by Gabrielle Tremblay

I was raised in a family of candy-makers and farmers, in a town with a population that could fit in US Bank Stadium over 30 times. Yet I’m now in “the cities” (as northern Wisconsin folk like to call it) with my husband, a lawyer, who has the earning potential to support a large family. And I’m now a soon-to-be law school graduate who has agreed to work at a firm with an 1850 billable hour expectation. What am I doing here?

As a first-year law student, I didn’t know the answer to this question, but my undergraduate education at Creighton University helped me to answer it. It was there that I took a class with two Jesuit priests who walked students through St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises. An essential premise of the Exercises is that God speaks to us in many ways. Importantly, God’s voice is in the people around us and in our deepest desires and passions.

At no time have I heard God’s voice more than these last three years at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. It began when I was a first-year student in Civil Procedure. I couldn’t get enough of personal jurisdiction. It never occurred to me that I could’ve been making fudge at my family’s store or tending a homestead in Wisconsin. For me, none of it would pale in comparison to reading International Shoe or showing up to my midterms with the same rush I used to feel on the eighteenth hole of a big golf tournament. God assured me: I was right where I needed to be.

My love for not only personal jurisdiction, but many other nerdy subjects (proximate cause, the “what is chicken?” case, and, of course, subject matter jurisdiction), made me second-guess my initial plan to practice in family law. Not long into my 1L year, Dean Sisk, my civil procedure professor and co-director of the Murphy Institute, asked me, “Would it be difficult for you, as a Catholic, to represent people getting divorces?” Surprisingly, this question had never crossed my mind. I had seen many excellent family law practitioners who could professionally and brilliantly step into the messiest of human circumstances. I wanted to be that, until I worked in family court the summer after my 1L year. I saw attorneys taking on their client’s burdens to the point of incivility, litigants cracking jokes about their former spouse’s affair, and marriages ending in a matter of a 2-minute zoom hearing. Having been just weeks away from my own wedding, I was living out the tension exposed in Dean Sisk’s question. It was through this tension between my values and the family court room, combined with my desire to learn more about different areas of the law, that God told me I needed to keep my options open.

So, I found myself accepting a position for my 2L summer at a firm with large-corporation clients and an 1850 billable hour requirement. It wasn’t about the money. (In fact, my husband had already accepted a job at an even larger firm.) I saw it as God giving me the power and permission to do what I was passionate about—to explore my various practice interests at a general practice firm and work with people who share my passion for learning. People wonder if I will quit when I have children. As my husband, JJ, often tells me, that would be quite a loss. It wasn’t until my 2L and 3L year that I found the value in myself that JJ has always seen in me.

This began my 2L year while externing for Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. Working with Chief Judge Schiltz, I saw the real-world impact of a Catholic lawyer with a well-formed conscience. He taught me that Catholic lawyers are needed in every area of the law and not just the ultra-personal areas like criminal or family law. In a Catholic Studies class that next semester, I also had the privilege of reading Professor Elizabeth Schiltz’s exploration on motherhood and work from a Catholic perspective. Professor Schiltz not only describes the value of Catholic women in the public sphere, but also, as I have seen being her student in Moral Reasoning for Lawyers, lives it. I started to see my worth as a Catholic woman entering a law firm. I now find nothing more important than setting an example for my future children that they are allowed to bravely chase the desires that God has placed in their hearts.

My 3L year, I was blessed to be a part of Dean Sisk’s Appellate Clinic, where we represented an incarcerated client in his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dean Sisk showed us his outstanding skill and expertise in appellate work while treating my fellow student representative and me as intellectual equals. And he kept an open heart and ear towards our client. He taught me the value of a Catholic lawyer in the context of a real lawyer-client relationship and gave me the confidence to believe I could make that same impact.

Most importantly, throughout my time at St. Thomas, there was my Murphy Scholar cohort. In true Murphy Institute fashion, my cohort has shown me how to bravely defend a position while maintaining respect and empathy. I’m about to enter workplaces where the witness of Catholic lawyers—like Chief Judge Schiltz, Professor Schiltz, Dean Sisk, and the lawyers my fellow Murphy Scholars will be—is essential. In these spaces, my cohort’s example will play in my mind on the days I need to stand up for my own beliefs and principles.

