After the Realist Revolution: Judicial Lawmaking in an Age of Instrumentalist Common Law Jurisprudence

After the Realist Revolution extends the existing academic study of American common law into new and previously unexplored areas. The author examines the conventional understanding of appellate court lawmaking and the profound change in the common understanding of that activity that occurred during the mid-twentieth century. The author argues that this change in the conventional account of common law can be best understood as an authentic paradigm shift, akin to those described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The book also sheds light on the ways in which the current instrumentalist approach to appellate court lawmaking is influenced and, in some respects, compromised by the structures and procedures that were created during the prior formalist era. Thorough and insightful, After the Realist Revolution is an ideal resource for legal scholars and general readers interested in the nature and evolution of American common law.https://scholarship.law.edu/fac_books/1151/thumbnail.jp

136th Commencement Address

The University proudly honored the Honorable Edward H. Meyers \u2705, of the United States Court of Federal Claims, as the 2025 commencement speaker, awarding him the Presidential Medal. Dean Payne introduced Judge Meyers, highlighting his distinguished career and enduring contributions to the legal community. Judge Meyers is a summa cum laude graduate of Catholic Law who earned the John L. Garvey Faculty Award for achieving the highest academic distinction in his class. His impressive career includes clerking for the court he now serves, excelling in private practice managing complex civil litigation, and being appointed to the federal bench in 2020. Throughout his career, Judge Meyers has been a steadfast supporter of Catholic Law, mentoring students, hiring graduates as clerks, and strengthening the vital connection between the classroom and the courtroom

Associational Rights Versus Nonprofit Transparency: Information Reporting In The Internet Age

For decades, the nation’s charitable and nonprofit organizations have been required to file an information return, known as the Form 990, with the Internal Revenue Service. Congress mandates that the return be made publicly available. Such information reporting, both to the IRS and to the public, is the cornerstone of the federal government’s approach to assuring that nonprofit organizations are legally compliant. The Supreme Court’s decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (APF), however, casts a shadow on the constitutionality of nonprofit reporting requirements. In APF, the Court held unconstitutional California’s effort to require charities to disclose their major donors, finding that compelled disclosure rules presumptively impose a burden on First Amendment associational rights, even for confidential disclosures to the government. The Court also said that compelled disclosure rules are subject to exacting scrutiny and narrow tailoring. The federal nonprofit reporting regime therefore, post-APF, must undergo exacting scrutiny for the first time and may fail under the First Amendment

Staffer: Life On, Off, and After Capitol Hill

Catholic Law\u27s Law and Public Policy (LPP) Program recently hosted an engaging discussion titled Staffer: Life On, Off, and After Capitol Hill. The event featured LPP Director Brian Svoboda in conversation with Jim Papa, a partner at the Global Strategy Group in Washington, D.C. With a wealth of experience in both public service and the private sector, Papa shared insights from his career, which included serving as a special assistant in the Obama White House and as a senior advisor to House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel

Resolved: Governmental Destruction of a Traditional Site of Worship on Government-Owned Property Requires a Strict Scrutiny Analysis under the First Amendment

Catholic Law hosted the fourth annual Seigenthaler Debates on Wednesday, March 12. The event, co-sponsored by the Law School’s Federalist Society and American Constitution Society chapters, brings together prominent First Amendment scholars each year to debate pressing constitutional issues. This year’s debate, held virtually, centered on the resolution: “Resolved: Governmental Destruction of a Traditional Site of Worship on Government-Owned Property Requires a Strict Scrutiny Analysis under the First Amendment.” Representing the Pro position was Josh McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Faculty Director of the Religious Freedom Clinic, where he guides students in representing a diverse array of religious clients. Arguing the Con position was Lael Weinberger, an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., specializing in litigation, appellate law, constitutional law, and administrative law. The debate was moderated by Judge Paul B. Matey of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Success in the Law: Latino Voices & Experiences

On Monday, October 20, 2025, Catholic Law\u27s Office of Career and Professional Development and the Latin American Law Students Association (LALSA) hosted Success in the Law: Latino Voices & Experiences, a panel discussion featuring five Latino legal professionals who graduated from law school within the past five years. These accomplished panelists shared their career journeys and practical advice with aspiring lawyers, offering diverse perspectives from their respective legal fields. The speakers included Svetlanna Espinosa-Valdes, Associate at Eversheds Sutherland; Aimee Solano, Associate with Blankingship & Keith, P.C.; Nicolas Valderrama, Associate at Simpson Thacher LLP; Julie Orlando, Attorney at Offit Kurman; and Bev Diaz-Kenyon, Staff Attorney with the D.C. Pro Bono Center. During the discussion, panelists shared insights into their diverse career paths, reflected on lessons they wish they had known as first-year law students, and addressed a wide range of topics relevant to aspiring legal professionals. Highlighting a key ingredient to professional achievement, all five panelists emphasized the critical importance of networking and building strong relationships within the legal community, as well as noting the importance of helping the next group of law graduates succeed. Following the panel discussion, attendees had the opportunity to continue conversations and connect with panelists during a networking reception held in the Law School\u27s atrium

“Declaring Law”: A Pragmatic Analysis of Law as Communication and Implications for the Hart-Fuller Debate

The year 2024 is the sixtieth anniversary of a seminal work in American jurisprudence, itself the consequence of the one of the most important debates in legal philosophy, the Hart-Fuller Debate conducted in 1958’s Harvard Law Review. Legal philosopher Lon Fuller famously and controversially posited eight “legal principles” as constitutive of a “morality of law” (The Morality of Law, Yale University Press). Legal positivists stridently objected to Fuller’s theory, notably philosopher H.L.A. Hart. They rejected the idea that such things indicated a “moral” dimension to the law. The debate continued for many years, lately with many legal scholars reclaiming the ideas suggested by “Fuller’s Eight.” A dimension of philosophy that has always been thought at odds with Fuller’s Eight—the philosophy of language—can offer a fresh perspective on what Fuller meant. Under this study, legal rules are examined as linguistic utterances that not only say something, but also do something in their saying. This approach reveals an unstated dialectical context that Fuller presupposed, and shows how law-making, adjudicating, and enforcing are reflected in law’s declaratory, directive, and commissive instantiations. Drawing upon the work of linguists and ordinary language philosophers J. L. Austin, Paul Grice, John Searle, and Elizabeth Anscombe, among others, the article demonstrates how Fuller’s Eight mirror communicative maxims and felicitous declarations, explains what breakdowns in those conditions portend for the relationship between the sovereign and the governed, and suggests a list of distinct purposive categories—legal “illocutionary acts”—which distinguish what we do when we practice law