Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

A Matter Of Public Concern: Eliminating The Public Concern Test To Safeguard New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Alyssa T. Calcerano

Catholic University Law Review

In recent years, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed a strong interest in reconsidering, and perhaps overruling, the landmark defamation decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Court’s defamation jurisprudence has undergone many changes since the landmark case was decided, namely, the Court has since adopted a test known as the “public concern” test. Though adopted by only a plurality of the Court, the “public concern” test has been integrated into the defamation decisions of lower federal courts and state courts. This comment encourages the Court to abandon any push toward the wholesale abandonment of Sullivan and, instead, …

Delivery Drivers Deserve The Whole Package: Package Delivery Drivers And The Transportation Worker Exemption Of The Federal Arbitration Act, Evan Kelly

Catholic University Law Review

Package delivery is a ubiquitous part of modern American life, and package delivery driving is a fast-growing occupation in the United States. These drivers work long hours in a fast-paced, highly regimented environment, and because of arbitration agreements they are made to sign, they often cannot go to court to settle disputes with their employers. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), these arbitration agreements are generally “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” However, the FAA includes an exemption (known as the “Transportation Worker exemption”) that excludes arbitration agreements in “contracts of employment for seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of worker …

Answered By Text, Jennifer L. Mascott, Eli Nachmany

Scholarly Articles

This Essay takes stock of a pivotal moment at the Court: statutory interpretation at center stage in administrative law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent Term saw numerous landscape-shifting administrative law decisions. The most widely discussed was the Court’s elimination of 40-year-old Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court’s decisions also effected significant change in the scope of Seventh Amendment jury trial rights and the length of time that individuals, businesses, and associations have to challenge agency actions. But taken together, the Court’s decisions did not radically restructure the administrative state on constitutional grounds. Despite the substantial …

A More Luminous Beacon, William M.M. Kamin

Scholarly Articles

Over the Supreme Court’s past four Terms, federal post conviction habeas corpus has been placed on the chopping-block. Its fate hangs in the balance of an historical debate over the maxim, oft recited by the Court between 1830–1953, that post conviction habeas reaches only “jurisdictional defects” — as opposed to “mere error” — on the part of the convicting court. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas maintain that “jurisdiction” carried then the same narrow meaning it does now: power ab initio over the offense charged and the defendant’s person. Justices Kagan and Jackson contend that, in this context, “jurisdictional defect” was understood …

Ghost Guns: A Case Study On The Tension Between Public Exigencies And Statutory Construction, Bradley Krause

Catholic University Law Review

Administrative agencies often navigate public policy issues while simultaneously handling complex and highly technical matters. When facing a public emergency, how should courts interpret these agencies’ authorizing statutes? What rules of thumb exist to guide the courts? This Comment answers these questions through a case study on ongoing litigation pertaining to a recent ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) regulation. The regulation, targeted towards ghost guns (also known as “privately manufactured firearms”), seeks to incorporate these weapons within pre-existing definitions in the ATF’s authorizing statute, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). In spite of challenges to the regulation, …

A Conversation With Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Brett M. Kavanaugh, J. Joel Alicea

Catholic University Law Review

On Thursday, September 26th, 2024, the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at The Catholic University of America hosted a conversation between Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Professor J. Joel Alicea. This was the inaugural event of the new Center. The conversation covered topics such as constitutional interpretation, the separation of powers, religious liberty, and the Catholic intellectual tradition. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered. The video of the event may be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKvSwzkmqo.

The Antidote Of Free Speech: Censorship During The Pandemic, Christopher Keleher

Catholic University Law Review

Free speech in America stands at a precipice. The nation must decide if the First Amendment protects controversial, unconventional, and unpopular speech, or only that which is mainstream, fashionable, and government-approved. This debate is one of many legal battles brought to the fore during Covid-19. But the fallout of the free speech question will transcend Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the federal government took unprecedented steps to pressure private entities to push messages it approved and squelch those it did not. The Supreme Court will soon grapple with the issue of censorship during the pandemic. This article examines this litigation, along …

Administrative Law Judges And The Erosion Of The Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be The Straw That Breaks The Camel's Back, Nicholas D'Addio

Catholic University Law Review

The Trump-era unitary executive movement sought to expand presidential

power and shrink the influence of the administrative state through deregulation.

This movement ripples into the present moment, as Trump’s overhaul of the

federal judiciary installed a comprehensive system to delegitimize

administrative agency action— a system that is certain to endure. The

independence and role of administrative law judges (ALJs) has proven a key

target of the movement. Most recently, in the 2022 case of Jarkesy v. Securities

and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tiered for-cause

removal protections of SEC ALJs violated the Take Care Clause of Article …

"Appropriate" Appropriations Challenges After Community Financial, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

The standard federal agency must come to Congress each year, hat in hand, and request another round of congressional funding. This annual appropriations process ensures that Congress maintains at least some influence over the vast array of rules and regulations that govern Americans' daily lives. Sure, Congress might have delegated broad authority to administrative agencies to develop national policy on Congress's behalf. But an agency reliant on annual appropriations is an agency with the financial incentive to exercise its delegated authority with an eye toward pleasing congressional appropriators. The annual appropriations process is therefore a sensible (even if insufficient) step …

The Immorality Of Originalism, Jack M. Beermann

Catholic University Law Review

The central claim of this essay is that in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it is immoral to choose original intent over social welfare, broadly conceived. Once this argument is laid out and defended on its own terms, I support the central claim with a variety of arguments, including the defective process pursuant to which the Constitution was enacted, the deeply flawed substantive content of the Constitution, the incongruity of fidelity to the views of a generation of revolutionaries, the current virtual imperviousness of the Constitution to amendment, the failure of the Constitution to resolve fundamental questions concerning the allocation of …