In short, I am here because of my nerdy passion for civil procedure, a simple but thoughtful question, and the witness of Catholic lawyers at St. Thomas. At St. Thomas, God has made clear not only why I am here, but also that I belong here.

Gabrielle Tremblay is a Murphy Scholar and 3L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

“Student Perspective” is a recurring blog series which highlights the various activities of the Murphy Scholar graduate students during their fellowship.

by Jared Zimmerman

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Church is both within history, but also transcends it (Section 770). Additionally, the Catechism states that the Church is both a means by which Christ speaks to his flock and a “visible society.” (Section 771). Why does this matter? Especially to our non-Catholic (or non-religious) friends and neighbors?

It matters because it suggests that there are universal principles which do not solely exist in the realm of abstract thought. Rather than being an armchair philosopher espousing “feel good” principles, a visible Church requires concrete action. Moreover, it calls the individual and community to move from passivity to actively embody the values they profess. For example, is someone who merely makes a social media post about injustice actually creating change? Probably not. Conversely, the Church answers the call of Christ to care for our neighbors not with a post, but by living the values she espoused. For example, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul uses this calling to actively clothe, feed, and house those in need, regardless of religious affiliation. Likewise, the Church calls for us to be more “Christ-like” and one of the ways this is embedded is through organizations like the Knights of Columbus (of which I am a proud member) and the Catholic Daughters of the Americas. These organizations carry out charitable works such as supporting families in need, funding community and parish initiatives, and promoting service, unity, and faith through organized outreach and volunteer efforts. They provide direct and visible support not only to their members and their families, but to their greater community.

This call to visible action is not incidental, but flows from the Church’s very nature. Visibility, in this sense, forces a transition from expression to embodiment. Even if one is a non-believer, the theological or academic logic of a visible Church is still of the utmost importance. This is because it serves as a rallying cry for good and as a banner for universal truths. Additionally, it aids in clarifying moral ambiguity, drawing clearer lines between what is considered good and evil. From a Christian perspective, this visibility is grounded in the Incarnation itself, with God becoming visible and tangible in Christ, rather than remaining purely abstract or distant.

This idea of a visible Church can just as easily be applied to the practice of law. For example, there are Rules of Professional Conduct that obligate lawyers to behave in certain ways and prohibit them from certain actions. This is a visible set of standards that mandates certain ethical behavior and failure to adhere to it can lead to excommunication (disbarment). Likewise, licensing requirements for attorneys serve as a visible threshold of entry into the profession, signaling to the public that certain minimum standards of competence and ethics have been met. Even disciplinary bodies such as state bar associations function as ongoing visible mechanisms of accountability, where violations of professional norms are formally investigated and sanctioned. Similarly, law school can be understood as an early site of formation, where future lawyers are not only trained in doctrine but are called to recognize that legal knowledge carries a responsibility to pursue justice in practice, not merely in theory.

Ultimately, the value of visibility lies in its ability to make principles real and actionable rather than distant and theoretical. In both religious and legal contexts, it is not enough for ideals to exist because they must be lived out in a structured and recognizable way. Without this visibility, even the strongest principles risk losing their clarity and influence in everyday life. This is especially relevant in our modern day, where moral discourse often remains abstract, fragmented, or confined to individual expression rather than collective practice.

Jared Zimmerman is a Murphy Scholar and 3L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in the JD/CSMA program.

“Student Perspective” is a recurring blog series which highlights the various activities of the Murphy Scholar graduate students during their fellowship.

by Jared Zimmerman

Over the 2025 Fall Break, I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Rome while on my honeymoon. Other than the amazing food and enriching experiences with Italian culture, I was struck by the sheer number of churches throughout the city. Specifically, the number of churches constructed on sites once associated with Christian persecution and martyrdom. What had once been the scene of countless Christian martyrdoms, had now been transformed into a site of hope and thanksgiving. These sacred spaces stand as physical reminders that systems of violence and oppression are not immutable, but capable of redemption and renewal. Likewise, the American legal system, once a system used to justify horrors such as slavery and religious discrimination, can be transformed into a system that truly recognizes that everyone is created equal. Law, like history, reflects the values of those who interpret and apply it. Just as the early Christians transformed the Roman system of persecution and oppression, so too must we as law students and lawyers continue to guard and prevent the legal system from being used to further oppression and discrimination.

