In disability advocacy circles, the has gained a national reputation as one of the most progressive cities in the U.S. for incorporating the ideas and feedback of users with disabilities when creating new handicapped-accessible spaces, according to two prominent disability advocates.

, Baylor University professor of physical therapy and founder of mobility design studio , and , founder of the and a fellow, point to the work on and the adaptive design circles here as a model for other communities to follow.

The Creekwalk is a 4.8-mile paved pathway that runs from the Southside neighborhood to . When city planners and engineers decided to make accessibility a major focus of the Creekwalk, they tapped into local individuals with a range of backgrounds—medical and social model disability advocates, inclusive design experts, students at and local individuals with disabilities. , a city facilities engineer, and , City of Syracuse deputy commissioner of planning and sustainability, first invited local resident to provide a first-person perspective on the plans. McGough, a quadriplegic as the result of an accident at age 21, is the program coordinator at ARISE Inc., a local independent living center.

The project soon drew in others McGough knew: faculty members , professor of industrial and interaction design, and , professor and coordinator of the , who are both ARISE volunteers.

Also joining the group were Upstate Medical University developmental pediatrician and staff members from the , an inclusive preschool in Syracuse. Galloway and Truesdell were aware of the initiative through their involvement with the adaptive design community here.

Carr involved School of Design master’s students because he recognized how the project presented an exceptional opportunity to learn inclusive design via a “living laboratory” at a site adjacent to their class space. He also knew the project supported key University goals for students: experiential learning; community-engaged scholarship; enhanced awareness of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility; and a commitment to human thriving.

The city’s project leaders welcomed student involvement, Houck says. “These projects are something we’ve collaborated on with Don Carr and with other organizations in the community. Our projects are better for it, and it’s wonderful we can have that resource. Carr is raising the profile of the work that’s being done and it’s great that he’s involving his students in these efforts.”

Kerney agrees. “Whether it’s the first fully inclusive and accessible playground, our sidewalks, our recreational amenities, boat launches or trails that are available to all users, increasing access is an important part of serving the entire community. It’s something Mayor Walsh and the whole administration has prioritized,” he says. “The city has a responsibility to serve everybody, and these types of improvements do just that.”

The User View

The student designers began determining how to create a practical experience at the Inner Harbor site based on the disability community maxim, “Nothing about us without us is for us.” Their first step: borrowing a wheelchair to look at the pathway from a disabled user’s perspective.

They digitally mapped the entire Creekwalk path, then started ideating. One student created a video game to familiarize users with the trail virtually before they visit. Another made an app that offers information about all pathway features. A third designed an accessible interactive information kiosk housing electrical ports to recharge electric wheelchairs. Others created an animation of the trail that featured a series of accessible kiosks, each equipped with a joystick controller for those with limited dexterity.

Amaan Khan ’23, a student who worked on that project and who is now a product and branding designer, said the class with Carr was “an absolute pleasure. It taught us that even though societal paradigms are shifting toward inclusivity, we must unlearn many of our ways to better connect people with disabilities to the facilities that already exist. Doing that can unite people and guide them forward as a collaborative community.”

McGough says he welcomed the chance to offer ideas based on his lived experience. “I was excited that they listened to my feedback and wanted to follow up on it, and that they were open to suggestions about accessibility in the community spaces,” he says.

McGough was able to try the kayak launch last fall. It’s built so someone can comfortably transfer into and out of a boat via a bench, pull bars, hoists and a gradual rolling launch system. “I was so excited about this project. Getting out in the boat is such a great experience, getting some sun, being around water and nature, having some exercise and recreation,” McGough says. “It’s really freeing because once the boat is in motion, it’s all me making it happen. It’s a really nice thing to have when a lot of the time you require assistance from other people and aren’t able to feel so independent.”

Three Phases

The project has three access points—the kayak launch at the Inner Harbor and a wheelchair-accessible waterside access ramp at Kirk Park have been built. An access/launch point at Dorwin Avenue is planned as part of the third phase of the Creekwalk trail that is now under design.

