Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Democrats Sue Georgia Election Board
James Sample, professor of Constitutional Law, appeared on Scripps News to discuss the lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Party of Georgia to block that state’s controversial ballot hand-count rule from going into effect in the upcoming presidential election. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Constitutional Law Professor James Sample was interviewed by WCBS-TV about the indictment of NYC Mayor Eric Adams indicted following a federal investigation. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Media Covers Hofstra Debate Watch Party
Media covered a student watch party for the first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on September 10. There were additionally interviews pre- and post-debate with Meena Bose, executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency; Larry Levy, associate vice president and executive dean of the National Center for Suburban Studies; Mark Lukasiewicz, dean of the Herbert School of Communication; Rosanna Perotti, political science professor; and James Sample, constitutional law professor.
Calls for Trump Documents Case to be Reassigned to a New Judge
Professor of Constitutional Law James Sample is part of a group seeking to file an amicus brief with the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, criticizing the Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. CNN.com reported that Professor Sample is one of two judicial ethics experts to join a retired federal judge and the government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, in this effort to reassign the case to a new judge. According to the article, an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief, is from someone who is not a party to the case and is merely meant to provide information to the court. It is up to the court how much legal weight — if any at all – is given to an amicus brief. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Covering Tuesday's Debate? Our Experts are Here to Help
The rules are set, the date is locked in and the political world will be watching as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris face off for the first time at the presidential debate taking place in Philadelphia on Tuesday. It's expected millions will tune in, but if you're a reporter covering the lead up to this much hyped event - then let our experts help with your coverage. Tony Smith’s knowledge of politics covers a large spectrum that includes Constitutional Law, the intricate workings and rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, election law, and the contest over rights in both a domestic and global context. Louis DeSipio examines how democratic nations incorporate new members, including policymaking in the areas of immigration and voting rights. He also studies Latino political behavior. Louis DeSipio and Tony Smith can help with various angles of any political story you're assigned. Both experts are available to speak with media - simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today.
Earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), greatly reducing the restrictions on the drug. It represents a historic change in federal marijuana policy and a watershed moment for generations of activists that have sought legalization on a national level. While many advocates believe the shift bodes well for efforts to relax controls on other Schedule I drugs—including promising psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD– Vanderbilt Law professor Robert Mikos argues that the marijuana rescheduling decision will not pave the way for rescheduling any other drug. Mikos explains that the decision preserves the barriers that make it virtually impossible to remove drugs from Schedule I. He labels those barriers the “tyrannies of scheduling.” In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” forthcoming in Fordham Law Review, Mikos lays out the core challenges posed by the existing scheduling process and offers a solution that would lead to “more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.” The Role of Currently Accepted Medical Use in Scheduling Decisions The CSA creates five Schedules (I-V). Scheduling dictates how a drug is regulated under the statute. Schedule I drugs are subject to the most restrictive controls, and those controls are steadily relaxed as one moves down the schedules. Congress made all the initial scheduling decisions when it passed the CSA in 1970, but it also empowered the DEA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reschedule drugs based on new information acquired after the passage of the statute. Agency scheduling decisions are supposed to be based on three core characteristics of a drug: its abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). Unfortunately, these characteristics do not always suggest the same schedule for a drug. But as Mikos explains, the DEA has grossly simplified the scheduling process by suggesting that CAMU determinations should trump all other considerations. In particular, the agency has insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. According to Mikos, the DEA’s simplification of the scheduling process places tremendous weight on agency CAMU determinations and how the agency chooses to define this particular scheduling criteria. The Tyranny of Science In the past, the DEA insisted that the only way to demonstrate that a drug has a CAMU was by completing multiple controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that a drug is effective at treating some medical indication, the same requirement for new drug approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As Mikos has noted in his past work, completing such trials is “notoriously expensive and time-consuming,” requiring strict parameters and a large number of participants. The challenge is even more daunting for drugs already on Schedule I, because the CSA restricts research on such drugs. Due to regulatory restrictions, marijuana advocates have struggled to complete even a single RCT demonstrating marijuana’s medical efficacy. Indeed, in the past 50 years, only one Schedule I drug (Epidiolex) has ever been able to satisfy the DEA’s CAMU test, leading Mikos to label the agency’s science-focused approach the “Tyranny of Science.” The Tyranny of the Majority In 2023, however, HHS devised an alternative CAMU test that emphasizes practical experience over scientific research. “Because more than 30,000 health care practitioners (HCPs) had already recommended the drug to their patients in the thirty-eight states with medical marijuana laws,” Mikos explains, “the agency concluded there was enough clinical experience to demonstrate that marijuana has a CAMU and thus could be rescheduled.” But while this alternative test does not require completing RCTs – and thereby eliminates the Tyranny of Science – Mikos demonstrates that it is no less tyrannical than the DEA’s original CAMU test. According to Mikos, the alternative CAMU test simply “imposes a different form of tyranny: the Tyranny of the Majority.” He explains that to accumulate the clinical experience needed to satisfy the new test, advocates must convince popular majorities in a substantial number of states to legalize medical use of a drug. It took decades to build the public support necessary to do that for marijuana, and Mikos points out that no other Schedule I drug currently commands the same level of public support as marijuana. “Despite growing interest in the therapeutic value of [psychedelics, . . . less than a quarter of all Americans support legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin,” Mikos writes. “By comparison, 90% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana.” What is more, even if large numbers of states were to legalize medical use of a substance like psilocybin or MDMA, advocates will also have to convince large numbers of patients, their health care practitioners (HCPs), and their suppliers to risk federal sanctions in order to accumulate the clinical experience HHS demands to satisfy the new CAMU test. “While marijuana was finally able to run the gauntlet, no other Schedule I is likely to replicate that feat anytime soon. Other promising Schedule I drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are likely to remain trapped on that schedule for the foreseeable future,” the paper states. A New Way Forward Mikos argues that the agencies did not need to create a new CAMU test to reschedule marijuana. He suggests that the DEA has placed too much emphasis on CAMU in scheduling decisions. The DEA “has no authority, and no good reason, to hold (or place) a drug on Schedule I solely because the drug lacks a currently accepted medical use.” Indeed, Mikos suggests the agency’s emphasis on CAMU runs contrary to the text of the CSA and provides insufficient information about a drug’s benefits and risks to make sensible scheduling decisions. Rather than propose yet another, less tyrannical CAMU test, Mikos suggests that the DEA should instead take a more flexible approach to scheduling, one that considers all 3 criteria – a drug’s abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether or not it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU)—to determine where a drug belongs among the statute’s five schedules. “Although my approach would not make it any easier to demonstrate CAMU, it would reduce the dominant influence CAMU determinations now wield over scheduling decisions,” Mikos concludes. It would enable the agency to remove drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, or MDMA from Schedule I, even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, if their abuse potential and dependence liability so warrant. “As a result,” he notes, “my approach would foster more rational administrative scheduling decisions going forward.”
More on VP Kamala Harris Speaking Out
Professor of Constitutional Law James Sample appeared on WNYW Fox 5 and on WABC-TV Eyewitness News to discuss next steps for the Democratic party and Vice President Kamala Harris’s first public appearance since President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid and endorsed her for president. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
The Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation (VPA) is leading the way in research and policy recommendations on the governance of artificial intelligence. At the Third Annual Networks, Platforms & Utilities conference hosted by the VPA in June, the groundbreaking initiative was commended by FTC Chair Lina Khan for its impact on her work with the agency. As part of Discovery Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation is a groundbreaking initiative to bolster innovative research and education at Vanderbilt. The mission of VPA is to swiftly develop and advance cutting-edge research, education and policy proposals at a pace that aligns with the urgency of today’s challenges. The VPA encompasses several projects, including one dedicated to revitalizing the study of the law and political economy of networks platforms, and utilities (NPUs) in transportation, communications, energy and banking. “Many of our country’s most pressing economic and social challenges are directly tied to how we govern network, platform, and utility industries, including airline flight cancellations, social media regulation, banking failures and electric grid crashes,” said Ganesh Sitaraman, the New York Alumni Chancellor’s Chair in Law at Vanderbilt Law School and director of VPA. VPA’s Project on Networks, Platforms and Utilities has developed a series of papers and policy proposals to improve the governance of these sectors. Among this work are a set of proposals to policymakers for regulating air travel, a plan for stabilizing and regulating the banking sector, and 40 recommendations to promote competition throughout the American economy. With growing interest in AI, VPA has turned its eye to how policymakers can address the harms that come from concentration in the AI technology stack. VPA’s papers have developed an antimonopoly approach to regulating AI, addressed public capacity for AI, and offered proposals on federal procurement of AI resources. VPA’s work in this field has gotten increasing attention. VPA director Ganesh Sitaraman participated in one of the U.S. Senate’s AI Fora in 2023. And during the Third Annual Networks, Platforms & Utilities conference hosted by the VPA in June, FTC Chair Lina Khan specifically noted VPA’s impact on the agency. “I think the work that VPA has been doing on AI has been so enormously useful,” said Khan. “It’s really striking how it took 15 years before the NPU toolkit was even discussed alongside the Web 2.0 giants. So, the fact that from the very get-go this kind of framework is being applied in the context of AI policy discussions really marks that forward movement.” During the June conference, participants—which included 64 attendees from 15 different countries— discussed how their jurisdictions of study approach the regulation of network, platform and utility industries. This year’s conference was structured around eight panels, one on general themes and seven featuring a specific NPU sector: railroads, electricity, banking & finance, airlines, social infrastructure, tech platforms and telecommunications. “Vanderbilt is a leader in research on these topics, and we were very excited to welcome scholars from around the world to Nashville and to Vanderbilt, in order to explore these issues from a comparative and global perspective,” said Sitaraman. In the coming months, the conference organizers intend to compile the papers presented at the conference into an edited volume. To learn more, visit the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator website.