While there is a plethora of examples from ancient Rome, one of the most visible and well-known is the Colosseum. What had once been the grounds for innumerable Christian martyrs, executed for their faith to the cheers of a pagan society, was transformed into the Church of Santa Maria della Pietà al Colosseo in approximately the sixth or seventh century. Notably, on Good Friday the Pope leads the stations of the cross in and around the Colosseum, reclaiming a former site of violence as one of reflection and worship. This ritual serves as a powerful reminder that even the most brutal instruments of injustice can be reoriented toward truth, memory, and moral accountability.

Just as the early Christians transformed the Colosseum into a church, so too did Frederick Douglass shift the narrative that the Constitution was pro-slavery, into a fundamentally anti-slavery and pro-freedom document. Douglass went further and argued that when properly understood, the Constitution required  equality under the law. Douglass’s influential interpretation demonstrates that legal texts are not static, but depend upon the moral courage of those willing to challenge unjust readings of the law.

As the heirs of the early Christians and abolitionists, us law students and lawyers now have a duty to help transform the law and safeguard it from being corrupted into a tool of persecution and oppression. This does not require any of us to do the extraordinary, but only the ordinary, such as using our discretion for the betterment of the common good. Likewise, whenever we see an unjust law or even a just law which is being misused to harm another, we have a duty to speak out and to work toward justice through the legal system. This duty may take many forms, including advocating for reform through litigation or legislation, providing zealous and ethical representation to marginalized clients, and refusing to remain silent in the face of injustice. In doing so, we honor both the victims of past injustices and the promise of a legal system rooted in dignity, equality, and the rule of law.

Jared Zimmerman is a Murphy Scholar and 3L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in the JD/CSMA program.

“Student Perspective” is a recurring blog series which highlights the various activities of the Murphy Scholar graduate students during their fellowship.

by Georgina Sugrue

This summer, I worked as a research assistant for Dean Greg Sisk, co-director of the Murphy Institute, analyzing data for his ongoing empirical study on religious liberty issues in the courts.  The study began in 1998 with a null hypothesis which states that partisan appointment has no effect on free exercise claims.  So far, the null hypothesis has prevailed, but the study continues as research is divided into ten-year increments. At this time, Sisk’s work is particularly interested in whether judges displayed more bias during years with high COVID-19 case counts. Our summer project specifically focused on how district court judges handled constitutional claims from individuals with diverse religious backgrounds in 2020.   

The research process required coding for the different factors raised in the case, along with specific facts. I began by noting the court, date of decision, the judge’s name, and the overall outcome of the case (whether the religious claimant won on any claims). My focus was specifically on 2020, so I made sure to note if COVID-19 and the resulting restrictions played a role in the claim. I then noted whether the person who believed their religious rights were infringed upon was in court as a plaintiff or as a defendant. Next, I identified the claimant’s religion, which often required additional research beyond the opinion to determine the specific denomination of the individual or organization. I reviewed cases from a variety of traditions, including Catholic, American Baptist, Lutheran, Unitarian, Jewish, Native American, Rastafarian, and others.    

A more detailed analysis was necessary to identify the type of religious claim involved and whether the individual prevailed or lost on it. These issues included the Free Exercise Clause, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, the Free Speech Clause, the Equal Access Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and/or the Establishment Clause. Next, I would categorize the type of situation the specific case falls under and the claimant’s religion. I reviewed claims regarding health or safety regulations of private activities, public elementary education, religious solicitation, prisoner claims, employment discrimination against a government employer, and exemptions from anti-discrimination rules.   

As my list of cases spanned across 2020, it was important to note whether each case came before or after the SCOTUS decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo on November 22, 2020. In short, the Supreme Court reviewed cases in which the government in New York limited attendance at religious services by a church and a synagogue due to COVID-19 concerns, while businesses in the area deemed essential were permitted to have unlimited numbers of people in their buildings. The Court determined that the strict restrictions imposed by the governor of New York were too severe and ordered them to be revoked as they were not generally applicable to citizens, the loss of First Amendment freedoms was likely to cause irreparable harm, and there was minimal public interest in the restrictions. This decision was vital to the lower courts in resolving the large number of cases brought by religious organizations challenging COVID-19 gathering restrictions. 