A $70,000 grant from the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration program supported the Inner Harbor site, and $380,000 from the Honeywell remediation settlement, for improvements connected to Onondaga Lake, was used for the more extensive construction at Kirk Park. The city continues to apply for grants for ongoing accessibility projects.

A Model Partnership

Working together came naturally to this group, so it’s unlikely they were aware of the “ripple effect” of their cooperation. Fathers believes the city’s openness to including disabled users from the start, the involvement of interested supporters and the inclusion of University faculty and students in the project helped the group gel. “The way the group came together was kind of an organic thing—because disabled people, designers and clinicians began working together in a matter of hours,” he says.

Fathers tells how Truesdell, who was involved in Syracuse’s adaptive design collaboration, referenced that coalescing as “the Syracuse effect”—something she said she had not seen previously in her experience, he says. “She means that in Syracuse, it’s very easy to connect to people with disabilities, their advocates, their families and designers in a way that she hasn’t seen in any other place. It’s all about the people here. She said it was a very powerful thing to observe,” Fathers says.

Galloway says the collective advocacy spirit here “is particularly rare. It’s a model the world needs to come here to look at to see what Syracuse does and how they continue it,” he says. “Where Syracuse jumps into the ‘I’ve never heard of this before’ category is that here, the people with the lived experience are the ones with the power. To step back and let the disability community lead and to have city planners listen and take direction from the folks having lived experience, that’s very unique. So many people in Syracuse break the mold—you’ve got a really radical set of individuals who, from the beginning of the idea, listened and believed and took action from the disability community.”

Hands-On Rewards

The hands-on learning students experienced was important to their training as designers, Carr says. “In teaching design, this is a great way to get students to co-design with individuals in our community to address real needs. Together, we’re able to build, test and modify these ideas on the fly. It’s very rewarding to work alongside someone and then see their immediate reaction vs. purchasing a product that, in the end, might not address their actual need.”

From an inclusive design standpoint having projects where faculty can jump in helps Syracuse be a leader in the accessibility space, and having an adaptive design focus is a major attractor for the University’s graduate design program, Carr says. “That’s because there are opportunities for students to do grant-based work as part of their studies and then apply ideas throughout their careers.”

In a newly-published paper, “,” researchers at Syracuse University College of Arts and Science examine how certain strains of bacteria, and specifically the genetic diversity of acetic acid bacteria, influence the smell and flavor of sourdough bread and even how it is processed by the body.

While previous research has focused more on lactic acid bacteria and yeast in sourdough bread, acetic acid bacteria (AAB) and its the ecology, genomic diversity, and functional contributions remain largely unknown.

Researchers from Syracuse University and Tufts University sequenced 29 acetic acid genomes from a collection of over 500 sourdough starters and constructed synthetic starter communities in the lab to define the ways in which AAB shape emergent properties of sourdough. The team’s work was supported by a  awarded to Syracuse University Professor  earlier this year.

“While not as common in sourdough as lactic acid bacteria, acetic acid bacteria are better known for their dominant roles in other fermented foods like vinegar and kombucha,” says Beryl Rappaport, a Ph.D. student at Syracuse University and lead author of the report along with Oliverio. “For this study, we were interested in following up on previous findings which stated that when present in sourdough, AAB seems to have a strong impact on key properties including scent profile and metabolite production, which shape overall flavor formation.”

To assess the consequences of AAB on the emergent function of sourdough starter microbiomes, their team tested 10 strains of AAB, some distantly related and some very closely related. They set up manipulative experiments with these 10 strains, adding each one to a community of yeast and lactic acid bacteria.

“Since we can manipulate what microbes and what concentrations of microbes go into these synthetic sourdough communities, we could see the direct effects of adding each strain of AAB to sourdough,” says Rappaport. “As we expected, every strain of AAB lowered the pH of the synthetic sourdough (associated with increasing sourness) since they release acetic acid and other acids as byproducts of their metabolic processes. Unexpectedly, however, AAB that were more closely related did not release more similar compounds. In fact, there was high variation in metabolites, many related to flavor formation, even between strains of the same species.”

According to Rappaport, strain diversity is often overlooked in microbial communities, in part because it is difficult to identify and manipulate levels of diversity due to the vastness of microorganisms within a given community. By zooming into the diversity among closer relatives in the lab, researchers can start to understand key interactions in the microbiome.

