The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Virginia\u27s Congressional Districts Are Unconstitutional
Full text linkThe Elections Clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” This Essay will show that Virginia\u27s current congressional districts were not established in compliance with the Elections Clause. These congressional districts were prescribed by the Supreme Court of Virginia, not by “the Legislature” or by any other body exercising legislative power to establish districts. Because judicial power is the only power that the Supreme Court of Virginia possessed when it purported to establish Virginia\u27s current congressional districts in 2021, those districts are unconstitutional under the Elections Clause
Closing Remarks
No full textAlyssa Calcerano, Editor-in-Chief of the Catholic University Law Review, concluded the event with closing remarks, thanking participants for their contributions to this rich scholarly dialogue.
The Symposium served as a platform for legal scholars to push the boundaries of understanding traditional judicial power and its role in shaping the law. It reinforced the Catholic University Law Review\u27s commitment to fostering meaningful academic discourse on pressing legal issues
Facial Challenges, Remedies, and the Judicial Power
No full textThe Supreme Court has long maligned facial, as opposed to as-applied, challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, warning that they are disfavored and difficult to win. But recently, in his separate opinion in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, Justice Thomas has launched a stronger attack: facial challenges are improper exercises of the judicial power. Facial challenges, he asserted, require courts to go beyond the case or controversy before them, improperly distort standing doctrine, and thus violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
This Symposium Piece addresses Justice Thomas’s charge head on, arguing that facial challenges do not implicate the judicial power at all. Rather, only by granting remedies do courts exercise their power, and thus only by issuing relief that purports to extend beyond the parties to the case do courts unconstitutionally exercise that power. Accordingly, Justice Thomas’s concerns regarding facial challenges are actually downstream of a much bigger fight regarding the scope of relief available in federal court and the very nature of modern constitutional litigation. If the Court seeks to return the judicial power to traditional bounds, it ought to turn its focus to these remedies, rather than to facial challenges
Originalism and Truth-Telling: A Reply to Stephen Sachs
Full text linkSachs focuses on my claim that a theory of constitutional adjudication needs to make a moral argument that justifies telling judges why they ought to decide constitutional disputes in a particular way rather than in some other way. Why be an originalist, for example, rather than a common-law constitutionalist? In answering that question, a theory of constitutional adjudication cannot depend exclusively on a positivist, descriptive account of what the law is—even if Sachs correctly identifies originalism as the law— because knowing that originalism is the “law” (in a positivist sense of “law”) does not tell us why anyone ought to follow originalism in resolving constitutional disputes. We need a moral account of why judges should choose originalism over its rivals
The Failed Experiment of §230 of the Communications Decency Act: How It Facilitates Exploitation and How It Must Be Reformed
No full textTwo truths coexist: The Internet has brought with it tremendous changes for learning, connection, and business; and the Internet and other digital platforms have led to an unprecedented exploitation of children on a scale never before imagined. This is due in large part to §230 of the Communications Decency Act – the law which tech platforms have perverted to immunize them from liability for their activity which causes extreme harm. This duality has led to a current vigorous debate about whether this 1996 law has any value in the 21st Century.
This article answers that question with a resounding no, by focusing on the issues surrounding child exploitation. It corrects the false argument made by tech in their attempt to redefine §230’s origin as one singularly focused on Internet freedom. This is a false narrative, ignoring the actual context in which §230 became law: child protection. It then makes the case to reform §230 and return it to its original intent, updating it for the 21st Century.
Its in depth review of legislative history, historically contemporaneous media coverage from 1996, and tech litigation strategy reveals two facts: (1) §230 was intended in large part for limited immunity to encourage the protection from child exploitation and (2) tech platforms have systematically litigated throughout the country to expand that immunity to de facto near absolute immunity causing massive harm to children.
The article then compares the intentions and promises of the law to the present day climate regarding child exploitation on the Internet, specifically focusing on the problem of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) – also known as child pornography. Observing the cavernous fissure between one of the main purposes of §230 and the reality of online child exploitation it argues that the need to reform §230 and return it to one of its original purposes is now. This article argues that need is prescient not only because of the grave reality of CSAM online, but also because of one of the very intentions behind §230 – to protect children.
The article examines recent legislative proposals to address the problem of CSAM, and proposes a new solution that returns Section 230 to its origins, reverses tech platforms’ false narrative, updates §230 for the current world, and offers a path forward toward the protection of children
Crafting A New Maryland Two-Party Consent Law With A Nice Ring To It
Full text linkPicture this: Late on a dark autumn night, a teenage boy is staying at his godfather’s house.[1] Suddenly, the boy falls victim to unspeakable sexual abuse committed by his godfather.[2] Shortly thereafter, the boy escapes the house without his godfather’s knowledge.[3] To get help, the boy tries to get the attention of a neighbor.[4] He approaches neighboring house number one—no answer.[5] He approaches neighboring house number two—no answer.[6] He approaches neighboring house number three—and the homeowner answers the door by using his “doorbell camera.”[7] The boy states that there is an emergency and asks the homeowner to call for help.[8] Later that night, the police take care of the situation and charge the boy’s godfather for his despicable acts.[9]
[1] Laster v. State, No. 1897, 2018 Md. App. LEXIS 387, at *2 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 24, 2018).
[2] Id. at *2, *14.
[3] Id. at *2.
[4] Id. at *2-3.
[5] Id. at *2.
[6] Id. at *2.
[7] Id. at *2-3, *15.
[8] Id. at *3.
[9] Id
Resolved: Governmental Destruction of a Traditional Site of Worship on Government-Owned Property Requires a Strict Scrutiny Analysis under the First Amendment
No full textCatholic Law hosted the fourth annual Seigenthaler Debates on Wednesday, March 12. The event, co-sponsored by the Law School’s Federalist Society and American Constitution Society chapters, brings together prominent First Amendment scholars each year to debate pressing constitutional issues.
This year’s debate, held virtually, centered on the resolution: “Resolved: Governmental Destruction of a Traditional Site of Worship on Government-Owned Property Requires a Strict Scrutiny Analysis under the First Amendment.” Representing the Pro position was Josh McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Faculty Director of the Religious Freedom Clinic, where he guides students in representing a diverse array of religious clients. Arguing the Con position was Lael Weinberger, an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., specializing in litigation, appellate law, constitutional law, and administrative law.
The debate was moderated by Judge Paul B. Matey of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Navigating Law and Technology: Abby Blomstrom\u27s Inspiring Lecture on Success and Connection
No full textOn February 26, 2025, the Law and Technology Institute (LTI) at Catholic Law proudly hosted its annual Dean William Callyhan Robinson Lecture, a tradition that celebrates over four decades of academic excellence and honors the legacy of the Law School’s founding dean. Named after Dean Robinson—renowned for his groundbreaking contributions to patent law and his distinguished career as a dean, professor, and judge—the lecture underscores the Institute’s commitment to exploring the intersections of intellectual property, communications law, and information privacy.
This year’s lecture featured Abby Blomstrom, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Monumental Sports & Entertainment. With her extensive expertise in advising senior management and navigating complex legal and strategic challenges, Ms. Blomstrom offered valuable insights into the evolving relationship between law and technology. Her presentation exemplified Catholic Law’s mission to connect legal theory with practical application while paying tribute to Dean Robinson’s visionary influence