Marc O. DeGirolami

Washington, D.C., United States

St. John Henry Newman Professor of Law Co-Director, Center for Law and the Human Person The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law

Featured in: Favicon

newrepublic.com Favicon

lawliberty.org Favicon

firstthings.com Favicon

nytimes.com Favicon

thepublicdiscourse.com

Articles

The Dynamics of Exemption and Establishment

3 weeks ago | thepublicdiscourse.com | Marc O. DeGirolami

Editors’ Note: In recognition of the 100th anniversary of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, this article is published as the third in a three-part series on religious freedom. What can the minority in a democracy reasonably expect from the majority?
Status? Conduct? Belief? Message? Mark Movsesian on the Wedding-Vendor Cases

2 months ago | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

It was a great honor and pleasure for Kevin and me to host my fried and former colleague, Professor Mark Movsesian of St. John’s Law School. In this episode of Sub Deo, we discuss some of the most contentious and emotionally fraught cases in the law and religion canon–the wedding-vendor cases–pitting the rights of the traditional religious against LGBT persons.
Was the Constitution "Hard" Positive Law When Enacted?

2 months ago | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

That’s by and large the subject of our discussion on this new podcast, as Kevin and I chatted about some comments he will offer in response to Jonathan Gienapp’s “Against Constitutional Originalism” at a conference at Yale. It gave us a chance to revisit one of my favorite old cases, Calder v. Bull (1798), and the opinion of Justice Paterson (pictured above) in the case.
Thoughts on ABA accreditation of law schools and academic letters, joint and single

2 months ago | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

These are the topics, rather close to home, that Kevin and I take up in this episode of Sub Deo. Listen in!
Was Rahimi Right?

Mar 5, 2025 | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

A follow-up Sub Deo podcast to our last concerning the Bruen case, in this episode Kevin and I reflect on the methodology of United Stated v. Rahimi and think about judicial prudence in light of a wonderful old classic of constitutional theory from the 1980s, The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, by Christopher Wolfe. Listen in!
Was Bruen Right? Prof. Joel Alicea on Sub Deo

Feb 28, 2025 | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

In our newest episode, Kevin and I interview our friend and colleague, Joel Alicea, about his very fine new article, Bruen Was Right. Along the way we cover several broad and specific matters of constitutional interpretation. It was a pleasure to do this with two originalist friends of mine. Listen in!
Hobbes as Jurisprudent

Feb 19, 2025 | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

“And first, it is manifest that law in general is not counsel, but command; nor a command of any man to any man, but only of him whose command us addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him.
Sub Deo XV: What is the "Legislative Power"? (An Elections Clause Diversion)

Feb 14, 2025 | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

The Elections Clause of the Constitution states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In this episode, Kevin and I think about his latest article, which argues that Virginia’s congressional districts are unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of Virginia exercised...
Saving Religion from Incoherence

Jan 28, 2025 | thepublicdiscourse.com | Marc O. DeGirolami

There once was a time when religion was listed alongside politics, sex, and money as unsuitable for discussion in polite company. Religion may be the only one of this quartet of etiquette taboos left standing. It still feels improper, awkward, uncomfortable.
"Cloaked with religious significance": Two Judicial Views of Religion in American Law

Dec 11, 2024 | humanperson.law.edu | Marc O. DeGirolami

From an interesting, unpublished, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, McDowell v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. The case itself was not that uncommon. It concerned a Title VII matter: the defendant required its employees to receive a COVID vaccine in order to work, with possible exemptions for religious or medical reasons.