The CLOUD Act’s Impact on Cross-Border Investigations

Written By Kristina Cervi


United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation

On December 4, 2013, in response to an application by federal law enforcement agents, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis of the Southern District of New York issued a search warrant that authorized the search and seizure of all e-mails and other information associated with an account believed to be furthering illegal drug trafficking. Under the §2703 warrant, Microsoft was compelled to disclose to the Government the contents of the specified e-mail account and all other records or information “[t]o the extent that the information . . . is within [Microsoft’s] possession, custody, or control.”

Microsoft’s Global Criminal Compliance team (“GCC”) produced the non-content information stored on servers in the United States. However, once the GCC determined that the target account’s data was hosted and stored in Dublin, Ireland, Microsoft filed a motion seeking to quash the warrant to the extent that it directed the production of information stored abroad. Microsoft cited the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule 41”) in their motion, claiming “[f]ederal courts are without the authority to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States.”

Judge Francis ultimately denied the motion which was later adopted by the District Court, and Microsoft was held in civil contempt for refusing to comply fully with the warrant. Microsoft appealed to a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit contending the SCA and Rule 41 preempted the production of information stored overseas. The Government continued to argue that Microsoft had full control of the data and should be compelled to turn it over despite its overseas storage location. The Second Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to quash and vacated the civil contempt order, holding “that requiring Microsoft to disclose the electronic communications in question would be an unauthorized extraterritorial application of §2703” of the SCA as had been argued by Microsoft at the district level.

Tech Industry Takes It to The Hill

On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the United States’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari. As both parties prepared for their day before the highest court in the land, Microsoft sought creative solutions and spearheaded a lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. Joined by parties like Apple, Facebook, and Google that could also be implicated by warrants like the one at issue here, Microsoft drafted a letter to Congressional leadership on February 6, 2018. The letter encouraged members of both Houses to adopt the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (“CLOUD Act”), a bipartisan bill that would amend the SCA and deliver “a logical solution for governing cross-border access to data” while also protecting customers and data holders with the law. The CLOUD Act essentially provided the legal answer to the question of law that parties argued over in front of the Court on February 27, 2018.

On March 23, 2018, Congress passed the $1.3 trillion Omnibus spending bill which included the CLOUD Act and President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 into law. Under the CLOUD Act, companies must provide information properly requested by law enforcement, “regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States.” The CLOUD Act offers mechanisms for companies or the courts to reject or challenge the warrants, if the request violates the privacy rights of the foreign country storing the data, and if it does not overcome the muster of international comity which seeks to restrain the reach of domestic laws abroad.

Consequently, on April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed United States v. Microsoft Corp. on grounds of mootness, citing to the authority of the CLOUD Act. The Court explained that the Government had obtained a validly legal search warrant under the new version of §2703 and that no outstanding disputes remained.

What’s next for cross-border investigations?

The CLOUD Act ultimately provides clarity in a field of law that was in desperate need of an update. The Act preserves the common law right of cloud service providers to challenge search warrants where a conflict of laws exists and to evolve in the wake of the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulations. Tech companies expect that Europe will consider the comity analysis requirements of the CLOUD Act and decide its own fate in terms of U.S. search warrants.

Further, the law will supplement Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, which have become increasingly antiquated in the Digital Age. The law provides authority and a framework for the U.S. to establish international agreements. This framework only supports executive agreements with countries that protect privacy and human rights by mandating a broad and robust set of protections found enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. These include the rule of law and principles of nondiscrimination; lawful interference with privacy; fair trial rights; freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly; and prohibitions on arbitrary arrests and prohibitions or cruel and unusual punishment.

Overall, the CLOUD Act is a modern legislative action worthy of praise. Companies like Microsoft are able to preserve data privacy in the interest of their consumers through the outlined appellate process. Law enforcement has clarity in an area of law that was becoming increasingly vague, and the CLOUD Act will now streamline the global data exchanges commonly used in cross-border investigations of major crimes. Lastly, the international community will benefit from the enhanced privacy protections and the outlined executive agreement requirements that provide legal structure for the digital evidence gathering phases of criminal litigation.

