Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (2)
- And the coercion test (1)
- Bob McDonnell (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Corrupt (1)
-
- Dean Skelos (1)
- Dormant Commerce Clause (1)
- Ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (1)
- Employment Breach of Contract Claims (1)
- Employment Discrimination/Retaliation Claims (1)
- Employment Law (1)
- Enhanced federalism (1)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (1)
- Establishment Clause (1)
- Free Exercise Claims (1)
- Honest Services Fraud (1)
- Hosanna-Tabor (1)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1)
- Incorporation doctrine (1)
- Intangible Rights (1)
- Intermediate scrutiny (1)
- Joseph Bruno (1)
- Level of scrutiny (1)
- Ministerial Exception (1)
- Minster Employment Suits (1)
- Minster Whistleblower Suits (1)
- Nonpreferentialism (1)
- Pike balancing test (1)
- Pike test (1)
- Political Corruption (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Other Law
Deference Vs. Evidence: An Exploration Of The Appropriate Application Of Putative Benefits To The Pike Balancing Test, Nathan Gniewek
Deference Vs. Evidence: An Exploration Of The Appropriate Application Of Putative Benefits To The Pike Balancing Test, Nathan Gniewek
Catholic University Law Review
The Supreme Court has long done battle with the intricacies and subtle implications of the interplay between state and federal power with regard to commerce. Although the Supreme Court crafted the Pike balancing test in 1970, that test has proven a jurisprudential headache due to a lack of a solid definition of the key phrase “putative benefits.”
Since the Supreme Court decided Pike v. Bruce Church, circuit courts have been unable to apply the term consistently when making use of the Pike test, generating a massive circuit split. This Comment teases out the differing treatment of states’ burden of …
At The Intersection Of Religious Organization Missions And Employment Laws: The Case Of Minister Employment Suits, Jarod S. Gonzalez
At The Intersection Of Religious Organization Missions And Employment Laws: The Case Of Minister Employment Suits, Jarod S. Gonzalez
Catholic University Law Review
Reviewing the intersection of a religious organization’s right to select employees based on their goals and mission and modern employment law, this article argues that the analysis of the ministerial exception will depend on the type of suit brought. Specifically, the Article identifies five analytical categories: (1) employment discrimination/employment retaliation claims; (2) breach of employment contract claims; (3) whistleblower claims; (4) tort claims; and (5) miscellaneous claims.
The Article begins by describing the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines that exist under the First Amendment through the lens of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School …
The Quid Pro Quo Quark: Unstable Elementary Particle Of Honest Services Fraud, Brian H. Connor
The Quid Pro Quo Quark: Unstable Elementary Particle Of Honest Services Fraud, Brian H. Connor
Catholic University Law Review
From 1946 to 1987, the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, was a powerful tool for the prosecution of political corruption. In a line of decisions beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s in Shushan v. United States, and ending with the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. United States, courts upheld the use of the statute to prosecute officials who had deprived the public of its “intangible right” to the official’s “honest services.” In 1988, after the Supreme Court held this theory unconstitutionally vague in McNally, Congress enacted § 1346, intending to restore “honest services fraud” …
Hopeful Clarity Or Hopeless Disarray?: An Examination Of Town Of Greece V. Galloway And The Establishment Clause, Krista M. Pikus
Hopeful Clarity Or Hopeless Disarray?: An Examination Of Town Of Greece V. Galloway And The Establishment Clause, Krista M. Pikus
Catholic University Law Review
Reviewing Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this article notes that the current state of this area of law is in hopeless disarray and argues that the Court should resolve this confusion by employing a few proposed solutions. The article begins by reviewing and analyzing the confusion surrounding modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The article then discusses what interpretation of the Establishment Clause should be controlling: strict-separationism, nonpreferentialism, enhanced federalism, or the incorporation doctrine. Next, the article details what is wrong with modern establishment clause jurisprudence, namely, the Court’s inconsistent application of different tests to assess government action under the …