The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Dobbs and the Future of Constitutional Interpretation
No full textOn February 2, 2022, the Center for Law and the Human Person sponsored the first in a series of three lectures examining the legal, philosophical, and social dimensions of The Future of Roe v. Wade? Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The lunchtime program, “Dobbs and the Future of Constitutional Interpretation,” welcomed Catholic Law’s J. Joel Alicea, Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, to discuss the legal implications of the Dobbs v. Jackson case. Alicea’s expertise lies in the areas of constitutional law and civil litigation and his scholarship focuses in particular on American constitutional theory.
Elizabeth Kirk, Director of the Center for Law and the Human Person, provided introductory remarks about The Center and the lecture series before turning the program over to Alicea. Alicea began with a brief overview of Dobbs v. Jackson before shifting his focus to the effect the Dobbs decision could have on constitutional interpretation in America. He broke down the discussion into three parts—what the cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey say and how Dobbs interacts with those prior decisions, living constitutionalism versus originalism in American constitutional interpretation, and the impact of Dobbs on the future of constitutional interpretation. Alicea concluded, “The stakes here are quite high. Not just for the future of abortion in America, which is obviously important enough, but for the future of constitutional theory.” As the program drew to a close, Alicea took questions from those in attendance
Trafficking Without Borders: Why It Is Time for the Law to Properly Address Cybersex Trafficking in the Livestreaming Context
Get PDFThis Comment assesses the impact, and growing prevalence, of cybersex trafficking: A relatively novel form of human trafficking conducted via livestream over the internet. In particular, this Comment focuses on the differences between the statutes that criminalize sex trafficking and child pornography and how these statutes operate both domestically and internationally. This Comment argues that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 should be amended in order for the modern crime of cybersex trafficking to fall under the statute’s ambit and to aid in prosecution efforts
Fully Human: Discernment, Change, and Growth for the Beltway Lawyer
No full textCatholic Law’s Law and Public Policy Lecture Series hosted its third and final program of the 2022 series on Thursday, March 31, 2022. The evening program, Fully Human: Discernment, Change, and Growth for the Beltway Lawyer, featured guest speakers Louis Brown, Executive Director of the Christ Medicus Foundation, and Glenn Willard, Of Counsel for Squire Patton Boggs. Brown and Willard shared their stories about their intellectual and professional journeys through growth, discernment, and change over two decades in the public arena.
Brian Svoboda, Director of the Law and Public Policy Program, opened the event with a welcome to those in attendance and introductory remarks. Brown and Willard then responded to a series of moderated questions posed by Svoboda. The hour-long conversation shared both Brown’s and Willard’s journey with their Catholic faith, where they are on that journey today, and how their faith impacts each of their work. In particular, their comments covered how they came to break away from the “path of least resistance,” and addressed the problem of work/ life balance through unity of vocation. The program concluded with questions from the audience and a reception in the atrium, where students and alumni talked directly with the speakers
Child Welfare Requires Adequate Remedial Services
Get PDFThis Article argues that the focus of child welfare should be upon the adequacy of reasonable services provided to parents prior to and after their child has been declared dependent because of an abuse or neglect allegation. Admittedly, recent federal legislation funding rehabilitation services while permitting a child to remain with an offending parent may result in less trauma, but this feature should not distract from the point that states must develop adequate reasonable services, and these must be provided within a specified period of time. The consequence of inadequate reasonable services, unable to address adverse conduct within a specified time frame, is the termination of parental rights. As such, remaining with the parents while services are offered is a temporary respite. The point is simple: to adequately address neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children, both preventative and remedying services must be made available earlier so that what is reasonable becomes what is effective
Towards Nondelegation Doctrines
Get PDFWhen discussing the nondelegation doctrine, courts and scholars frequently refer to Congress’ “legislative power.” The Constitution, however, speaks of no such thing. Instead, the Constitution vests a wide variety of “legislative powers” (plural) in Congress, including the powers to “regulate commerce,” “declare war,” “coin money,” and “constitute tribunals.” Shoehorning Congress’ diverse array of powers into a one-size-fits-all nondelegation doctrine has necessitated the development of the vaguely worded “intelligible principle” test. Unsurprisingly, that malleable test has failed to produce a judicially manageable standard. In response, this Article proposes that the nondelegation doctrine be transformed into a series of nondelegation doctrines, each corresponding to one of Congress’ distinct powers. Adopting such an approach can lessen the risk that reviving the nondelegation principle – a task the current Supreme Court has expressed an interest in taking on – will result in a complete reworking of the modern administrative state
Federal Officer Suits by Common Law
Get PDFThis term, the U.S. Supreme Court all but nailed the door shut on one of the modern era’s last remaining vehicles for monetary damages to heap accountability on bad-acting federal officials. In a 5-1-3 decision, the Court rejected the extension of Bivens relief to retaliation and assault claims stemming from a border confrontation.This may trouble individuals concerned with history. Founding-era evidence suggests that damages suits against federal officers provided an important complement to impeachment as an accountability mechanism outside the hierarchical structure of executive branch direction and command. As scholarship has previously explained, for many decades after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution federal officers faced common-law claims for damages when allegedly engaged in unlawful acts. These common-law suits existed long before Congress established statutory general federal question jurisdiction in 1875. And whereas Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to authorize monetary damages for constitutional violations under color of state law, Congress has enacted no companion act authorizing damages suits for federal officer constitutional violations.The Court attempted to bring its pragmatic vision of equity to this state/federal asymmetry in 1971 when it held in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that the text of the Constitution contains an implicit right to monetary damages in the event of a federal violation of individual rights. The pressure on this form of relief intensified in 1988 when Congress enacted the Westfall Act, removing the availability of state common-law remedies for actions by federal officials other than claims alleging constitutional violations. But in the years following Bivens, the Court has repeatedly reconsidered its contours, rejecting a Bivens claim for the 12th time in 40 years this term in Egbert. After Egbert, policymakers and theorists who believe that there is either a constitutional or good governance mandate to ensure that bad federal actors face individual monetary liability must turn to Congress (or to the courts, perhaps less ideally) to revisit the severity of the Westfall Act. Or they must look for other state-law or statutory-driven solutions.This article delves into the historical role of monetary suits against federal officers to explain how such suits differed structurally in a constitutionally meaningful way from the suits that Bivens authorized, unpacking the separation-of-powers implications of the Court’s rejection of federal judicial creation of damages relief. The Court’s decision in Egbert stands as a retrenchment of 20th-century claims of judicial authority to apply the law as the Court sees fit. As such, the ruling in Egbert ties into the central theme of the 2021-22 Supreme Court Term—which actor has the power to decide. Egbert reaffirmed the scope of congressional authority to decide the contours of federal liability and recovery in federal courts and puts squarely on Congress the future question of whether and to what degree monetary damages recovery must be available against individual federal officials for unconstitutional acts
Congressional Ethics: Handling High-Wattage Matters in a Fast-Paced Environment
No full textCatholic Law\u27s Law and Public Policy (LPP) Program hosted a talk on Congressional Ethics: Handling High-Wattage Matters in a Fast-Paced Environment. The talk featured Kate Sawyer Keane, Partner, Elias Law Group, and was moderated by Brian Svoboda, director of LPP.
Ms. Keane spoke to the students about her professional story, her work in the Congressional ethics process, the special demands of counseling candidates, and the ways in which she works constructively with regulators on behalf of her clients. Ms. Keane also talked about associate development in law firms, and how she manages her own work amidst demanding client relationships and an active family life as the mother of five children
Classroom in Leahy Hall (1960s)
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.edu/historical_photos/1006/thumbnail.jp