Sources Cited

Devin Coldewey, Supreme Court dismisses warrant case against Microsoft after CLOUD Act renders it moot, TechCrunch (Apr. 17, 2018).

Taylor Hatmaker, As the CLOUD Act sneaks into the omnibus, big tech butts heads with privacy advocates, TechCrunch (Mar. 22, 2018).

In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F.Supp.3d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197 (2nd Cir. 2016).

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ___ (2018).

2383, 115th Cong. (2018).

Dylan Matthews, Congress’s new $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, Vox (Mar. 23, 2018).

John Wagner and Mike DeBonis, Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill despite veto threat on Twitter, The Washington Post (Mar. 23, 2018).

Brad Smith, The CLOUD Act is an important step forward, but now more steps need to follow, Microsoft (Apr. 3, 2018).

Photo courtesy of FCW.

Published: Elizabeth Snyder

We are proud to announce that the Law Review Note of 3L and Executive Editor Elizabeth Snyder will be published!

Publication: Syracuse Law Review, Volume 68, Book 1

Article: “Faceprints” and the Fourth Amendment: How the FBI Uses Facial Recognition Technology to Conduct Unlawful Searches


Taking a Gander at Partisan Gerrymander

Written By Kyle Palmore



This term has seen a number of partisan redistricting cases come before the United States Supreme Court. So far, the Court has heard oral arguments for Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone. Later this month, the Court will hear oral arguments for a third case concerning partisan gerrymandering: Abbott v. Perez. The decisions from these three cases have the potential to greatly impact the jurisprudence of partisan redistricting. The last time the Supreme Court spoke about partisan redistricting was in Vieth v. Jubelirer in 2004. In Vieth, the Court held that challenges to partisan gerrymanders were not in the purview of courts and were non-justiciable. As in many cases in the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote. Justice Kennedy believed that a challenge to an extreme partisan map could have been justiciable if there was a clear standard for deciding when partisan redistricting becomes unconstitutional. As oral arguments for Abott near, the question remains whether Justice Kennedy will find if any of these cases present a clear standard for the Court to apply.

Gill v. Whitford

At the start of this term, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Gill v. Whitford, which involved challenges to Wisconsin’s voting districts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In 2016, the district maps made by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2011 were declared unconstitutional as partisan gerrymander. A three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin concluded that the maps showed “bad intent and bad effect” and that the map drawers used partisan measurements to ensure there was a Republican advantage.

During elections in 2012 and 2014, Democrats won a majority the votes in the statewide Assembly elections; however, Republicans took a majority of the seats in the state Assembly. For example, in 2012, Republicans made up only 48.6 percent of the vote, but gained 60 seats in the Assembly. Conversely, Democrats won 53 percent of the votes and only took 39 seats in the Assembly. Wisconsin Republicans argued that the maps reflected a natural geographic advantage.

When bringing this case before the Court, the plaintiffs argued that the state legislature diluted the Democratic vote by “cracking” and “packing” districts. The plaintiffs used the “efficiency gap” to make their argument. The efficiency gap shows the number of votes that are “wasted” during elections. Votes can be “wasted” in two ways. First, there can be more votes than needed in order for a candidate to win. Second, there can be too few votes to elect a candidate. The efficiency gap determines if a redistricting plan is biased against a party that “wasted” more votes than the other party. Positive values show an advantage for Democrats and negative values show an advantage for Republicans.

In the two aforementioned elections, the efficiency gaps were -13 and -10, respectively. These numbers identified a significant advantage for Republicans

Benisek v. Lamone

At the end of March, the Court heard a second case involving partisan gerrymandering, Benisek v. Lamone. In 2012, Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican, lost the congressional seat he held for 20 years by a 20 percent margin in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District. Previously, in 2010, Bartlett won that same seat by a 28 percent margin. Consequently, Republican voters in Maryland challenged the redrawing of the congressional district under the First Amendment.

Plaintiffs argued that the Democratic lawmakers in Maryland redrew the district in order to retaliate against those who supported Barlett and to dilute the Republican vote in the district. They further argued the district was redrawn to include more Democrats and to exclude Republicans. They argued that this violates the First Amendment as public officials may not retaliate against individuals for their expression. Here, lawmakers retaliated against voters that associated with a particular party when they redrew the district with the intent to dilute votes for the party not in power. Because of this intent, the Plaintiffs argued the new district map must be invalidated.

