conclusion.

“With a top-rated journalism school and a top-rated trial advocacy program located on the same campus, it doesn’t make sense for us to stay isolated in our academic silos,” Lewis says.

In previous years, the journalism exercise was incorporated into one of the law school’s trial advocacy classes. This year, Berger and Lewis decided to build it into the law school’s annual Lionel O. Grossman Mock Trial Competition, making the experience of interacting with the student journalists available to a wider array of law students.

“I honestly don’t know of another law school that has attempted something like this,” Berger says. “It gives law students a taste of having to represent a client in the media as well as in the courtroom.”

The Newhouse students were required to request permission from the court, overseen by Berger, to allow a television camera in the courtroom and must adhere to the court’s restrictions limiting its movement. The law students were encouraged to make themselves available for interviews with the reporters following the verdict.

The experience marked a role reversal for law student Jackie Napier, a former television reporter at WHAM-TV (ABC) in Rochester, New York, who played the role of a prosecutor in the competition.

“I cannot overstate just how important I think accurate court reporting is,” Napier says. “The broadcast students I met through this competition really showcased the high level of training that Newhouse is known for.”

Lewis and Berger came up with the idea when Lewis approached the law school about having his students observe a mock trial to learn more about the court system. Berger proposed having the journalism students cover it like an actual trial, exposing the law students to working in the media spotlight.

“You never know, some of these students could meet again at a real trial someday,” Lewis says. “My hope is that both the reporters and the lawyers will have a better understanding of where the other side is coming from as a result of this experience.”

Feb. 24, 2026, marks four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As the war enters its fifth year, major questions remain about its trajectory, the prospects for diplomacy, the durability of Western support and the long-term geopolitical and economic consequences for Europe and the broader international community.

Syracuse University experts are available to provide analysis on where the conflict stands today, what may come next and how the war continues to reshape global security dynamics. Please see their backgrounds and commentary below. If you would like to arrange an interview, please contact Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Vice Admiral Robert Murrett (Ret.)

, professor of practice at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and deputy director of the Institute for Security Policy and Law, can speak to military and defense strategy, international relations, and national security. He says:

“As we mark the fourth year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it is important to note that Moscow has not changed their original goals from the war, which extend beyond Ukraine and impact western Europe and elsewhere.�� Notwithstanding all the setbacks that have been sustained by Russia –on the battlefield, in their economy and with the exodus of so many of their talented young people – the insular Kremlin leadership shows no signs of wanting to negotiate a truce or overall negotiated settlement, and in fact that they want the war to continue.

“At the same time, Ukrainian insistence on effective security guarantees and being able to control their own destiny are goals that are unlikely to change.�� The Ukrainian people want to be able to support a pro-western government of their choosing, a military that can defend their country and overall domestic security.�� All of this suggests that the war will continue for some time into the future, unless significant cost-imposing steps can be mounted by the international community that will genuinely impact the maximalist aims and calculus inside the Kremlin.”

Daniel McDowell

, professor of political science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, is an expert on international political economy, international finance, international monetary system and IMF.��He says:

“While Western sanctions have slowed Russia’s economic growth and hampered its military, they have failed to change Vladimir Putin’s decision to continue prosecuting the war in Ukraine. Russia’s economy has, as a consequence of the sanctions, grown highly dependent on China as a trade and financial partner.

“Meanwhile, as U.S. economic and military support for Ukraine has waned, Europe is faced with a decisive test: whether it can compensate for America’s declining role in Ukraine’s defense in the short-term while also funding a long-term remilitarization strategy needed to deter further Russian aggression. The answer will dictate the future of the Russo-Ukraine war and, possibly, the future of Europe itself. ”

Lauren Woodard

, assistant professor of anthropology in the Maxwell School, has expertise in political anthropology, migration and borders, race and ethnicity and former Soviet Union, including Russia, Georgia and Kazakhstan. She says:

“Four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, support for Ukrainian refugees is unfortunately waning. In the immediate aftermath of Russia’s escalation of war, American and European governments and citizens showed unprecedented support for those displaced from Ukraine.

