14148 research outputs found
Sort by
NDLS Communicator: Week of 11.17.25
No full textThe Latest News Justice Amy Coney Barrett to judge final round of moot court tournament named in her honor Veterans Day 2025: Honoring our ND Law student veterans and reflecting on God, Country, Notre Dame Notre Dame faculty contribute to dialogue on artificial intelligence at the Vatican Notre Dame experts bridge law and child development to tackle crisis of family separation amidst armed conflict
Alumni News Notre Dame LL.M. Graduates Victoria Mendoza Ruiz and Mbonisi (Bo) Secure Prestigious UN Internships
Faculty Briefs Caleb Stone Christina Jones John Meiser Nicole Garnett Patrick Corrigan Mary Ellen O\u27Connell Haley Proctor Sadie Blanchard Nell Newton Meredith Kessler Rick Garnett Derek Muller Elliot Slosar
Events Law & Economics Workshop - Brian Broughman, Vanderbilt University Truces, Ceasefires, and Peace Plans with Professors Mary Ellen O\u27Connell and George Lopez (Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies) Religious Liberty, Immigration, and the Catholic Church Job Talk: Mengyi Wang, Harvard University Challenges to the Rule of Law: Big and Small with Rachel A. Cohen and Rudy Monterossa Job Talk: Jordan Rudinsky, Universidad Católica de Chile Book Launch and Signing: The Emerald Bench: The History of the Irish American Justices of the Supreme Court by Sean Meehan Pizza, Pop and Politics: Professor Derek Muller on Voting Rights, Election Law and Judicial Pow with Professor Derek Muller Justice Amy Coney Barrett Moot Court Finals
Around the Watercooler Submit Your Nominations for Staff Spot Awards Notre Dame Turkey Trot for Faculty and Staf
MMU: 11/24/25-11/30/25
No full textThis Week @ NDLS
Mass Times
Commons Daily Menu
Saint of the Week
General Announcement
Exam Panel
No full textTuesday, November 25, 2025 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, Room 3140
Come hear about exam-taking strategies from a panel of 2Ls and 3Ls, hosted by the Federalist Society. Chick-fil-a will be served!
Sponsor: Federalist Societyhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/2214/thumbnail.jp
Murphy Fellowship
Full text linkThe Murphy Fellowship, named in honor of longtime former Notre Dame law professor Edward J. Murphy, is awarded annually to first-year law students selected through a written application process. Fellows participate in the programming of both the Program on Church, State & Society and the Religious Liberty Initiative. In addition, they will have the opportunity, during their second and third years, to participate in the Law School’s Religious Liberty Clinic
Punishment in “Disneyland”: A Magical Review of Singaporean Sentencing Law, Policy & Practice
Full text linkStaying in Singapore is like visiting Disneyland, with a catch: Imagine indulging in the world’s most magical place, but Jeffrey Katzenberg gives you a walloping if you cut in line. Deploying this self-described “winning formula,” Singapore quickly rose to prosperity. Admirers and critics mutually note Singapore’s cleanliness, safety, and efficiency. Empirical metrics suggest these accolades are not anecdotal: Singapore scores at the top of global development indexes, boasts a low crime rate and high judicial clearance rate, has comprehensive infrastructure, clean public facilities and streets, and more. Singapore’s governance is rightly credited for its prosperous outcomes. However, it also invites controversy. Power is illiberally and unapologetically centralized in a single party; it scrupulously governs through state interventionism to serve communitarian values and interests (i.e., the multiracial Singaporean community) above the individual’s. Singapore’s severely punitive criminal and sentencing law, policy, and practice embody this approach. It also exemplifies an ideological divide between “Eastern” and “Western” thought: how we weigh individual liberties against community welfare and whether we characterize society as a unique, holistic unit or sum of individuals. Singapore’s autocratic political approach and so-called draconian practices are regularly attacked for allegedly breaching international human rights standards. These critiques may be well-intentioned but, as often stands, are not particularly useful or fair. Its perceived objectionable practices must be understood and evaluated as individual threads in a holistic tapestry of laws and history. This article’s foremost emphasis is reviewing Singaporean sentencing law, policy, and practice with this aerial perspective. Revealed is a meticulously designed sentencing apparatus that serves unique Singaporean interests and justifies itself with good outcomes. Western sentencing thought differs; the individual’s position is more central to its justification. Non-surgical removal of Singapore’s appraised formula carries unknown consequences. Therefore, strengthening common critiques of Singaporean sentencing would require (1) a rejection of moral relativism to sentencing—that it would be objectively moral to stifle or jeopardize prosperity for particular human rights or liberties, with or without the constituency’s approval, or (2) that such rights carry superior policy justifications
Revisiting Oversight Challenges in the Nonprofit Sector: Allowing Private Parties Legal Standing
Full text linkPart I of this Article will discuss the current framework for oversight of the nonprofit sector, and why this framework has been problematic in achieving effective regulatory oversight of nonprofit organizations. This Part will first address the oversight role of state officials, such as the attorneys general, and the challenges associated with it. This Part will then examine the significant number of challenges the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) faces in overseeing tax-exempt organizations, and why the IRS may not the best choice for overcoming them. This Part will conclude in an analysis of the current framework for legal standing by private parties looking to enforce nonprofit law, and why the bases for legal standing outlined in the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601 may no longer be true today. Part II will provide a comparative analysis of some self-regulatory initiatives in China and Vietnam’s nonprofit sectors. Specifically, it will discuss what the United States can learn from these two regulatory systems when developing its own nonprofit law reforms. Finally, Part III will discuss how the legal right to challenge a specific act of a nonprofit entity could resemble a qui tam (whistleblower) action, and why such an action might be a salient starting point in expanding the public’s role in proactive investigations of nonprofit organizations. This Part will then propose that an analog of the bounty program from the Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (Dodd-Frank) Act of 2010 could be used to incentivize relators to challenge actions of nonprofit entities while satisfying the doctrines of public benefit and cy pres found in charitable trust law. In addition, it will address some preliminary objections to this proposal
Supreme Court Recap
No full textThursday, August 28, 2025 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, McCartan Courtroom
The Federalist Society invites you to join us for our annual SCOTUS Recap on Thursday, August 28th at 12:30 pm in the McCartan Courtroom. Professors Proctor, Girgis, and Garnett will discuss some of the Court\u27s biggest cases from the previous term. Chick-fil-a will be provided!
Sponsors: Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government Federalist Societyhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/2114/thumbnail.jp
A Democratic Restraint on Incarceration
Full text linkFrom the Article
This Article proposes a new sentencing model that employs the democratic voice of the jury to restrain individual injustice and mass incarceration by having the jury establish the maximum term that an individual defendant deserves and confining judicial sentencing discretion within that upper bound
Joseph Raz
Full text linkMemoirs, Joseph Raz, 21 March 1939 – 2 May 2022, elected Fellow of the British Academy 1987
by JOHN FINNIS Fellow of the Academy
Summary from the cover page.
Joseph Raz was for half a century the outstanding investigator of legal normativity’s logic and relations to the normativity of morality, aesthetic standards, and epistemic criteria. His influential early monographs Practical Reason and Norms (1976) and The Morality of Freedom (1986), and seven substantial thematic collections of essays, published at intervals between 1979 (The Authority of Law) and 2022 (The Roots of Normativity), most of them widely translated, all exemplify his originality and power in argumentation and teaching and inventively expound an influential liberal philosophy of politics, law and adjudication, and life
MMU: 09/08/25–09/14/25
Full text linkThis Week @ NDLS
Mass Times
Commons Daily Menu
Saint of the Week
General Announcement