The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
The Fundamentals of Elder Law: Cases and Materials (2d ed.)
No full textThe second edition of this casebook continues to provide the fundamentals for a lively, contemporary course in elder law. It emphasizes illustrative factual cases and statutes, and is supported by materials from elder law practitioners and statistical data. It is distinctive in its emphasis upon state and federal court decisions, not simply a recitation of statutory provisions. Elder law is of burgeoning historical and social importance. Statistics indicate that by 2030, one-fifth of all Americans will be 65 or older, and each day 10,000 persons turn 65. Among the legal issues pertinent to an aging population are estate planning objectives in the context of possible incapacity, integrating nonprobate and probate transfers, asset protection planning, philanthropy and dynasty options, and beneficial tax planning. Statutory changes establish guidance for personal health care decision-making and designations of guardians and surrogates to exercise authority when needed. Clients and institutions require legal assistance to navigate federal benefits such as Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, and the interaction of state-federal Medicaid opportunities. Statistics also indicate that almost two-thirds of all individuals over age 65 will need some form of long-term care. The cost of this care can be as little as 15,000 to $20,000 a month is needed for continual care by health care professionals. This edition continues the discussion on ageism, the pandemic of elder abuse in all its forms, and discrimination in housing and employment.https://scholarship.law.edu/fac_books/1142/thumbnail.jp
Under-Enforcement of Federal Animal Protection Laws: Agencies Abdicating Enforcement Authority, and an Outlier Eleventh Circuit ‘Serious Harm’ Rule
Get PDFCongress enacted the Endangered Species Act, Animal Welfare Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect and preserve endangered and threatened fish and wildlife, animals, and marine mammals. The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) is the primary administrative agency in charge of regulating zoos, wildlife centers, and aquariums, yet fails to consistently enforce the Animal Welfare Act, which this Comment reviews. This means that private animal advocacy agencies are left suing zoos, wildlife centers, and aquariums under the “taking” clause of the Endangered Species Act in order to ensure animal safety and care. While most circuits agree upon what rises to a “taking”, the Eleventh Circuit has taken a different position. This Comment reviews the Eleventh Circuit’s position and why it should not be followed by other circuits
133rd Commencement Address
No full textThe Honorable Barbara Lagoa was presented an Honorary Degree from the University. Mark Rienzi, Professor of Law and Director of The Center for Religious Liberty, made introductory remarks prior to the presentation. Judge Lagoa serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Upon her appointment, she became the first Hispanic woman and the first Cuban-American woman to serve on that court. She shared that same distinction as a justice on the Florida Supreme Court and, before that, as a judge, including as the chief judge, on Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal during her thirteen years of judicial service to the state of Florida. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Lagoa practiced in both the civil and criminal arenas. Following the presentation, Judge Lagoa delivered the 2022 Commencement Address. “Graduations are unique among the milestones of our lives — they celebrate our past accomplishments while also anticipating our future. And the future at times can be ... quite surprising,” Judge Lagoa shared. She then reflected on six points that will help the graduates succeed in both their professional and personal lives: change is inevitable, appreciate the present, the race is long, be strong, be kind, and say ‘yes.
The Negative Impact of Service Member and Veteran Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Rating or Specter of PTSD on Child Custody Arrangements
Get PDFEstablishment’s Political Priority to Free Exercise
Get PDFAmericans are beset by disagreement about the First Amendment. Progressive scholars are attacking the venerable liberal view that First Amendment rights must not be constricted to secure communal, political benefits. To prioritize free speech rights, they say, reflects an unjust inflation of individual interest over our common political commitments. These disagreements afflict the Religion Clauses as well. Critics claim that religious exemption has become more important than the values of disestablishment that define the polity. Free exercise exemption, they argue, has subordinated establishment. This Article contests these views. The fundamental rules and norms constituting the political regime—what the Article calls “the establishment”—have now, and have always had, political priority to rights of exemption from it. This basic claim may be narrowed to the issue of church and state, but it is simply a more focused version of the same thing: the establishment’s civil religion—the set of transcendent, church-state propositions that support the political regime’s legitimacy and authority—has political priority to rights of exemption from it. Narrowed further, the basic claim also reflects the dynamics of Religion Clause doctrine: religious exemption’s contemporary ascendance is an epiphenomenal consequence of the civil religion dismantling effected by the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause doctrine in the twentieth century and consolidated by the Court in the twenty-first. Though today’s most divisive law and religion controversies often take surface-level legal shape as conflicts about free exercise exemption, their deeper source is a long-gestating transformation in the nature of the American political regime’s civil religion establishment. Today’s free exercise cases are the latest skirmishes in yesterday’s disestablishment wars. They reflect disagreements over how best to characterize the work of the dismantlers, as well as efforts toward consolidation of that work to achieve a new civil religion regime. And what they show is that in twenty-first century America, just as ever, establishment still takes political priority to free exercise
Reflections on Integrating a Life of Faith and a Legal Vocation
