Associate Professor of Law Jenny Breen discussed legal issues surrounding the appointment of Acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone to be the federal prosecutor covering Upstate New York with Syracuse.com. New York Attorney General Letitia James is arguing that Sarcone was improperly appointed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. Recent rulings in two similar cases found that the appointment of other acting U.S. Attorneys was illegal.
“I think James has a very strong case that he (Sarcone) was unlawfully appointed,” Breen said. “The facts are very similar, but not identical. It seems like the Trump administration is doing this around the country to avoid the Senate process of advice and consent.”
Professor of Law Emeritus William C. Banks discussed with Bloomberg Law the legal implications of the Department of Justice (DOJ) assigning military lawyers, including judge advocates general, as temporary immigration judges. An advisory opinion from the DOJ found that this would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
The opinion also says these detailed judges would be “supervised entirely” by civilians. This “waters down” the Posse Comitatus violation, but it doesn’t remedy it, said Banks.
“They’re still military lawyers and they’re still engaged in law enforcement, whether they have supervisors or not,” he said.
Crandall Melvin Professor of Law Shubha Ghosh spoke with Law 360 on the recent ruling that Meta does not have a monopoly on social media.
Ghosh suggested that Judge Boasberg focused too much on the convergence of the apps and not enough on whether they are actually coming up with something new.
“There’s no discussion about how this particular set of social media is innovating,” Ghosh said. Instead of competition, he mostly just sees imitation.
Ghosh also noted that Judge Boasberg never considers what the market would have looked like had Instagram remained an independent competitor, rendering the opinion “kind of shortsighted.”
Professor of Law Gregory Germain spoke with the Sydney Morning Herald on President Donald Trump’s threat to sue the BBC for $5 billion over how a video was edited.
The president would need to prove that the BBC acted with “actual malice.” “They’ve got to meet the actual malice standard with New York Times versus Sullivan, which is a very tough standard,” said Germain.
The case, if filed, would also have to surmount another legal standard that protected publications that were “substantially true”, Germain said. The remarks that were spliced together were both things Trump said, even if the edit was poorly done, he said.
“I don’t think they should win a Pulitzer Prize for the editing, but it’s not defamatory,” Germain said. “What he’s alleging is that he doesn’t like the way they edited the video, he’s not alleging that they posted a deep fake or something.”
Emma Bissell L’27 and Elyse Maniccia L’26 tied for the Best Overall Brief award at the 2025 Brigadier General Wayne E. Alley Military Law Moot Court Competition. The team also finished third overall. The team was coached by U.S. Army Captain Nick Van Erp.
“I want to congratulate Emma and Elyse for their double accomplishments at this prestigious competition. I also want to thank Captain Van Erp, who has expertly coached numerous Syracuse Law appellate teams, generously and graciously volunteering his time,” said Professor Todd Berger, director of Advocacy Programs at Syracuse Law.
“It was a pleasure working with Emma, Elyse, and Captain Van Erp. Their professionalism and enthusiasm made a strong impression, and we were honored to host them,” said Captain Shannon K. Lorant L’22, Army JAG Field Screening Recruiting Officer.
This year marked the first time Syracuse University College of Law competed in the Brigadier General Wayne E. Alley Military Law Moot Court Competition, the most prestigious military appellate advocacy tournament hosted by the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Syracuse Law’s participation underscores its long-standing national excellence in advocacy and its historic leadership in preparing advocates for military service in the legal profession.
The Brigadier General Wayne E. Alley Military Law Moot Court Competition recognizes the written and oral appellate advocacy skills of law students and showcases the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and its vast opportunities for litigation to law students, law schools, and the public. The tournament is hosted at the United States Army Advocacy Center on Fort Belvoir, VA and the competitors argue a mock case before the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals. Past final round judges were current and former judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and senior trial judges and members of academia.
In response to claims that there would be no court cases if he invoked the Insurrection Act, Banks said it’s “categorically false” that there couldn’t be any court cases.
Banks said the act gives the president “tremendous discretion” and that it is “very heavily weighted on his side.” But it’s “of course not true,” Banks said, “to say a court wouldn’t review what he’s done”; the courts would consider lawsuits over whether there have been violations of the law’s own requirements or violations of the Constitution.
Professor Katherine Macfarlane spoke with Law.com for an article on developments in federal judge shopping rules. This stems from dozens of attorneys backing lawsuits challenging Alabama’s law banning gender affirming care for transgender youth in 2022. U.S. District Judge Lilies Burke of the Northern District of Alabama set in motion a seemingly “unprecedented” probe into their suspected judge shopping practices.
One attorney, Carl Charles, faces criminal charges for allegedly lying during his testimony before a three-judge panel of a jurist from each federal district in Alabama.
Despite the growing controversy over the topic, experts say it’s not illegal. After all, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give plaintiffs one chance to voluntarily dismiss a complaint without prejudice, according to Macfarlane, who studies judge shopping matters and served as the lead author of an amicus brief in Charles’ civil sanctions appeal.
Professor of Law Emeritus William C. Banks spoke with the Associated Press on the deployment of the National Guard to cities by President Trump and what roles the National Guard can fulfill.
The Guard members cannot enforce local laws, block traffic or do “any of the things that police do,” Banks said. “So it’s more symbolic than helpful.”
The Syracuse Medical-Legal Partnership (SMLP), an interdisciplinary clinical collaboration between the pediatric unit at SUNY Upstate Medical University and Syracuse University College of Law, was recently the focus of Upstate Medical University’s The Informed Patient podcast.
The SMLP provides law students with real-world experience as they work with Upstate medical providers to identify legal issues that might involve the health of patients and their families at SUNY Upstate Medical University’s University Pediatric and Adolescent Center and the Pediatric to Adult Transition Clinic for Complex Health.
SMLP Director and College of Law Professor Suzette Meléndez and Sarah Reckess L’09, SMLP Director and SUNY Medical University Assistant Professor of Bioethics and Humanities, were interviewed for the podcast.
Students in the SMLP are encountering several aspects of the law. “What we have been seeing pretty consistently are housing issues and issues with regard to advance directives. And by that I mean people who think they might need a guardianship or a power of attorney or a health care proxy, something designed to support the patient in making medical decisions,” said Meléndez.
She continues, “We also have seen inquiries about the establishment of wills and estates law, particularly from parents who are seeking to provide for their child long-term, and where that child may have a disability. We also see issues of family law. We see issues with regard to domestic violence. We have seen issues regarding custody and where there’s uncertainty as to which parent gets to make medical decisions concerning that child.”
Professor Jenny Breen recently spoke with The Daily Orange on the legal issues around sanctuary cities or jurisdictions and federal immigration law.
According to Breen, sanctuary cities are cities, counties, and states that refuse to enforce federal immigration policies on behalf of the federal government.
Breen said these “sanctuary jurisdictions” are legal under the 10th Amendment, which recognizes states and cities as sovereign entities from the federal government. She said the government cannot “co-opt” cities into doing its work.