“Millions of volunteers across Europe, but especially in Poland, Germany and Czechia, worked together to host Ukrainian refugees, offering their homes, collecting clothing and needed items, and pressuring their governments to offer widespread protection. In the U.S., people hung Ukrainian flags on their lawns, donated to Ukrainian aid organizations and sponsored families through the Uniting for Ukraine humanitarian parole program.

“Four years later, Polish President Karol Nawrocki has signed a bill ending special status for Ukrainians, and many Ukrainians face an uncertain future in the U.S., with the Trump administration pausing the Uniting for Ukraine initiative and all pending asylum applications.

“Sadly, the initial welcome of refugees and then their abandonment is similar to what I observed during my research in Russia after 2014. Because of its proximity and cultural and familial ties, most refugees from Ukraine have gone to Russia over the past 12 years.

“As in the U.S. and Europe, officials and citizens welcomed Ukrainian refugees from Donbas, offering grassroots support and notably access to Russian citizenship. Between 2014 and 2022, though, support for Ukrainians in Russia waned, and as I argue in my forthcoming book, ‘Ambiguous Inclusion: Migration and Race on the Russia-China Border’ (UTP, April 2026), this reveals how migration categories, whether one is deserving of support, are always fluctuating, subject to shifting geopolitical moods.

“At the same time, we can look to the early months after the war started and escalated for solutions—grassroots activism instead of camps and large-scale aid delivery that mobilized local communities to build relationships and support people, regional as opposed to national coordination, and attention to the power of narratives—how we talk about immigration and refugees matters.”

Brian Taylor

is a professor of political science in the Maxwell School, expert in Russian politics and author of the highly acclaimed book “The Code of Putinism.” He says:

“In February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin thought he was launching a ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine that would be over in a matter of days or weeks. Four years later, Russia now occupies only about 20% of Ukrainian territory, less than it held in the first months of the war, and has suffered the death of roughly 300,000 soldiers.

“Ukraine and Ukrainians have suffered greatly, no more so than this brutal winter of Russian attacks on energy infrastructure.�� Despite the carnage, the stalemate on the battlefield and months of U.S.-sponsored negotiations, there is little reason to think the war will be over soon.

“Putin still wants to control Ukraine and shows no inclination to stop, and Ukrainians remained committed to defending their freedom and independence.”

Hon. James E. Baker

is the director of the and a professor in the College of Law and the Maxwell School. He also serves as a judge on the Data Protection Review Court. He says:

“Virtually every day brings a new lesson from Russia’s war against Ukraine for policymakers, security professionals and lawyers to study about drone warfare, the use of AI to target and defend the electromagnetic spectrum, the defense industrial base, and the role and limits of international humanitarian law, to name a few.

“The first states and militaries to identify and adopt these lessons will have immediate and perhaps long-term advantage, maybe a decisive advantage. This is true in Ukraine itself, but also in the frontline states that border Russia, and in the great power contest between the United States and China.

“There are two lessons that should immediately resonate with national security lawyers, wherever they serve. First, freedom is not free, it is the product of constant effort, or in the vernacular of U.S. practice, it requires us to support and defend the Constitution on a daily basis; it always has. The people of Ukraine are an inspiration. Against the odds, and in cold and dark trenches and basements, they have shown the world what it means to fight for freedom on and off the battlefield. I think of Ukraine and I thank Ukrainians every day for their example.

“Second, security guarantees do not derive from pieces of paper, even treaties, and even treaties with Article Vs. Security comes from alliances based on shared values, military capacity and the political will to defend those shared values.”

Who is allowed to work in the United States—and under what conditions—has long been shaped by the intersections of immigration and employment law. While these questions are frequently in the national spotlight today, the complex layers and legal frameworks behind them have been evolving for decades.

Recognizing both the historical significance and modern urgency of these issues, the launched its first residency focused on the interweaving of immigration and employment statutes and regulations, drawing students eager to explore how policy, economics and legal precedent converge.

The Intersections of Immigration and Employment Policy and Law: In the Courts, the Agencies, and in the Congress, a four-day residency option designed for JDi students and open to on-campus students, took place last December in Washington, D.C. This popular residency drew a range of students— including a union steward, a sheriff, an individual with an H-1B visa and many other professionals working in a variety of fields—all of whom brought interesting perspectives to the classroom.

