Administrative Law Judges and the Erosion of the Administrative State: Why Jarkesy May Be the Straw that Breaks the Camel\u27s Back

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 II of the Constitution. This Comment argues that the Constitution sets out a functional inquiry for evaluating the removability of officials in the Take Care Clause, as opposed to the categorical inquiry erroneously adopted by the Fifth Circuit. If upheld by the Supreme Court, Jarkesy and the curtailment of ALJ independence will have a profound impact on not only the SEC, but all agencies, and the very fate of the administrative state

Lunch

The conference’s lunch break included a talk by Catholic Law’s Kevin C. Walsh, Knights of Columbus Professor of Law and the Catholic Tradition and codirector of the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. Walsh was introduced by Law Review lead articles editor Catherine Cook (3L). Walsh\u27s remarks expanded on his inaugural chair lecture, delivered in September 2023 and forthcoming in the next issue of Law Review, Judicial Power and Potential Unconstitutionality: A Scholastic Perspective

Judicial Clerkship Opinion Writing Conference

The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law) hosted its fourth annual Judicial Clerkship Opinion Writing Conference from Thursday, February 22 through Saturday, February 24. This year’s conference brought to campus thirty-six rising law clerks who in the upcoming year will serve in the chambers of either the Federal Circuit Courts, the Federal District Courts, or the State Appellate Courts. It provided these clerks opportunities for learning the particulars of judicial opinion writing and allowed them to experience the supportive and connected community at Catholic Law. This unique undertaking by the Law School serves both the bench and bar by training law students in an important skill

Freedom, Moral Purpose, and Self-Limitation: The Enduring Wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Center for Law and the Human Person at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law) hosted Professor Daniel Mahoney of Assumption University for a lecture on “Freedom, Moral Purpose, and Self-Limitation: The Enduring Wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.” Following an opening prayer and brief introduction by Center co-director Elizabeth Kirk, Mahoney delivered remarks on Solzhenitsyn’s philosophical contributions to an audience that filled the Walter A. Slowinski Courtroom. After sharing various fascinating biographical details about Solzhenitsyn, Mahoney described Solzhenitsyn’s enduring legacy as a fearless champion for the truth and an implacable opponent of the Soviet Union’s totalitarian regime

Black Excellence in the Legal Field

The evening began with introductory remarks by BLSA president Miranda Turner (3L), who welcomed attendees before yielding the podium to Emani Johnson (3L), BLSA Black History Month Chairperson, who served as the panel’s moderator. Johnson introduced the evening’s speakers: Krystal J. Brumfield, Associate Administrator for the Office of Government-wide Policy at the General Services Administration; Marjorie Fields Harris ’95, Assistant Director of External Affairs for the Office of State and Community Energy Programs; Carl Hobbs ’16, Senior Employment Counsel for the Housing and Urban Development Office of the Inspector General; Melanie Howard-Price, External Affairs Specialist and Co-Chair of the Diversity Committee at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia; and Erica Wright, Assistant General Counsel for the University of the District of Columbia. In addition to discussing career paths, each panelist expanded upon methods to overcome potential feelings of imposter syndrome after entering the legal profession. They also explored the value of both internships and mentorships and how they each relate to expanding a law student’s social and career networks

Veterans Treatment Courts: Broadening Eligibility for Veterans Convicted of Violent Offenses

Veterans treatment courts (VTCs) have been gaining widespread popularity as a tool to divert justice-involved veterans from the criminal justice system. While a step in the right direction, most of these courts categorically exclude violent offenders for eligibility. Many jurisdictions conflate violent offenses with serious offenses, even when many violent offenses lack any physical harm. Additionally, prosecutors wield almost unbridled discretion in determining whether or not someone is charged with an offense considered to be violent, determining VTC eligibility even before a case reaches a sentencing hearing. This comment argues for admitting veterans convicted of violent offenses into VTCs. This comment compares VTCs that exclude violent offenses with those that include them, and argues that a standard-based approach serves public safety and the needs of a justice-involved veteran better than a rule-based approach that categorically excludes violent offenses. While the criminal justice system as a whole would benefit from diverting violent offenders, the veteran community has a particular need for such broadened eligibility. Most veterans incarcerated in state systems have been convicted of violent offenses, yet only a modest amount of VTC admissions represent veterans convicted of violent offenses. Additionally, even though the largest ground combat operations of the Global War on Terror have come to an end, there will continue to be justice-involved veterans who will benefit from broader eligibility for VTCs

Censorship and the Law after 2020

This panel focused on the renewed conflict between First Amendment advocates and public officials in light on the COVID-19 pandemic and the battles over free speech and misinformation that came in its wake. Moderated by Law Review staff editor Gerald Sharpe (2L), it featured Marc DeGirolami, St. John Henry Newman Professor of Law and codirector of the Center for Law and the Human Person at Catholic Law; attorney Christopher Keleher, Esq., of the Kelleher Appellate Law Group, LLC; and General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg, Esq., of Children’s Health Defense