During oral arguments, Justice Kennedy expressed interest in the issue of a legislature drawing districts to favor the party currently in power. When the district in question was redrawn to accommodate for a population growth, lawmakers moved the district’s boundaries to include a very Democratic district. This change made the district more likely to vote Democrat than it had in the past. He asked whether this test would preclude legislatures from redrawing districts to account for a population shift that reduced support for a party. This question resembled one Justice Kennedy asked lawyers in Gill.

Abbott v. Perez

This month, the Supreme Court will again take on partisan redistricting via Abbott v. Texas. Abbott is the result of two Texas lawsuits, both named Abbott v. Perez, which centered around two maps—one for congressional districts and one for state legislative districts.

Starting in 2011, voters in Texas filed lawsuits alleging Texas violated both the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuits alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Texas’ Republican-controlled legislature redrew congressional and legislative plans in order to dilute the vote of Latinos and African Americans, who made up 90 percent of Texas’ new population growth. Due to the growth, the state gained four new seats in the House of Representatives. In 2011, the Texas legislature redrew district maps to incorporate the new seats.

The newly redrawn district maps never went into effect. A three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas blocked district maps prior to the 2012 election and created interim maps. The State appealed to the panel’s decision to the Supreme Court, which “threw out” the interim maps and told the State’s legislature to use the old district maps to draw new maps. In 2013, the Texas legislature adopted new maps, which were virtually the same to the maps it drew in 2011.

The maps, the 2011 district map and the newly adopted 2013 district maps, were once again taken to the district court. In August 2017, a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas invalidated two congressional districts. It found that one violated both the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and that the other was drawn to minimize minority voting power and constituted impermissible racial gerrymandering. The panel also found that state legislative districts were intentionally packed and cracked districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth Area in order to dilute the minority vote. The most important holding for the panel was that the State’s districts were redrawn based on a “litigation strategy” as parts of the 2011 maps that were declared unconstitutional remained unconstitutional in the 2013 maps. The State did not redraw the maps to comply with the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, but rather to shield the State from further legal challenges. The State was ordered, once again, to redraw the maps.

Shortly after the panel’s decision, Texas filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, asking for an injunction. The Court issued a temporary stay in response, and the consolidated cases will be argued on April 24, 2018.


Over the past six months, the Supreme Court has entertained a myriad of arguments concerning political redistricting. Of the nine Justices, only four were in the bench in 2004 when the court heard Vieth – Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Kennedy. In Vieth, Justices Thomas and Kennedy voted with the majority; and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg joined the dissent. Nevertheless, the question remains: has the Court finally found a case that presents a clear standard that can be used in determining whether or not state legislatures have engaged in unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering? While the outcome of these cases is not clear, one thing is: Justice Kennedy remains the swing vote on this issue, and his vote could potentially change how partisan redistricting is viewed.


Sources Cited

Adam Liptak, Supreme Court, Again Weighing Map Warped by Politics, Shows no Consensus, N.Y. Times (Mar. 28, 2018).

Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear, Kennedy’s Vote is in Play on Voting Maps Warped by Politics, N.Y. Times (Oct. 3, 2017).

Amy Howe, Argument Preview: Texas Redistricting Battles Return to the Court, SCOTUS Blog (Apr. 18, 2018).

Barry C. Burden, Everything You Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Big Gerrymandering Case, Washington Post (Oct. 1, 2017).

Greg Stohr, U.S. Supreme Court Grapples with Partisan-Gerrymandering Lawsuits, Bloomberg (Mar. 28, 2018).

Mark Stern, Undecided Court, Slate (Mar. 28, 2018).

Robert Barnes, Even on Second Look, Supreme Court Seems Stumped on Gerrymandering Issue, Washington Post (Mar. 28, 2018).

The Supreme Court Takes on Two Redistricting Cases from Texas, Economist Blog (Jan. 15, 2018).

Photo courtesy of ExchangeWire.

There’s Something Brewing in your Coffee…But Do We All Need to Know?