The residency was led by the��, Chair and Chief Judge, Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor (presenting on his own behalf) and a distinguished immigration law scholar with more than 25 years of experience working in immigration and employment law on Capitol Hill, with the Department of Labor and in the private sector.

Curriculum Addressed Broader Immigration/Employment Issues

According to Johnson, the residency offered a broad perspective, looking at how conflicts between the courts and enforcement agencies are resolved using a review of general statutory interpretative principles and court cases that examine the interactions of immigration and employment laws. The residency also examined other legal conflicts as exemplified under the Federal Arbitration Act; the congressional deliberations surrounding the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act; and the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as some of the more influential court decisions handed down over the past six years, such as “Loper Bright, v. Raimondo,” “SEC v. Jarkesy” and “Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.”

“This residency clarified that immigration law, employment law and administrative law do not operate as separate systems but continuously shape one another— and that their interaction has long-term consequences beyond individual cases,” says attendee Kate Fioravanti L’26, who is a full-time school administrator in a Connecticut urban public school district and the president of the local union affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

“Through discussion of doctrines like��Hoffman Plastics, mandatory arbitration, agency deference and cases such as Plyler v. Doe, the course highlighted how legal rules governing work authorization, enforcement and access to institutions ultimately influence who participates in the workforce, who remains economically stable and how communities develop,” she adds. “For me, the important takeaway was understanding how these legal frameworks collectively affect the country’s labor force, schoolsand economic capacity, making them questions of structural design rather than isolated doctrinal debates.”

Jacie Rodriguez L’26 also found the residency enlightening.

“The best thing I took away was that immigration policies and laws are not simple,” says Rodriguez, a bilingual claims specialist for the U.S. Social Security Administration. “There are many parties invested in the outcome of immigration law, and reform can come to a near standstill without compromise. Policymakers, administrative agencies, Supreme Court decisions, public interest groups and the president himself—everyone has a role that will either stagnate or propel momentum.”

Extensive Network of Speakers Added Unique Expertise

Not only did Johnson utilize case studies and examples from his extensive career in immigration and employment law, but he also tapped into his vast network of experts in this space to speak to and network with the JDi students, adding to the richness of the experience.

“I’m blessed to have such a huge network of professional colleagues—and I’m grateful they took time out of their very busy lives to share their views and experiences with our JDi students,” says Johnson. “When I was going through the students’ final exams, everyone identified different speakers and their appeal, as well as the opportunity to hear about various career backgrounds and, to some degree, think about post-graduation opportunities outside of big law.”

Students left the residency with a greater knowledge and understanding of U.S. immigration and employment law, including the layered complexities within each area. They also gained insight into how courts resolve seemingly inconsistent mandates between statutes, and how to effectively advocate for clients when confronted with conflicting and/or overlapping mandates. They further honed their skills by analyzing immigration law cases and looked closely at how trends shape the law and Congressional deliberations.

“I believe the JDi students walked away with a sense of how this topic is more than just today’s headlines but is a blend of the law and societal mores, and that, as these societal mores change, the law does not remain static,” says Johnson. “The skills shared at the residency are transferable to a lot of other aspects of the legal field. So no matter what area of the law they choose to pursue, I hope the experience gave them another arrow in their quiver as they go through life and represent clients.”

Residency Welcomes High-Level Thought Leaders

The following joined the JDi residency to share their expertise on various topics related to immigration and employment law:

• Jon Baselice, Executive Vice President and Head of Government Affairs, Vantoe, explained negotiations over the worker program in S. 744 and why employers were quite willing to overrule Hoffman while unions thought it would be a win
• Josh Bernstein, Director of Immigration Policy/Director of Immigration for the Service Employees International Union SEIU, U.S. Chamber, immigration programs, spoke about immigration policy, Capitol Hill negations with the U.S. Chamber and immigrant worker programs
• Joshua Breisblatt,��Democrat Chief Counsel, Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. House Judiciary Committee, spoke about immigration negotiations on Capitol Hill
• Kristie De Pena, Vice President for Policy and Director of Immigration Policy, Niskanene Center, gave an update and observations on recent immigration developments and chance of reforms
• Danny Kaufer, Partner, Borden Ladner Gervais, Montreal, spoke about lessons and parallels under Canadian employment law
• Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the HR Policy Association, presented the basics of the NLRA and crossroads with immigration law
• Camille Olson, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw, and Chair, U.S. Chamber’s EEO subcommittee, presented on statutory overlaps
• Laura Reiff,��Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig and Co-chair of GT’s Immigration Practice, talked about union management negotiations and compliance issues
• Gene Scalia, past Secretary of Labor and Solicitor of Labor, explained the balancing legal interpretations of statutes and review of key Supreme Court decisions relating to the APA
• Chris Thomas, Partner, Holland & Hart, spoke about immigration enforcement focus and practical problems faced by employers

