The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Not a member yet
5983 research outputs found
Sort by
Let’s Get This Show on the Road: Driverless Cars Have Arrived and It’s Time to Advance the Regulatory Framework
Get PDFThe potential benefits that driverless automobile technology will provide to the U.S. and its roadways are vast. Greatly enhanced safety of American citizens is chief among these benefits. Congressional and administrative support will be required if these benefits are to be completely realized by American society. However, lawmakers are dragging their feet on passing legislation that will allow driverless cars to hit the road in full force. This comment examines the legislative proposals put forth by the House of Representatives and Senate. It argues that the differences between the two versions are inconsequential and urges lawmakers to act in order to save American lives and keep pace with other nations
Split Over Sex: Federal Circuits and Executive Agencies Split Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination Under Title VII
Get PDFTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sex. Since its enactment, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has definitively stated whether sex discrimination based on sexual orientation is protected under Title VII. Though the judicial interpretation of sex has evolved, courts have routinely held that the protections of Title VII do not extend to claims based on sexual orientation discrimination. As three circuits faced these claims, a split was created in the circuits as well as in the two agencies tasked with the enforcement of Title VII. This Comment explores the history of workplace sex discrimination cases based on sexual orientation under Title VII, how the current circuit split should be resolved, and the impact these cases will have on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace
Antitrust in an Information Age
No full textPaul St. Clair (3L) delivered the second Student Scholars Series lecture of the semester entitled “Antitrust in an Information Age” on February 13. St. Clair decided on this topic after noticing a rise in both left and right leaning economists calling for antitrust regulation in big tech. Randy Long served as the respondent for St. Clair\u27s lecture. Long is a Director of Competition & Consumer Protection Policy at Microsoft\u27s Washington, D.C. office. A summary of the event is available here
Gun Control in the Face of a New Supreme Court & Congress
No full textOn April 1, 2019, the American Constitution Society hosted an event entitled “Gun Control in the Face of a New Supreme Court & Congress.” The event welcomed the Brady Campaign’s Josh Scharff and Tess Fardon to discuss the serious topic of gun violence prevention.Scharff began by providing statistics on the epidemic of gun violence in the United States and discussed the country’s concerns as being bipartisan. Fardon provided a thorough legal analysis on the pending SCOTUS case on gun violence prevention, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, and discussed potential outcomes. A summary of the event is available here
The Dodd Frank Act in our De-regulatory Environment
No full textOn Tuesday, February 5, 2019, The Securities Law Program presented its third lecture of the year entitled “The Dodd Frank Act in our De-regulatory Environment.” The talk was delivered by Amy Friend, former Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, at the time of the adoption of the Dodd Frank Act, who later served as the Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). A summary of the event is available here
An Erie Approach to Privilege Doctrine.
Get PDFThis short essay considers the HannStar and Silver cases and begins a discussion of the impact that the Erie doctrine has—and, more importantly, ought to have—on privilege law. While Erie is considered by many as “one of the modern cornerstones of our federalism,” the doctrine is important too for the change it can effect through the cross pollination of ideas among tribunals. Because privilege laws reflect deliberate policy choices by legislatures and courts, the Erie doctrine arguably plays a particularly vital role in developing this area of the law
Mastering Masterpiece
Get PDFReligious freedom ensures that every person has the right to explore life’s deepest questions and to live out their religious convictions in public life. Free speech similarly ensures that all have the liberty to express their views and pursue truth without fear of government punishment. Free exercise of religion and free speech are durable rights that do not turn on cultural popularity or political power; these freedoms enable us to coexist peacefully with each other despite deep differences. Yet these freedoms are being sorely tested today by government efforts to suppress the rights of creative professionals—painters, filmmakers, printers, and many others—who in recent years found themselves out of step with novel government orthodoxies on marriage and sexuality.
The United States Supreme Court considered these foundational freedoms in three critical cases in its last term: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“Masterpiece I”);1 National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra;2 and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. Masterpiece considered whether the government may lawfully force an artist’s hand to create art against the artist’s conscience. NIFLA asked whether the government may compel religious prolife advocates—pregnancy centers, no less—to promote other groups’ abortion services. And Janus asked whether the government may compel a non-union public employee to subsidize his agency’s union when that employee opposed many of the union’s positions. The objecting speakers in each case were protected, building on a legacy of First Amendment precedents.
This article reviews the genesis of Masterpiece and its application of well-established religious freedom principles to protect artist Jack Phillips’ free exercise rights. It then discusses how the strict proscriptions against compelled speech affirmed in NIFLA and Janus should work in tandem with religious freedom to protect creative professionals’ rights of conscience. Finally, the article applies those decisions in creative professional cases currently in litigation including Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers. Whether reviewing recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court or decades old precedent, the article concludes that everyone’s freedom is respected when the government protects religious freedom and free speech and assiduously avoids compelling anyone to speak a message or celebrate an event that violates their core convictions