Written By Amanda Cramer


California is relatively progressive when it comes to most issues. But has it gone too far? A judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that coffee must now carry a warning about a cancer-causing chemical simmering inside each cup. While such a decision may sound ominous, a look inside California’s mechanism for imposing such warnings proves that these cancer notices may be anything but.

Proposition 65

All over California, people cannot seem to escape warning signs in bold, capital letters of the risk of cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms from various products. This all began when California voters passed legislation called Proposition 65, formally known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Under Proposition 65, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment compiles a list of chemicals, currently at nearly 900, that are known to cause cancer or birth defects. Businesses in California are then required to alert consumers if any of these chemicals are present on their premises. The law relies on citizen enforcement, and it allows anyone to sue. There is no injury requirement, and plaintiffs do not even need to have purchased the product that is the subject of the suit. Further, the law incentivizes private plaintiffs by allowing them, if successful, to share in any civil penalties awarded, in addition to entitling them to seek attorney’s fees.

Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al.

In 2010, a not-for-profit group, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, sued 90 coffee retailers, arguing that they were violating Proposition 65 by failing to warn consumers of a chemical in their coffee that could cause cancer. The chemical, acrylamide, forms naturally in some foods as they are cooked at high temperatures, and it has been found to cause cancer in mice in high doses. That danger has placed acrylamide on the Proposition 65 list of cancer causing chemicals.

The case was divided into phases, with the first phase of the trial covering “Defendants’ affirmative defenses of (1) ‘no significant risk level’; (2) First Amendment; and (3) federal preemption.” The court rejected the defendants’ arguments during this phase of the trial and, thus, the defendants moved on to phase two of the case, where a ruling was released on March 28, 2018.

In phase two, the defendants––who include Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc., the J.M. Smucker Company, Kraft Foods Global, and Starbucks, among others––argued that the levels of acrylamide in coffee should be considered safe and that the health benefits of coffee outweigh the risks of acrylamide. The defendants tried to prevail at trial by showing that, while their product may contain acrylamide, considerations of public health would support such an alternative risk level for exposure to the chemical, in addition to showing that this alternative level is supported by a quantitative risk assessment. They presented evidence from renowned experts, such as David Kessler, the former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under both President Bush and President Clinton. Another expert, who performed a quantitative risk assessment of acrylamide, was also used. However, the court ultimately ruled that the “[d]efendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health.”

The defendants are represented by lawyers from many of the nation’s largest law firms. The plaintiff is represented by a four-person firm. Ultimately, this was a David-and-Goliath battle, and David and his slingshot prevailed.

Burden of Proof 

The defendants’ loss might seem surprising, however, much of it may have to do with the high burden of proof they faced in this case. When a plaintiff brings suit under Proposition 65, he or she only needs to show that a chemical in a product sold by a defendant is listed as harmful under the law. The burden is then shifted to the defendant to prove that the chemical is present at such a low level that the product does not require a warning. Here, the defendants had to prove that acrylamide in coffee would not cause one or more cases of cancer for every 100,000 people exposed, over a period of 70 years.

Statistically, meeting this empirical burden was a near practical impossibility for the defendants. The lifetime risk of cancer is one in two; thus, of the theoretical 100,000 coffee drinkers exposed to acrylamide, roughly 50,000 of them would eventually develop cancer for a host of other reasons in 70 years. Therefore, proving that one of those 100,000 people would develop cancer specifically because of acrylamide, rather than family history, genetics, or any other carcinogenic exposures would require a 70-year long study carefully controlling all the exposures to everything on earth in more than 100,000 people. But experimenting with 100,000 people would still not be enough. It would require more than 85 billion participants to build up the statistical power to support a strong claim that acrylamide does not cause cancer in one or more people out of every 100,000. This would become the largest, longest, and costliest study in the history of biomedical research, by orders of magnitude.


While this may all seem daunting, it is important for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers outside of California to be aware. Proposition 65 allows a suit to be initiated against any company with more than 10 employees doing business in California. After a successful suit, not only would a warning be necessary for the product, but companies could also be required to pay penalties of “up to $2,500 ‘per day for each violation.’” This means that even small, New York companies, who have no similar law in their states, but that occasionally sell products to stores in California, should be aware of the listed chemicals under Proposition 65 in order to make their business decisions accordingly.

