The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
When is Police Interrogation Really Police Interrogation? A Look at the Application of the \u3ci\u3eMiranda\u3c/i\u3e Mandate
Get PDFDecades after the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, questions abound as to what constitutes interrogation when a suspect is in custody. What appeared a concise, uniform rule has, in practice, left the Fifth Amendment waters muddied. This article addresses a potential disconnect between law enforcement and the courts by analyzing examples of issues arising from Miranda’s application in an array of case law. Ultimately, it attempts to clarify an ambiguity by offering a standard for what conduct classifies as an interrogation
How Well Did the Post-2008 Financial Crisis Regime Prepare the World for the COVID-19 Pandemic?
No full textOn February 24, the Contemporary Challenges in American & Global Law web series discussed the question, “How Well Did the Post-2008 Financial Crisis Regime Prepare the World for the COVID-19 Pandemic?” Heidi Mandanis Schooner, Professor of Law at Catholic Law, led the afternoon’s discussion, with comments delivered by Michal Bobrzynski (JU-CUA ALP 2005), Partner at Greenberg Traurig in Warsaw, Poland
Second-Class Rights and Second-Class Americans: Applying Carolene Products Footnote Four and the Court’s Enforcement of Nationally Accepted Norms Against Local Outlier Jurisdictions in Second Amendment Enforcement Litigations
Get PDFIn the years since deciding District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court has largely abandoned the role of protecting American gun owners despite the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has failed to use the jurisprudential tools at its disposal to ensure that the fundamental right to arms is protected as robustly as other enumerated constitutional rights. This failure is an acute one. And it is unjustifiable across a wide variety of jurisprudential methodologies, from originalism to the non-originalist approaches that were dominant during the era of the Warren and Burger Courts. The Supreme Court must do more to protect this right.
There are two important lines of American jurisprudence that, while historically influential, are not receiving their due in contemporary debates about the scope and enforcement of the Second Amendment. The first line of precedent stems from Footnote Four of the Supreme Court’s 1938 decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. The second line of authority, also outlined in Footnote Four, arises from the Supreme Court’s traditional role of enforcing nationally accepted norms against outlier local majorities that are oppressing distinct and insular minorities. Today, certain outlier jurisdictions dominated by large urban majorities are depriving gun owners, who are a distinct and disfavored minority in many of those jurisdictions, of Second Amendment rights that are fully recognized in the vast majority of states and localities.
This article discusses both lines of precedential authority. Today’s Supreme Court can and should deploy these two principles to vindicate Second Amendment rights from continued attacks and to roll back outlier laws enacted by only a few jurisdictions that intentionally choose to ignore the U.S. Constitution as written and refuse to be bound by Supreme Court precedent
Why, or Why Not, Be an Originalist?
Get PDFOn November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the second showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was “Why, or Why Not, Be an Originalist?” There are a variety of arguments for following originalism today, such as justifications rooted in language, positivism, sovereignty, and consequences. This panel would look at many normative positions for and against originalism
Wrongful Incarceration Causes Substantial Bodily Harm: Why Lawyers Should be Allowed to Breach Confidentiality to Help Exonerate the Innocent
Get PDFThe Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) governs the conduct of lawyers and provides the framework for how individual states and territories craft their rules. Rules regarding confidentiality have been central through the many iterations of these rules since their inception. Client confidentiality protections are critical to establishing and maintaining the public trust in the profession. Rule 1.6 of the MRPC gives a lawyer the opportunity to divulge a client confidence under varying circumstances, including the prevention of “substantial bodily harm”. To date, this has not resulted in a wide interpretation that this exception includes wrongful incarceration. This article seeks to advance the scholarship that has illuminated the physical and mental harm uniquely linked to wrongful incarceration and quantify this harm as substantial in accordance with the rule. The article further aims to parse the rule in an effort to prove that the language of Rule 1.6, in its current state, provides adequate protection for a lawyer breaching client confidentiality in an effort to prevent the substantial bodily harm of wrongful incarceration
132nd Commencement Address
No full textCatholic Law alumnus Jack Shields ’86 was presented the Presidential Medal by The Catholic University of America President, John Garvey. Following the presentation, Shields delivered the 2021 Commencement Address. “A legal education is preparation for more than just a career in law. A legal education prepares you for a wide range of careers,” said Shields. He then reflected not on his successes in law or business—though he’s had many—but on his time as a football player and the lessons he has carried with him throughout his career. His words reminded graduates of the importance of teamwork, thinking analytically, and learning from losing