The impact of this research is two-fold.  When it comes to baking, she says their findings offer bread makers a new direction to shape sourdough flavor and texture.

“Since AAB reliably acidified the starters we worked with and released a large variety of flavor compounds, bakers who want their sourdough to be more sour or to create new flavors may try sourcing a starter with AAB or attempt to capture AAB themselves,” says Rappaport. “We hope that this study helps to shine a light on the diversity of microbes found in sourdough and their important functional roles.”

Their research could also have implications on the health benefits of sourdough bread.

During the fermentation process, AAB generates acetic acid, which significantly aids in breaking down gluten and complex carbohydrates, enhancing the digestibility of sourdough. By examining the genetic diversity of AAB and its influence on acetic acid production, researchers can develop strains that optimize this process.

The team uses sourdough primarily for its use as a model system because the sourdough microbiome is relatively simple to culture and use for repeated experiments in the lab. But their results stretch far beyond baking.

“Our findings will be relevant to people interested in more complex microbial communities, like the human gut or soil,” says Rappaport. This is because the sourdough system can be used to ask questions about ecology and evolution which would be more difficult to ask with more complex systems.

When it comes to the human gut, microbial communities can help build resilience to infections and improve efficiency in breaking down complex carbohydrates, fiber, proteins and fats. In the case of soil, microbes help to break down organic matter and maintain overall soil ecosystem stability. There are many unknowns, however, about how multiple levels of genetic diversity impact these processes.

By recognizing how strain diversity can have community-wide consequences on a microbiome, the team’s insights could have wide-ranging benefits for human health, wellness and environmental sustainability.

To arrange interviews with the researchers, please contact executive director of media relations Ellen James Mbuqe, ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

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

������, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law.

Donald Trump’s legal woes have been the center of international attention throughout this 2024 presidential election year. In less than two months before the Presidential election, here is a summary of where all those cases currently stand.

The E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case.�� Trump’s year of litigation started in January with author E. Jean Carroll recovering  an $83.3 million judgment for defamation against Trump for accusing Carroll of lying when she claimed publicly in 2019 that Trump had sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room more than 20 years earlier, in 1995 or 1996.�� Trump posted a bond to obtain a stay while he appeals the judgment.

The NY Attorney General Financial Statement Fraud Case.�� In February, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil fraud case against Trump for overstating the current market value of his properties in the personal financial statements he had submitted to lenders and insurance companies, came to trial without a jury before Judge Arthur Engeron.�� Normally, civil fraud requires a plaintiff to prove that a victim believed and relied on the truth of the statements, and suffered damages as a result.�� But the Attorney General successfully argued that a special anti-fraud statute, New York Executive Law § 63(12), allows her to recover disgorgement of benefits received without showing that anyone relied on or was harmed by the false statements.�� Judge Arthur Engeron entered a judgment against Trump in February for $354 million in disgorgement, plus interest, which would have required him to post a $464 million bond to obtain a stay pending appeal.�� The appellate division allowed Trump to post a reduced bond of $175 million to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.

The Georgia Election Interference Case.�� On June 5, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order staying District Attorney Fani Willis’s election interference case against Trump to consider Trump’s motion to disqualify the District Attorney for having an undisclosed relationship with her special prosecutor, Nathan Wade.�� The trial judge, Scott McAffee, had previously allowed the case to continue if Nathan Wade resigned to prevent the appearance of impropriety.�� The defendants appealed McAffee’s well reasoned order, and the case has been on hold by the appellate court since that time.�� Frankly, I thought McAffee’s opinion was sound, and I never understood why Willis’s relationship with Wade in any way harmed Trump or the other defendants.

The New York Falsified Business Records Case.�� Next came New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s convoluted criminal case against Trump for falsifying his business records to hide a $175,000 hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels through Trump’s then attorney Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election.�� I have .�� On May 30, 2024, the jury found Trump guilty under NYPL § 175.10 of falsifying business records to commit fraud and to conceal another crime, although the jury did not have to indicate who was defrauded or what other crime Trump was trying to conceal.�� Trump was supposed to be sentenced on September 18, but Judge Merchan granted Trump’s request to postpone sentencing until after the election.�� Sentencing is currently scheduled for November 26.