No full textOn October 27, 2022, Catholic Law hosted the first Faith in Action event of the 2022-2023 academic year. The program featured William H. Rooney, partner of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Co-Chair of Willkie’s Antitrust & Competition Practice Group, New York, NY. In his talk, “Reflections on Integrating a Life of Faith and a Legal Vocation,” Rooney spoke about practicing your faith, ordering your goals in life within a hierarchy, sanctifying your work, and trusting in God\u27s providence. These four points were used to help illustrate the integration of one\u27s faith and work. Following his talk, Rooney answered questions from the audience
Cybersecurity for the Public Policy Lawyer: Protecting Yourself in a World of Digital Threats
No full textOn November 3, the Law and Public Policy Program (LPP) at Catholic Law held a discussion on protecting yourself in a world of digital threats with two experts in the cybersecurity field. This was the second installment of LPP\u27s lecture series this fall. Brian Svoboda, Director of LPP, introduced Ted Chiodo, CEO & Founder, LANGLEY CYBER, and Matt Ashburn, CSO & Partner, LANGLEY CYBER, to the students in attendance. Both Chiodo and Ashburn talked through various ways an individual can take preventative measures against cyber attacks, as well as what to do in case of an attack. They noted that once an enemy actor accesses your data, they typically quietly watch and observe your actions. This allows them to collect data on various aspects of your life. The conversation continued with examples of outsiders accessing emails, client files, financial data, personal information, etc. Following their discussion they opened the floor for questions from the students in attendance
A Civil Shame: The Failure to Protect Due Process in Discretionary Immigration Bond Hearings
Get PDFOver the last four years, the US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in four immigration bond review cases. The sheer number of cases the Court has recently considered underscores the significance of this area of immigration law. Each case centers on whether the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Constitution mandates a bond review hearing after prolonged detention. Yet these cases leave unresolved the issue of whether initial bond hearings themselves meet the due process threshold required of civil confinement proceedings. Federal circuit and district courts have addressed aspects of this question and found procedural due process violations. However, most jurisdictions continue to adhere to these arguably unconstitutional practices. Until 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented enforcement guidelines prioritizing certain categories of individuals for arrest and detention. Those with serious criminal convictions were targeted whereas legal permanent residents or undocumented individuals with families were not unless they had serious criminal convictions. On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order abolishing these enforcement priorities and instituting sweeping enforcement guidance instructing DHS to arrest and remove noncitizens with any criminal conviction, as well as individuals with pending charges or those who committed an act that could be chargeable as a criminal offense such as crossing the border without documentation. The numbers of noncitizens arrested and detained increased exponentially and many of those detained from 2017 – 2020 either had no criminal record or had arrests or pending charges but no convictions. At the same time, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began routinely denying bond rather than setting reasonable bonds or conditionally releasing noncitizens even though effective alternative methods for ensuring return to court existed. The case backlog in immigration courts increased as a result. These policy changes and practices laid bare the due process deficiencies inherent in the current civil immigration bail system. They also revealed the dangers of granting DHS unfettered discretion to detain as well as the dire consequences of civil imprisonment for noncitizens. This article analyzes the state of procedural due process in the immigration bail system and compares initial immigration bond hearings to involuntary mental health commitment and child support contempt hearings – two proceedings in which civil court judges have limited authority to temporarily confine litigants. The comparison reveals the danger of using administrative law standards to govern immigration bond proceedings when questions of fundamental liberty interests are at stake. Courts and legislatures have required trial court judges to exercise great care and caution before taking the extreme step, in a civil proceeding, of involuntarily committing or incarcerating an individual to induce compliance with a court order or to protect the individual or community from harm. Yet that same level of protection is not required when determining whether to continue to detain noncitizens or release them on bond. This article proposes statutory, regulatory, and court rules reforms to ensure fundamental fairness in initial immigration bond proceedings
Subsidiarity & Vulnerability Theory: A Case Study for Deepening the Relationship Between Catholic Social Teaching and the Responsive State
Get PDFReligion and religious voices have long had a role to play in shaping community norms and values and public policy; this role continues in contemporary America. Yet, legitimate questions arise about the extent of this role and its place in a pluralist and democratic state. These questions are particularly pronounced when religion is perceived as partisan, a situation that seems apparent in contemporary America. Hoping to combat this perception, this paper explores the relationship between Catholic Social Teaching and Vulnerability Theory, aiming to show how religious values can inform legal theory across the political spectrum. This paper surveys both Catholic Social Teaching and Vulnerability Theory and then uses the principle of subsidiarity to explore the parallels, overlaps, and distinctions between these approaches. Such an exploration can help recognize how religious traditions can be in dialogue with legal theories across the political spectrum, without becoming tied to one particularly partisan or narrow approach. Religion and religious voices can thus be resources to aid in the building of truly just states, regardless of the ideological and political commitments of state actors