Hofstra Experts Weigh In on the 2024 Presidential Election
Hofstra University boasts a team of distinguished media-ready experts, ready to talk about the newest developments in the 2024 presidential race. They include presidential scholar Meena Bose, constitutional law professor James Sample, media expert and former NBC executive Mark Lukasiewicz, and Lawrence Levy, an expert in suburban studies and suburban voting trends More details on their expertise and recent media appearances are provided below, along with information on how to connect with them for interviews and commentary. Dr Meena Bose Executive Director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency & Professor of Political Science Dr. Meena Bose brings her extensive experience and frequent media presence to discussions on the historic nature of the 2024 presidential race. Recent topics she has been interviewed about include next steps for the Democrats now that President Biden has withdrawn from the 2024 presidential race, former President Donald Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance as his running mate, how the assassination attempt on Trump may have impacted the race, and the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity rulings View Profile & Connect Recent Media Dr. Meena Bose has recently been called on by media to discuss: CNN's Biden-Trump debate; how President Biden may recover from his poor debate performance; and the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. She has appeared on WABC-TV, WNYW Fox 5, Fox radio stations across the country, and Reuters TV. She is frequently interviewed by Newsday and Newsweek, and her expertise has also been prominently featured in The Washington Post and The New York Times. She is the author of the forthcoming book: Pragmatic Vision: Obama and the Enactment of the Affordable Care Act. James Sample Professor, Maurice A. Deane School of Law James Sample, a constitutional law professor, is a sought-after legal and political commentator on legal challenges facing former President Donald Trump, Supreme Court ethics, the broader implications of presidential immunity, and the guilty verdict delivered in the Senator Robert Menendez trial. He most recently was interviewed about President Biden leaving the race and throwing his support behind VP Kamala Harris. View Profile & Connect Recent Media James Sample is a regular commentator for Reuters, CNN, CBS, WNYW Fox 5, and WCBS on topics like the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity; ethics questions facing Supreme Court Justices Alito and Thomas; former President Donald Trump’s legal challenges, including the election interference case and the “Hush Money” trial. In addition to his broadcast media interviews, Professor Sample has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, U.S. News & World Report, the Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, Salon, USA Today, and The National Law Journal, as well as in leading blogs and regional outlets throughout the country. Mark Lukasiewicz Dean of the Lawrence Herbert School of Communication Mark Lukasiewicz offers his expertise on media coverage of the presidential race, drawing on his vast experience in planning and supervising election coverage. Before joining Hofstra, Dean Lukasiewicz was senior vice president of specials at NBC News, planning and supervising coverage of major breaking news events, including presidential elections and debates from 2004 to 2016. View Profile & Connect Recent Media A former NBC executive, Dean Lukasiewicz is available to speak about media coverage of the 2024 presidential race. Recent examples include the June 27th debate and expectations for President Biden’s interview on July 5 with George Stephanopoulos. Before joining Hofstra, Dean Lukasiewicz was senior vice president of specials at NBC News, planning and supervising coverage of major breaking news events, including presidential elections and debates from 2004 to 2016. He has been interviewed in recent weeks by the Wall Street Journal, Newsday, Tribune News Service, Scripps Morning News, and the AP. Lawrence Levy Associate Vice President and Executive Dean of the National Center for Surburban Studies (NCSS) In his leadership role at NCSS, Dean Levy has worked with Hofstra's academic and local communities to shape an innovative, interdisciplinary agenda for interdisciplinary suburban study. He has commented on a variety of political issues – most recently President Biden dropping his reelection bid and what that means for down-ballot elections. View Profile & Connect Recent Media Prior to joining Hofstra, Dean Levy spent 35 years as a reporter, editorial writer, columnist and PBS host, winning many of journalism's top awards (including Pulitzer finalist) for in-depth works on suburban politics, education, taxation, housing and other key issues. As a journalist, he was known for blending national trends and local perspectives and has covered seven presidential campaigns and 15 national conventions. Visit our Expert Center for a full directory of Hofstra experts insights.
From Facial Recognition to Deepfakes: What Could Be Done With Your Image?
Facial Recognition: Convenience and Controversy Facial recognition technology is everywhere, making our day-to-day tasks faster and more convenient. It offers substantial benefits, from enhanced security measures to streamlined user experiences. Airports utilize it for faster check-ins, smartphones use it for secure authentication, and law enforcement agencies employ it for identifying suspects. However, the technology also raises considerable privacy concerns. The pervasive deployment of facial recognition without adequate oversight can lead to unwarranted surveillance, potential biases in profiling, and the erosion of personal privacy. The Rise of Deepfake Technology Meanwhile, deepfake technology has advanced rapidly, leveraging AI to create highly realistic synthetic, or "fake", media. These hyper-realistic videos, showing individuals doing or saying things they never actually did, have become a significant concern. The potential misuse of deepfakes ranges from spreading misinformation and manipulating elections to causing personal distress by enabling crimes like fraud and defamation. Dr. Derek Riley, a seasoned media expert, professor and program director of the B.S. in Computer Science program at Milwaukee School of Engineering, is available to discuss how these technologies work, how they're regulated, how they can be used in a positive manner, and how individuals can protect themselves.