Professor Katherine Macfarlane, director of the Disability Law and Policy Program, was elected to chair the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) section on Women in Legal Education (WILE).

Macfarlane previously served as WILE’s chair-elect and treasurer, and has also chaired the AALS section on disability law.

She co-founded the first AALS affinity group for disabled law professors and allies. She frequently presents and writes about students, lawyers and professors with disabilities, and the challenges they face in obtaining reasonable accommodations.

“It is an honor to lead this important and influential section,” Macfarlane says. “I am excited for this opportunity to give back by providing leadership and mentorship to all women in legal education.”

According to the AALS, “The provides information to its members respecting the integration of women and women’s concerns into the legal profession and the law, promotes the communication of ideas, interests and activities among members of the section, makes recommendations on matters concerning the administration of law schools and on the status of women in legal education and makes recommendations on matters of interest in the teaching and improvement of the law school curriculum.”

At the recent held at Boston University’s School of Law, Macfarlane participated in the gender and status in the legal academy and profession panel.

Macfarlane teaches civil rights litigation, constitutional law and disability law and is a senior fellow at the Burton Blatt Institute.

Her scholarship has appeared or will appear in��the��Georgetown Law Journal, Ohio State Law Journal, Washington Law Review, North Carolina Law Review,��Fordham Law Review,��Alabama Law Review,��Yale Law Journal Forum,��Columbia Law Review Forum,��American University Law Review,��William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal and��the Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, among others.

Following NATO’s recent launch of “Arctic Sentry”—a new effort to coordinate Arctic military exercises under a unified command—there are growing questions about what it means for U.S.–European relations, Russia’s war in Ukraine and escalating tensions surrounding Greenland.

Two experts at Syracuse University are available to discuss this topic. Please see their information below. If you’d like to schedule an interview, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

can discuss the significance of this development, what it means for NATO cohesion and how Arctic security is evolving as a strategic flashpoint. Judge Baker is the director of the and a professor in the College of Law and�� Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He also serves as a judge on the Data Protection Review Court.

Retired Vice Admiral is the deputy director of the Institute for Security Policy and Law and a professor of practice in the Maxwell School. Murrett is an expert in national security, military and defense strategy, international relations and more. He shared his thoughts below.

Murrett writes: “NATO Exercise ARCTIC SENTRY is underway, and reflects renewed emphasis on joint and combined exercise activity in the Arctic region for the NATO Alliance. NATO Allied Command Operations and Joint Force Command Norfolk (JFC Norfolk) have responsibility for the exercise activity, which incorporates ongoing exercises, including Denmark’s ARCTIC ENDURANCE and Norway’s COLD RESPONSE. The exercise activity also will also take into account recent changes which include Finland, Sweden and Denmark in the Area of Responsibility for JFC Norfolk, and to evaluate command and control effectiveness in the High North with participation by more than fourteen NATO nations.

“ARCTIC SENTRY also builds on a strong history of combined air, land and sea operations by the NATO Alliance in the North Atlantic and northern Europe. The JFC Norfolk commander, Vice Admiral�� Doug Perry, is also the commander of the U.S. Second Fleet, which was formerly designated as NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic, with parallels to their current JFC responsibilities.

“At the same time, reports that the U.S. is considering giving up command of JFC Norfolk are noteworthy, as such a move may reflect a downturn in U.S. engagement in command structure, the Arctic and second-order impacts on transatlantic maritime capability as well as the U.S.-Canada NORAD Command and SACEUR. In the months ahead, developments in this area, as well as any changes to the U.S. Unified Command Plan, will send strong signals regarding our overall security posture in northern latitudes.”