The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
#MeToo and #BlackLives Matter: Conflicting Objectives or Opportunities for Advancement of Shared Priorities?
No full textOn April 27, 2021, the Contemporary Challenges in American & Global Law web series considered the question, “#MeToo and #BlackLives Matter: Conflicting Objectives or Opportunities for Advancement of Shared Priorities?” Catholic Law Professor Mary Graw Leary led the program’s discussion and comments were made by dr hab. Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka (IBTSLP 2004), Faculty of Law at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland.
After introductions made by representatives from both Catholic Law and Jagiellonian University, Leary—a nationally and internationally recognized expert in criminal law and procedure as well as victimization, exploitation, and human trafficking—began the discussion. To start, Graw Leary shared with the group how this research project came about for her while also providing definitions and brief histories of both the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements. Graw Leary went on to further explain the emergence of areas of tension that have arisen between the two movements and shared a framework for a path forward which she believes will facilitate advancement for both movements. She concluded, “By reframing these movements through the lens of the crime victims movement, with both individual and systemic characteristics, the complementary nature of these movements emerge much more clearly and both can advance together to achieve justice for all of us.”
Kustra-Rogatka—whose scholarship includes focuses on non-governmental organizations dealing with democracy and rule of law, European integration on constitutional law, Polish judicial review, transitional justice, and rule of law in Europe—provided a wonderful international perspective on Graw Leary’s work. Kustra-Rogatka commented on the complexity of social movements and the important role of identity politics within the conversation about the two movements.
Following their remarks, Kustra-Rogatka posed a series of questions to Graw Leary that covered topics including the relationship of #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter to earlier social movements, key legal and social components for the success of movements, how to measure that success, and the role intersectionality might play in the future of both movements. With the time that remained both Kustra-Rogatka and Graw Leary responded to questions from the audience moderated by Professor Emerita Leah Wortham, Director of the American Law Program and the LL.M. Program at Catholic Law
Bargaining for Innovation
Get PDFReward drives innovation. For this reason, Congress has enacted a system of patents, trademarks, and copyrights to incentivize innovation. Such publicly ordered intellectual property regulation supports public and private interests—mandating disclosure of the innovation while legislating protection of that disclosure. Increasingly, though, the legislated incentives are proving insufficient for innovation, and innovators are relying on private incentives, undermining the fundamental balance of our legal framework and maximizing the reward to innovators at the cost of the public’s interest. Enforcement of contracts that supplant legislation rather than supplement it contravenes public policy and vitiates the public’s interest. It is time to reform public ordering to protect the public’s interest while providing sufficient reward to incentivize innovation
Criminal Law (9th ed)
No full textThis casebook introduces the first-year student to the basics of American criminal law. Drawing on statutory, common and constitutional law, the book raises the questions of why and how we punish, and it enables instructors to discuss with students the thorny problem of the relationship between the state and the individual. As with most substantive criminal law courses, the book covers a range of topics including rationales for punishment, elements of key crimes, inchoate offenses, and defenses.
This most recent edition includes several new problems and comments reflecting contemporary challenges in the criminal justice system, such as extreme juvenile sentencing, criminalization of poverty, disproportionate punishment along race and class lines, redrafting of the Model Penal Code sections on sexual offenses, limits on deadly force in law enforcement, assisted suicide, and the erosion of the insanity defense.https://scholarship.law.edu/fac_books/1140/thumbnail.jp
Gunba Control The Constitutionality of Semi-Automatic Robotic Weapons
Get PDFThis piece examines how the Second Amendment, and its recent jurisprudential standards would apply to foreseeable semi-autonomous weapons in the private sector. Following an analysis of the landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and its progeny, the work forecasts how the rules would apply to a home defense drone designed to defend at the exterior of a domicile, an armed “digi-dog” designed for self-defense in public, and an armed robot (“Gunba”) designed to operate entirely within one’s domicile. Ultimately, it concludes that an semi-autonomous robot, designed for in-home use, could conceivably receive Second Amendment protection
The FSIA and Cyberspace: Could HACT be the Answer?