The next step in this process is for Dean Sisk to review the data and determine whether the null hypothesis has been rejected. If there is a significant conclusion, more writing about the research might follow. Previously, Dean Sisk and Professor Michael Heise have written Muslims and Religious Liberty in the Era of 9/11: Empirical Evidence from the Federal Courts, 98 Iowa L. Rev. 231 (2012), as well as Approaching Equilibrium In Free Exercise Of Religion Cases? Empirical Evidence From The Federal Courts, 64 Ariz. L. Rev. 989 (2022).  

The experience as a research assistant was an excellent opportunity to refine my analytical skills and learn more about the treatment of religious liberty by the courts.  I am eager to see the outcomes of our summer research and review future findings. 

Georgina Sugrue is a Murphy Scholar and 2L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

“Student Perspective” is a recurring blog series which highlights the various activities of the Murphy Scholar graduate students during their fellowship.

by Jared Zimmerman

Over the past academic year, I have had the pleasure of working as a Research Assistant with the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition (JRLC) in my role as a Murphy Scholar with the Terrance J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Business (Murphy Institute). The JRLC is an interfaith public policy advocacy group which represents the shared public policy goals of Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. One of its central aims is to repeal or modify laws that penalize individuals for marrying—laws that, intentionally or not, discourage people from entering into this lifelong commitment. The JRLC chose this because the right to marry is not only a fundamental right recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States, but also because of the positive outcomes from entering into legally recognized marriages, such as certain tax benefits and increases in happiness.

A significant hurdle to people marrying was identified by the JRLC, during the 2023-2024 Minnesota Legislative Session. Specifically, the  JRLC addressed and changed legislation that took food assistance away from people who married. Continuing this work, the JRLC asked its Murphy Scholar research assistants to identify other unjust laws that similarly targeted those who married or wished to marry.

After researching various Minnesota statutes and agency policies, I found a provision within the Minnesota GI Bill. Under current law, if the surviving spouse of a deceased military member remarries, they lose the government-assisted tuition benefits earned by their deceased spouse. In other words, choosing to remarry means forfeiting educational benefits tied to a loved one’s service and sacrifice. I proposed amending the current law, which is now incorporated into Minnesota Senate File (SF) 1959 and Minnesota House File (HF) 2444. My proposed change, which is going for a vote during the 2025-2026 MN Legislative session, allows surviving spouses to remarry without losing their access to tuition assistance.

This issue wasn’t chosen at random. It addressed a clear injustice, and it held political viability—a key factor in any advocacy effort. This topic was chosen because it: (1) addressed a discriminatory action against individuals wishing to become married and (2) it is difficult for legislators to justify being elected if they vote against the spouses of deceased service members who are simply seeking an education. But beyond political calculations, this experience reminded me that real change requires more than good policy—it requires humility, understanding, and a willingness to meet people where they are.

Policy change is often slow and incremental. Yet in this work, I found myself guided by the wisdom of Scripture—especially St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19–22, where he calls us to “become all things to all people” and meet others where they are. For example, amending the Minnesota GI Bill meets people where they are by recognizing and responding with charity and fairness to the challenges faced by surviving spouses of deceased service members. This does not mean to stop zealously advocating for what is true and moral, but being realistic with what it is you are attempting to accomplish. What public policy you advocate for and how you do it looks different depending where you are. For example, how you advocate in Minnesota may look different compared to advocating in Alabama or California.

We want things to take place immediately, and this is a worthy desire, however, as St. Paul writes, we need to meet people where they are. This means listening to people’s concerns, attempting to dissuade and persuade them to why it is you are advocating for a righteous piece of public policy and they should too. When that fails, and it inevitably will at some point, is when we have to compromise and show radical love. Only God knows why things happen the way they do, and while it can be absolutely frustrating, any step forward is a step towards righteous change.

Never stop fighting to uphold the dignity of others—but do not forget the timeless wisdom of St. Paul: meeting people where they are. Meeting people where they are and becoming “all things to all people” has been the greatest privilege of my time with the JRLC.

Jared Zimmerman is a Murphy Scholar and 2L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in the JD/CSMA program.

“Student Perspective” is a recurring blog series which highlights the various activities of the Murphy Scholar graduate students during their fellowship.