Although many businesses have been ‘steaming’ over the ruling, they are not the only ones feeling the impact. When cancer notices are brewing everywhere, from indoor garages to the Disneyland Resort to any place that serves alcohol, this may quickly diminish the purpose of the law and make customers overlook such warnings.



Sources Cited

Alexander Nazaryan, Will coffee in California come with a cancer warning?, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 18, 2018).

Brendan Borrell, Are Proposition 65 warnings healthful or hurtful?, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 2, 2009).

California coffee may soon come with a cancer warning, but should consumers worry?, CBS News (Feb. 8, 2018).

Council for Educ. and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., et al., No. BC435759, (Super. Ct. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018).

David Spiegelhalter, Coffee and cancer: what Starbucks might have argued, University of Cambridge: Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication (Apr. 2, 2018).

Jenna Greene, Daily Dicta: Bitter Brew: What Went Wrong in California’s Coffee Lawsuit, The American Lawyer: Litigation Daily (Apr. 2, 2018).

Nate Raymond, Starbucks coffee in California must have cancer warning, judge says, Reuters (Mar. 29, 2018).

Norman C. Hile, et al., Beware Calif.’s Proposition 65, Law 360 (Jul. 19, 2011).

State of Cal. E.P.A. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment Safe Drinking Water And Toxic Enforcement Act Of 1986, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity (Dec. 29, 2017).

Photo courtesy of CNN.

April 2018: Philip Rossetti (L’81)

When a new class of associates joins Latham & Watkins in Boston, they’re always treated to a ‘pep talk’ by one of the founding partners of the Boston office: Phil Rossetti. Phil tells them about the importance of paying attention to detail, treating others with respect, and putting in the work. While all of this sounds rather obvious, Phil says that the most pragmatic and obvious of tasks are what make all the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer.

Phil Rossetti                                Partner,                                            Latham and Watkins (Boston)

Phil grew up just a few miles outside of Syracuse, New York, in the Town of Marcellus. He studied economics at the University of Rochester but then returned to Syracuse for law school, having always loved Syracuse University. He recalls how he and his high school friends would go to Marshall Street to browse the records at the local record store, or how they would  sit on the floor of Manley Field House to watch the Orangemen play basketball.  It was only natural that Phil chose Syracuse University College of Law to get his juris doctor.

In 1978, he began his 1L year. Phil had always loved business, and he realized that he wanted to be a part of corporate law and the immense possibilities that came with it. So, he started taking classes and internships that would prepare him for that career.

One of those legal internships, held during his 2L summer, was working as an associate for Bond, Schoeneck & King in downtown Syracuse. As for activities, Phil was very involved in the Syracuse Law Review, where he served as Editor-in-Chief during his 3L year. He recalls working in E.I. White Hall, where the members would gather together in their little office to read page proofs and work on the quickly-growing issue, the Survey of New York Law, now the cornerstone publication of the Syracuse Law Review.

Phil enjoyed being involved in these academic endeavors because he felt that law school made him feel as though he was “studying something he could really use and implement in his career and profession going forward.” Some of his favorite professors – Ted Hagelin, Richard Goldsmith, and Peter Bell – taught him to understand the legal principles while fitting them into a larger context, which he found particularly helpful. He even remembers going home for Thanksgiving his first year and telling his parents, “Don’t tell anyone, but I actually really like law school!”

Following law school, Phil accepted a position in Boston at the firm of Hutchins & Wheeler. He knew that New York City was a hot spot for many of his colleagues, but he felt that Boston offered a sophisticated legal practice in a manageable and livable city.

“Corporate law and business have always been strong dynamics in Boston, particularly in the ‘80s and ‘90s when the economy was very strong,” he said. “The market was also strong for lawyers in Boston. I think the great part, though, was that the educational institutions and culture of Boston generated a tremendous number of technology companies and startups. That’s where I wanted to be.”

Following his time with Hutchins & Wheeler, Phil moved over to Hale and Dorr, which years later merged with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering to become WilmerHale. For nearly three decades Phil worked at WilmerHale, where he worked on mergers and acquisitions, IPOs, tech company startups, and more. He loved the work, he loved Boston, and he was about to be presented with a new and exciting opportunity: to become a founding partner of a new office.