The Federal Cases.�� The two federal court cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith are the most serious cases Trump faces, and both cases have been stuck in the mud for months.

The Federal Election Interference Case.�� The federal election interference case before District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington DC has been delayed by questions about presidential immunity, and now also by technical issues around special prosecutor Jack Smith appointment.�� These preliminary issues will need to be resolved before the case can proceed on the merits.

On July 1, 2024, the Judge Chutkan’s and the DC Circuit Court’s rulings that Donald Trump, as a former president, had no immunity from prosecution.

Frankly, I expected that the Supreme Court would reverse those decisions, and recognize that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “core” presidential activities.�� In fact, at the hearing before the Supreme Court, both the government and Trump’s lawyers agreed that an ex president is immune from prosecution for “official” presidential matters, and that there is no immunity for “private” matters.�� Trump’s team even agreed that many matters alleged in Smith’s complaint sounded like “private” not “official” matters.�� The disagreement was on how far “official” matters would go.

I was fairly confident that the Supreme Court would draw the official /private distinction by focusing on the president’s motives – was the president acting to further what he believed to be in the interests of the country, or did he have personal, corrupt, motives to benefit himself at the expense of the country?

I was wrong. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion granted immunity far beyond what the Trump lawyers sought at the hearing. The Court held, first, that a president’s motives are entirely irrelevant to whether his activities are “official” and subject to immunity, or “private” and not subject to immunity.�� Under the Court’s ruling, a president has absolute immunity for anything plausibly connected to his presidential functions, including the most blatant kinds of corruption (such as selling presidential pardons to the highest bidder, or directing the military to assassinate a political rival).�� While it is difficult to imagine that the founders intended the Constitution to provide broad immunity from prosecution to a President Benedict Arnold, who sold out his country for personal gain, that was essentially the Court’s holding.

In an attempt to redraw the official/private distinction, Prosecutor Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment eliminating the allegations that Trump conspired with his governmental advisors, and has labeled his allegations that Trump conspired with non-governmental advisors to be “private.”  But the labels do not matter.�� Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump is immune from activities that fall within a very broad sphere of presidential activity, even if he had false, improper and corrupt motives for his actions. Given the extremely broad way that the Supreme Court defined “official” activities and rejected motive, it is difficult to see how any of Trump’s attempts to overturn the election would qualify as purely “private” activities.

Nevertheless, Judge Chutkan and the DC Circuit will likely try to read the immunity ruling more narrowly than the Supreme Court wrote it, and allow the case to proceed.�� And if the case does proceed, and Jack Smith is able to prove his allegations that Trump knew he lost the election, knew that his election interference claims were false, and nevertheless sought corrupt motives to overturn the election, then surely a jury would convict him.  But would the case survive another visit to the Supreme Court?  Judge Chutkan set a briefing schedule for the parties to argue the immunity question, with Trump’s reply brief due on October 29.�� Since the case cannot move forward before the court rules on the immunity question, the only thing that could happen before the election is the filing by Jack Smith of evidence that support his arguments that Trump’s activities were “private” and not immune.

The second preliminary issue is whether Jack Smith’s appointment as special prosecutor was constitutional, and if not whether the case should be dismissed.�� As discussed below, Judge Eileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump on the grounds that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.�� That decision is currently on appeal, and Chutkan stated on the record that she did not find Judge Cannon’s ruling to be “very persuasive.”  Judge Chutkan will likely decide that special prosecutor Jack Smith can proceed with the prosecution, but the process may be delayed further for briefing on that issue, and the ultimate ruling on Judge Cannon’s dismissal could derail the election interference case.

The Classified Documents Case.

In my view, the strongest case against Donald Trump is the classified documents case, which has been stymied at every turn by Judge Eileen Cannon.�� Cannon, a Trump appointee, was previously and harshly , in an unusual unanimous per curium opinion, for improperly exercising equitable jurisdiction over the government’s investigation into the classified documents taken by Trump while leaving office.