Get PDFUnder the non-commercial tort exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a tort committed by a foreign state must occur wholly within the United States in order to trigger jurisdiction and liability in an American court. As such, cybercrimes which are committed abroad, even if targeted at and cause harm to U.S. citizens, fall outside this exception, leaving injured parties with no domestic avenue of redress. Potential solutions to closing this gap in the legal framework include the proposed Homeland and Cyber Threat Act (HACT), expansion of the FSIA\u27s terrorism exception, or overruling the entire tort doctrine
Reconstructing Malice in the Law of Punitive Damages
Get PDFPunitive damages present two related puzzles. One concerns their object. If they are punitive, their object is to punish tortfeasors. If they are damages, their object is to compensate tort victims. If they are both, the problem is to reconcile these different objects in applying them. A second puzzle involves their subject. Punitive damages are awarded for egregious wrongdoing. But the nature of that egregiousness is nebulous and contested, implicating many poorly understood terms. The two puzzles are connected, because the subject of punitive damages will inform their object. Once we know the type of wrongfulness that punitive damages deal with, we can understand better whether and how they are punishing, compensating, or both. This Article reconstructs one of punitive damages’ central subjects: malice. In so doing, it clarifies one key object of punitive damages: to offer redress to a victim of cruelty. Malice is a ubiquitous textual element in the state law of punitive damages. But there has been little scholarly commentary about what malice means for punitive damages. Drawing from the common history of tort and criminal law, this Article identifies two core meanings of malice: a desire or motive to do wrong, and a disposition of callous indifference to the wrong inflicted. Though distinct, these meanings broadly coalesce in the concept of cruelty. The Article argues that this reconstructed account of the wrong of malice represents a powerful justification for awarding punitive damages. Malice as cruelty as a justification for punitive damages also fits within a broader view of tort law as redress for specific private wrongs. But malice as a subject of punitive damages clarifies and enriches this account of their object. A victim of a tort done with malice, and who is aware of it, has been wronged more gravely than a victim of a tort done without malice and is, therefore, entitled to greater redress
Cloudy with a Chance of Government Intrusion: The Third-Party Doctrine in the 21st Century
Get PDFTechnology may be created by humans, but we are dependent on it. Look around you: what technology is near you as you read this abstract? An iPhone? A laptop? Perhaps even an Amazon Echo. What do all these devices have in common? They store data in the cloud. And this data can contain some of our most sensitive information, such as business records or medical documents.
Even if you manage this cloud storage account, the government may be able to search your data without a warrant. Federal law provides little protection for cloud stored data. And the Fourth Amendment may not be any better because of the third-party doctrine, which allows the government to search and seize information entrusted to a third party—without a warrant.
This Paper argues that the third-party doctrine does not apply to cloud data, and that a warrant is necessary to search and seize information stored in the cloud. To arrive at this conclusion, it first analyzes the Supreme Court’s creation of the third-party doctrine and its subsequent evolution. The second part outlines cloud storage and data. The third part discusses why cloud information should be secure from warrantless searches. Lastly, this Paper explains why Congress needs to legislate this issue—not the Courts—and offers recommendations on how to do so
No Ifs, Ands, or Juuls About It: Why Influencers Must Be Held Accountable
Get PDFThis article analyzes how the FTC’s Endorsement Guide regulating the advertising of e-cigarette products should be applied to social media influencers. The struggle to regulate e-cigarettes by the FDA and the FTC has led to different advertising methods, which either comply with or neglect the FTC’s Endorsement Guide. This article evaluates the federal government’s reaction to the e-cigarette health crisis, followed by a review of the FTC’s previous actions addressing Endorsement Guide violations, along with the consequences on other companies’ marketing strategies. Finally, this article reviews influencer liability standards for Endorsement Guide violations and develops recommendations to improve those standards
Human Rights Compliance - How the Public and Private Sectors Can Work Together to Stop Modern-Day Slavery
No full textOn October 28, 2021, Catholic Law’s Compliance, Investigations, & Corporate Responsibility (CICR) Program, in collaboration with Paul Hastings LLP, presented the first program of its 2021 Business Accountability for Human Rights series. The event, “Human Rights Compliance - How the Public and Private Sectors Can Work Together to Stop Modern-Day Slavery,” provided an overview of human rights issues in global supply chains with a particular focus on labor exploitation and ideas for how businesses, governments, and NGOs can work together to stop human trafficking, modern-day slavery, and other types of labor exploitation