In 2011, Phil and five other attorneys opened the Boston office of Latham & Watkins, with Phil serving as the office managing partner for the first four years. Today, Phil continues to work in corporate and securities law with an emphasis on mergers and acquisitions, emerging companies, and venture capital financings.

“I really enjoy being able to counsel companies and to help them grow,” he said. “I pride myself on being able to give good business advice in addition to legal advice.  I have seen so many situations over the years and have come to love the life cycle of a company . . . I have lived that life cycle so many times that I can anticipate issues and help position a client for the best outcome.”

“People rely on lawyers to anticipate all of the things that can happen,” he said. “So, when we’re negotiating contracts or transactions, we need to anticipate what can happen, even if there’s only a 1% chance of happening. If it could, it will, so plan for it.”

It is this type of thinking and experience that has led Phil to be named a leader in Corporate Law and M&A for the last three consecutive years by Chambers USA and to be recommended by The Legal 500 U.S. of 2012.

Today, Phil finds himself offering advice and counsel to more than just clients; he does so for Latham’s new associates and summer associates in the Boston office.

“When I was just starting out, I would travel with a senior partner,” he said. “It was my job to make sure the car was there to pick us up, plane reservations and dinner reservations were set, and that we had directions to the right locations at the right time. It may sound silly and trivial, but planning, paying attention to detail, and taking initiative: that’s what helps you get ahead.  It is important that young lawyers show initiative in everything they do, and don’t wait for someone to figure it out for them.  Practical instincts and attention to detail are what set you apart from everybody else.”

Whether it’s advising a client, or giving a pep talk to a summer associate, Phil has set the bar high, not only for those around him, but for the legal profession.

Syracuse Law Review looks forward to recognizing Phil and his many accomplishments at the Law Review Banquet on April 12, 2018.

This story was written by Legal Pulse Editor Samantha Pallini and is the eighth installment of Syracuse Law Review’s monthly feature, “Alum of the Month.” Stay tuned for next month’s feature on another noteworthy Syracuse Law Review alumnus!


Published: Veronica Ramirez

We are proud to announce that the Law Review Note of 3L and Executive Editor Veronica Ramirez will be published!

Publication: Syracuse Law Review, Volume 68, Book 2

Article: Fashion Statements Turned Endorsements: How FTC Enforcement Could Cripple the Internet’s Trendsetters

While in law school, Veronica served as an Executive Editor for the Syracuse Law Review and Logistics Director of the Moot Court Honor Society. She was also an arguing member of the ABA Appellate Team, a semifinalist of the Lionel O. Grossman Trial Competition and Mackenzie Hughes Appellate Advocacy Competition, and a quarterfinalist of the Bond, Schoeneck & King Alternative Dispute Resolution Competition.

Veronica Ramirez is originally from Miami, Florida and attended the University of Miami where she earned her Bachelors in Political Science and Public Relations. After her first year in law school, Veronica interned at the New York State Attorney General’s office in Rochester, New York. She continued to gain practical experience into her second year of law school, externing at the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of New York. Veronica then spent her second summer at Coughlin & Gerhart in Binghamton, New York and will return as an associate after graduation. Currently, Veronica is externing for the Honorable Therese Wiley Dancks.

In addition to being selected for publication in Volume 68, Veronica also earned the Samuel J.M. Donnelly Publication Award and scholarship.

Published: Ryan White

We are proud to announce that the Law Review Note of 3L and Lead Articles Editor Ryan White will be published!

Publication: Air University Press/United States Air Force JAG Corps

ArticleAutonomous Weapons Systems and the Insider Threat: Why Humans Are the Weakest Link in “Robot Killers”

Ryan is a third-year student at Syracuse University College of Law and a Master of Public Administration candidate at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut for his undergraduate degree, where he was a member of the men’s ice hockey team.

Ryan serves as Lead Articles Editor for the Syracuse Law Review, a research assistant for Professor William C. Snyder at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, and works with the Veterans Legal Clinic.

Ryan was a summer associate for Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. during the summer of 2017. He will return to Arnold & Porter following graduation this year.

Detained Immigrant Minors Guaranteed Access to Abortions