After months of slow walking the case, on July 15, 2024, Judge Cannon , determining that the Justice Department regulation under which Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed was unconstitutional under the appointments clause of the Constitution.

The Constitution’s appointments clause requires the President to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, all “Officers of the United States,” except for “inferior Officers” who can be appointed by Officers without Senate approval if the Officers are authorized by law to make the appointment.�� .�� The courts have recognized that mere “officials” and “employees” can be hired without authorizing legislation, presidential appointment, Senate approval, or direct appointment by authorized Officers.�� The distinctions between “Officers,” “Inferior Officers,” “Officials” and “Employees” is not defined in the Constitution, and depends on factors like power, authority, control, and permanency.�� By tradition, cabinet officers and the heads of agencies are Senate-approved “Officers,” including the Attorney General and all 93 US Attorneys running the district offices of the Justice Department.�� The thousands of assistant US Attorneys and all of their staff are inferior officers, officials or employees, and are not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate.

The technical issue is whether Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland under the Department of Justice’s special counsel regulation, is an “Officer” who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, an inferior officer who was appointed by an authorized Officer, or an official or employee who could be hired without Senate approval or congressional authorization.

The legal firepower behind Judge Canon’s decision comes from a law review article by Professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary Lawson, Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 87,115–16 (2019).�� Calabresi and Lawson also filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case, and before Judge Cannon.�� Even though it was not an issue the Supreme Court agreed to hear, Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the election interference case throwing his support behind questioning Jack Smith’s appointment.

While Calabresi and Lawson’s technical legal arguments, and Judge Cannon’s adoption of those arguments, are plausible, they fly in the face of 50 years of practice, including the Supreme Court’s famous Watergate tapes decision in , brought by special counsel Leon Jaworski, who was appointed under a similar justice department regulation, and whose appointment was not questioned by the Supreme Court.

There are legitimate criticisms of the Special Counsel Regulations.�� If the Justice Department has a conflict of interest, should they be the ones to select the special counsel?  In 1978, after Watergate, Congress created a Special Prosecutor Act, later called the Independent Counsel Act, which allowed majorities of either party within the House or Senate Judiciary Committee to request that the Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor.�� If the Attorney General made the appointment, a three judge panel of appellate judges, rather than the conflicted Attorney General, would select the special prosecutor.�� This process provided some assurance that the special prosecutor would be independent from the conflicted justice department.�� The Supreme Court upheld the Act in , but the Clinton administration did not seek its renewal, preferring instead to control the process through agency regulation, which has created the issue.

There is really no way to know if the current Special Counsel Regulations are constitutional until the Supreme Court rules on them.�� But even if they are not constitutional, there is no reason for dismissing the indictment against Trump.�� Instead, the courts should allow the government to fix the problem by appointing a senate-approved “Officer,” such as the Attorney General or another United States Attorney to supervise the prosecution.�� Professors Calabresi and Lawson have recognized that this is a technical constitutional issue that can be cured by appointing an approved “Officer” to supervise the case.�� The technical defect in Smith’s appointment, which is easily curable, did not prejudice the defendants.�� There is no reason that a United States Attorney appointed to supervise the case now could not ratify Smith’s past work, and allow Smith to proceed with the prosecution under supervision.�� A case prosecuted by Jack Smith under the supervision of the United States Attorney would be like the thousands of cases brought by Assistant United States Attorneys every day in every jurisdiction.

What Happens Next?

The presidential election will take place on November 5, 2024.

If Trump wins the election, there is little doubt that he will cause the federal election interference and classified documents cases to be dismissed, either by appointing loyalists to take over the prosecution in the Justice Department, or by issuing himself a presidential pardon.�� The Supreme Court has signaled in its immunity decision that a self-pardon is within the President’s absolute authority.

However, a presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes, so it would not prevent any of the state prosecutions or cases from continuing.�� It is not clear whether a state prison sentence could be implemented against a sitting president, or how it could be implemented, or whether some sort of federal supremacy would prevent the states from interfering with the activities of an elected president.�� Another constitutional crisis is likely if either of the state criminal cases results in a prison sentence.

If Trump loses the election, he will likely face years of trials and appeals before the legal issues will be finally determined.