logo
Michael Cardozo, 84, New York City's longest-serving chief lawyer, dies

Michael Cardozo, 84, New York City's longest-serving chief lawyer, dies

Boston Globe14 hours ago
'Some people thought I was going to be a lawyer from the day I was born,' he told Law.com.
Advertisement
From 1996 to 1998, Cardozo served as president of the New York City Bar Association, which was established in 1870 to ferret out corruption in the court system. One of its first investigations led to the resignation of Albert Cardozo, a state Supreme Court justice who was Benjamin Cardozo's father.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Michael Cardozo was a partner at Proskauer Rose (formerly Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn) when he was appointed as the city's corporation counsel by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2002. He stepped down in 2014, returning to Proskauer after setting a record for longevity in that municipal role, which was established in 1839.
As corporation counsel, Cardozo presided over almost 700 lawyers, who juggled a caseload of some 80,000 lawsuits and other legal matters at the city's Law Department.
Advertisement
As the city government's top lawyer, he successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 that the federal courts could resolve disputes between localities and foreign governments over delinquent property taxes. The case, Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, involved the Indian and Mongolian missions to the United Nations in New York.
Cardozo successfully oversaw the case in which a federal judge ruled in 2009 that legislation by the City Council enabled Bloomberg to seek a third term, despite limits imposed by the city charter.
He also defended the Police Department's stop-and-frisk strategy, whose critics said it disproportionately singled out Black and Hispanic men (the tactics were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2013). He defended a city policy of inspecting carry-on bags in the subway; argued in favor of a provision that would have allowed the city to borrow $2.5 billion to pay off 1970s-era debt; and argued, again successfully, for the city's right to impose smoking bans in bars and restaurants as well as additional gun controls.
In 2019, back at Proskauer, Cardozo represented Judith Clark, the getaway driver in a 1981 robbery of a Brink's armored car in Rockland County, New York, in her efforts to win parole after serving 37 years in prison. She won the case.
Cardozo retired from the law firm in 2022, a month after Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York named him to the state ethics commission.
In a recent statement on Instagram, Bloomberg said he had recruited Cardozo 'not only for his sharp legal acumen, but also for his unassailable integrity and lifelong commitment to the city's civic health.'
Michael Alan Cardozo was born June 28, 1941, in Manhattan. His mother, Lucile (Lebair) Cardozo, was a school administrator; his father, Harmon Cardozo, was a real estate executive.
Advertisement
Cardozo grew up on the West Side of Manhattan and in Westport, Connecticut. After graduating from Staples High School in Westport, he earned a bachelor's degree in political science from Brown University in 1963 and a Juris Doctor degree from Columbia Law School in 1966. He went on to clerk for Judge Edward C. McLean of U.S. District Court in Manhattan and then joined Proskauer in 1967; he became a partner in 1974.
When David Stern, a law school classmate who was also a partner at the firm, was named commissioner of the NBA in 1984, Cardozo began representing the NBA, and later MLS and the NHL as well.
In 2002, as the city's new corporation counsel, Cardozo inherited a department that was scattered in dozens of locations after being displaced the year before by the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, which was a block from the main office.
At the Law Department, he created new divisions that focused on volunteer work and specialized in labor law and other issues, and he refused to settle suits against the city that were deemed frivolous.
'We certainly want to send the message,' he told The New York Times in 2013, 'that if you don't bring what we view to be a meritorious case, you're going to have a big battle on your hands.'
During his time with the Law Department, the city settled a number of lawsuits involving police abuse and also defended against challenges to the beefed-up security it imposed after the 9/11 attack.
Reflecting on his tenure as the city's chief legal officer, Cardozo told students at Columbia Law School in a 2014 lecture that in defending or enforcing existing laws on behalf of the city, he was sometimes compelled to take a stance that he may have disagreed with personally. One example, he said, was when the city appealed a court ruling declaring that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Advertisement
In addition to his daughter Sheryl, Cardozo is survived by his wife, Nancy (Cogut) Cardozo, whom he married in 1965; another daughter, Hedy Cardozo; and three grandchildren.
Cardozo was particularly focused on the judicial system. He lobbied for higher pay for judges, who were overworked, he said. (At one point, he was a member of the New York State Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation.) And he expressed frustration with the court system over what he called its repeated delays in trial decisions.
In 2009, he said publicly that the 'entire culture' of the judicial system 'must be changed' to 'improve judicial accountability and, with it, judicial performance.' For those comments, he was rebuked in a letter published in The New York Law Journal and signed by 18 of 20 state Supreme Court justices.
In an online tribute after Cardozo's death, Bret Parker, the executive director of the New York City Bar Association, singled out Cardozo's 'long-standing commitment to the rule of law and tireless advocacy for an independent judiciary.'
This article originally appeared in
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Opens New Front in Politicization of the US Economy
Trump Opens New Front in Politicization of the US Economy

Bloomberg

time43 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump Opens New Front in Politicization of the US Economy

I'm Malcolm Scott, international economics editor in Sydney. Today we're looking at concerns over Trump's assault on America's economic institutions. Send us feedback and tips to ecodaily@ And if you aren't yet signed up to receive this newsletter, you can do so here. For months, economists have warned that Trump's relentless criticism of Federal Reserve Governor Jerome Powell risks undermining faith in America's economic institutions and even the mighty greenback itself.

Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain
Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain

Refinery29

time2 hours ago

  • Refinery29

Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain

When news broke that Diane Abbott had been suspended again by the Labour Party for doubling down on her comments about Irish, Jewish and Traveller communities not experiencing racism, I wasn't surprised. Frustrated? Sure. But surprised? Not really. We've seen this playbook before, especially when it comes to Black women who dare to speak boldly and unapologetically. For context, in 2023, Abbott wrote in a letter to The Observer that while Irish, Jewish and Traveller communities experience prejudice, they don't experience racism in the same way as Black people. The backlash she faced was immediate, with the Labour Party suspending her and Keir Starmer labelling her comments as antisemitic. Eventually, she apologised, withdrew her remarks, and was reinstated just in time to stand as a Labour candidate in last year's general election. Recently, when she was asked if she regretted her comments in a BBC radio interview broadcast two weeks ago, she said, 'No, not at all," adding: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism, because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.' It was these remarks that led to her being suspended once again. Let's be clear: what Diane Abbott originally said the first time around was poorly worded, lacked the nuance required, and, legally, was false. While Jewish and Traveller communities are not necessarily racial groups, they are ethnic groups, because they have a collective identity based on shared history, culture and ancestral ties. And under UK law — specifically, the Equality Act 2010 — these ethnic groups are protected as 'races' to prevent them from becoming subject to discrimination. So, although these communities may not constitute as races, they can still, by law, experience racism — making Diane Abbott's claim partly wrong, but not wholly wrong. Ultimately, how we define race can get messy. What really is 'race', anyway? Quite frankly, it's an obsolete term that was created by European scientists during the Enlightenment period to ascribe varying levels of 'intelligence' to people of different skin colours. The very concept of race, therefore, is rooted in prejudice towards people of colour. It has always been weaponised against us and used as a tool to justify white supremacy, the myth of Black inferiority, and atrocities such as slavery and colonialism. This is why there was a very valid truth in what Diane Abbott said, and the backlash she faced tells us more about Britain's discomfort with conversations on race than it does about any single line in her letter. After all, if race as a social construct was created to legitimise the dehumanisation and commodification of Black and brown bodies, then is it wholly wrong to claim that people of colour have a monopoly over the experience of racism? For Black and brown people, racial prejudice plays out differently because we don't get to hide the difference in our identity. We can't take off our skin and put it back on as we please, in the same way a Jewish man can with a kippah or a Roma woman can with a dikhlo headscarf. We have no choice but to wear the very thing that subjects us to hostility and violence everywhere we go. ' Diane Abbott's comments warranted some correction, yes. But they also deserve context. Because if we can't have difficult conversations about the clear differences in how racism operates — in how it shows up depending on who you are and what you look like — then we're not fighting racism. ' I'll never forget when I was refused entry into a club in France while studying abroad. There I was, dressed up, standing outside the club while the white girls I was with were all waved through with ease just minutes earlier. Even after explaining I was with them, and one of them vouched for me, he refused to budge — then let in more white girls after me. Not much needed to be said. His cold glare spoke a thousand words. I wasn't good enough to enter the club because I was Black. It was humiliating. That's what racism rooted in skin colour does. It denies you your humanity before you've even opened your mouth. Just by laying their eyes on you, people decide, 'You don't belong here'. The socioeconomic impact of this is striking. According to the McGregor-Smith Review, people of colour in the UK are less likely to be hired and routinely face hiring discrimination based on their names, racial disparities which cost the UK economy £24 billion annually. We're also less likely to receive business investment or approval for bank loans. In the criminal justice system, we're more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested, and Black defendants are 40% more likely to be jailed than white defendants for the same offences. These aren't just perceptions. They're real-life consequences of institutional racism. And beyond the material impact is the psychological toll of constantly seeing Black bodies brutalised in headlines, on social media, and in the streets we walk every day. I grew up hearing about my male friends getting roughed up by the police for no reason other than the fact that they were teenage Black boys. We were just kids, but society had already decided we were threats. That feeling of constantly being 'othered' simply because of the colour of your skin does something to you. It wears you down. It's a feeling that Diane Abbott is all too familiar with. After all, she was the first Black woman ever to be elected to Parliament and has endured constant racist and sexist abuse throughout her political career. According to Amnesty International, she received almost half of all abusive tweets directed at female MPs in the 2017 election. So when she tried to draw a line between racism faced by people of colour and prejudice faced by other minority communities, she was speaking from her lived experience. I got what she meant. So did most people of colour. It's not that one experience of hostility is worse than another; it's that they're not the same. That difference deserves interrogation, not silencing. But instead of engaging with nuance, Labour weaponised her words – and her apology – against her. It's hard to ignore the fact that this all happened under the leadership of Keir Starmer — a man who called Black Lives Matter 'a moment', and delivered a speech that claimed that further immigration would risk making the UK an 'island of strangers'. Besides, Starmer has been unequivocally vocal about denouncing the 'stain' of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, promising to 'tear out this poison by its roots'. But if suspending Diane Abbott is part of his attempt to do just this, then he is barking up the wrong bush. As Abbott rightly said, any rational, 'fair-minded person' should be able to accept that there is a distinction between racism towards people of colour and discrimination towards white people who have their own ethnic subculture. To pretend this is not the case is simply disingenuous, and, in some way, can be seen as invalidating the reality of racism and its scientific roots. In a statement reacting to her suspension, Abbott said, 'It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out.' She is probably right. This whole scandal isn't about standards or values. It's about punishing a Black woman for making white people uncomfortable, and doing it loudly and unapologetically. Diane Abbott's comments warranted some correction, yes. But they also deserve context. Because if we can't have difficult conversations about the clear differences in how racism operates — in how it shows up depending on who you are and what you look like — then we're not fighting racism. We're oversimplifying it and protecting white feelings. And that helps no one.

Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students
Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students

Axios

time3 hours ago

  • Axios

Trump squeezes states on college tuition for undocumented students

Republican-leaning states, once at the forefront of laws helping undocumented students pay in-state college tuition, are trying to roll back that access thanks to pressure from President Trump. Why it matters: Around 8% of the nation's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants are under 18, and the ending of in-state tuition would make college unaffordable if those laws are reversed. Without in-state tuition, undocumented immigrants who have gone through the state's public school system would still have to pay out-of-state or international rates to attend public colleges and universities. Catch up quick: The repeal efforts follow a Trump administration federal lawsuit filed in June to block the enforcement of Texas laws that grant in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. The complaint states that federal policy bars undocumented immigrants from receiving "tuition benefits denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens," citing Trump's executive orders that instructed agencies to block such practices. The Department of Justice and Texas then reached an agreement to end the two-decades-old law. The DOJ followed with similar lawsuits in Minnesota and Kentucky. Zoom out: According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, 24 states and the District of Columbia offer in-state tuition to undocumented students — though Florida repealed its policy earlier this year. Republicans in many of those states are pushing for their legislatures to repeal their laws. State of play: The Trump administration's move against in-state tuition for undocumented students is one of many to make life difficult for immigrants amid a mass deportation plan. The IRS has agreed to share the personal information of undocumented taxpayers with immigration authorities, for example. What they're saying: "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement. The Trump administration says federal law prohibits public institutions of higher education from providing benefits to undocumented immigrants that are not offered to U.S. citizens. Yes, but: Many of the laws are designed to aid undocumented students who've attended high school for several years to qualify for in-state tuition, just like other state residents. Any student who has not lived in the state for a specified number of years prior must pay out-of-state tuition, regardless of their status. However, some states participate in a consortium that allows in-state tuition to be applied across state lines at certain universities for all state residents who meet the qualifications. The other side: " Ending in-state tuition is a deliberate and wicked effort to keep predominantly Black and brown immigrant students in a permanent caste in society where they are underpaid and exploited," Juan Martinez-Guevara of the advocacy group United We Dream told reporters last week. Advocates argue that states will lose revenue and talent by forcing college-potential students into menial jobs. The rollbacks are "putting in jeopardy the dreams and aspirations of our students," said Gladys Fatima Marquez, an executive committee member at the National Education Association. Between the lines: The push to repeal is a shift from Republicans of the President George W. Bush era, who championed in-state tuition for undocumented students and pathways for citizenship through military service. Bush and his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had long preached that such policy goals were economically beneficial to the country. Texas was the first state to pass a "tuition equity" law, or local Dream Act, when lawmakers approved legislation in 2001. Following Texas, other states like New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska began allowing immigrants access to in-state tuition. The intrigue: Some left-leaning states, such as California and Massachusetts, were slower to pass similar measures. What we're watching: Democratic attorneys general could put up a fight against the Trump administration's rollback.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store