December 10, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/10, we first went over the Maine exemptions statute that was distributed on Tuesday. I discussed two bankruptcy cases that interpreted that Maine statute, in re Grindal, 30 B.R. 651, and in re MacLeod, 295 B.R. 1. We then went on to Chapter VI of the text, and covered the Sullivan and Padilla cases that had been assigned. I also discussed one additional case regarding the concept of "standing", Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

The exam will be in our regular classroom on Tuesday, from 5:30 to 6:45, open book and open note, same format as the first exam. It will cover the material since our first exam.

December 8, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding property that's exempt from seizure by your creditors. We finished going through the cases in Chapter V of the text, and I also discussed one additional Maine trial court case involving remittitur, Fleet Bank v. Mayeux, 2006 WL 2959786 (Me. Super. 2006). The assignment is to read the handout, and also read in the text through p. 236.

December 3, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/3, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence. We went over the Libby (p. 203) and Richmond (p. 212) cases from the text. I also discussed one Maine Supreme Court case that touched on the Maine Rule of Evidence regarding religious privilege for clergy acting as a spiritual adviser, Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2005 ME 57. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is read and prepare to discuss the remainder of Chapter V of the text.

December 1, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 12/1, I first returned the Bickford case briefs, and I also distributed a comment key to my comments on those briefs. We then started going through the concepts and cases of Chapter V of the text, getting through the Dorsey case on p. 199. I also talked about two additional Maine cases regarding service of process, LaFosse v. Champagne, 2000 ME 81, and Gaeth v. Deacon, 2009 ME 9. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 218 of the text.

November 24, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/24, I first collected the Bickford case briefs, and we went over them. I then talked about two cases regarding service of process, Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, and Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98. We will do some more service of process cases when we pick up after the break. The assignment for Tuesday 12/1 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 189-204 of the text. I hope that you have a good Thanksgiving.

November 19, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/19, we began by going over some questions about the Bickford case brief, which is due on Tuesday 11/24. I then discussed two recent Maine Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases, Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124 and Cavers v. Houston Astros, 2008 ME 164. We then went over the remaining three cases from Chapter IV of the text, Ruhrgas v. Marathon, Kopp v. Kopp, and Gebbia v. Wal-Mart. The assignment for Tuesday 11/24 is to complete your Bickford case brief, which is due at the beginning of class.

November 17, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/17, I distributed one handout, the final case briefing assignment, which is shown below,and which is due a week from today, Tuesday 11/24. We started our discussion with a comparison the concepts of conflict of law, subject matter jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction, by using the Maine Supreme Court case of Collins v. Trius, 663 A2d 570 (Me 1995). We then focused on subject matter jurisdiction, with the Maine Supreme Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure, 2004 ME 85, 853 A2d 749,and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell, 551 US 207 (2007). We finished today by discussing the Bohlander case from the text. The assignment for Thursday 11/19 is to read the remainder of chapter IV of the text, and to begin work on the Bickford case brief.


Assignment due Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation, 2004 ME 11, 855 A.2d 1150 . The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.

To access the case, go to

http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html

--select “2004 Opinions”

--select 2004 ME 111, Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation

Do not brief the FCRA issue (Part II (A)) of the decision, but brief the other issues.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Whatever you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your
Issue and Holding sections should be identical, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that i can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Tuesday 11/ 24, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon
as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

November 12, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/12, I distributed two handouts: one is the Maine "long-arm" statute, and the other is an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. We finished our discussion of Full Faith and Credit, and went on to a discussion in Chapter Four of juries. I talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979) regarding the use of non-unanimous six person juries in felony trials. We then began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction with the Edwards case on p. 157. We will pick up next week with some more subject-matter jurisdiction cases, and then go to personal jurisdiction. The assignment is to read over those two handouts, and read through p. 169 of the text.

November 10, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/10, I handed back the Flaherty case briefs, as well as a comment key, and we briefly discussed those briefs. We discussed the Land v. Yamaha case at p. 180 of the text, and how federal courts apply conflict of laws rules. I described the broad outline of the concept of personal jurisdiction, and then we began a discussion of the Constitutional requirement of Full Faith and Credit. I distributed a handout that had the federal and state statutes that deny Full Faith and Credit to same sex marriages from states that do allow those marriages into states that do not allow those marriages. On Thursday, 11/12, we will begin with the previously assigned Karstetter case on p. 145. The additional assignment is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 152-167.

November 5, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/5, I collected the Flaherty case briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. We also went over the Hubbard case from the textbook. I plan to return the Flaherty case briefs on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/10 is to finish reading Chapter III of the text, and to also read pp. 179-182 of the text, regarding what happens to choice-of-laws rules when they get into federal court.

November 3, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, I began with news of the final exam date, which is Tuesday 12/15 from 5:30 -7:30 (actually, the exam will just be 75 minutes long, just like the first exam--5:30-6:45). We went over questions about the Flaherty case (case brief due Thursday), and then discussed the Apsey case (p. 132) regarding retroactive v. prospective application of a court decision. I went over a recent Maine Supreme Court decision, Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, which discussed retroactive v. prospective application of a change in the Maine statutes. We discussed the Strunk kidney transplant case(p. 136), and began our discussion of the conflict of laws case, Hubbard v. Greeson (p.141). The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to complete your Flaherty case brief, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, and also review the Hubbard case.

October 29, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/29, I distributed one handout, the next case brief assignment, which is due next Thursday, and which is reproduced below. Then we talked about the Butler case, both the majority and the dissenting opinions. I also went over the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., in which a majority of the Court confirmed the majority decision in Butler. In addition to starting work on the Flaherty case brief, the assignment is to read through p. 145 of the text, which has the textbook discussion about Conflict of Laws.

Assignment due Thursday, November 5, 2009
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance, 2003 ME 72, 822 A.2d 1159. The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to

http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html

--select “2003 Opinions”

--select 2003 ME 72, Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance

Do not brief the final issue (Part IV) of the decision, but brief the other issues.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Whatever you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Thursday 11/5, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

October 27, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/27, I distributed one handout, the federal statute in which Congress authorized the U.S. Attorney General to change the classification of prohibited drugs. We spent most of the class period going over the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, the medical marijuana case. We discussed it mainly in terms of the power relations shown in the decision: federal power v. state power; judicial v. legislative v. executive power; and also governmental power v. individual rights. The assignment for Thursday 10/29 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 140 of the text.

October 22, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/22, I returned the exams, and we went over them. At the end of class, we also talked a little about some of the distribution of power issues in our political system. The assignment for Tuesday 10/27 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 130 of the text.

October 20, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/20, we had Test #1. I will return that test on Thursday, and we will go over it. The additional assignment for Thursday 10/22 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 108-125.

October 15, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/15, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding the use of force in defending your home. We then went over a practice test in preparation for the exam on Tuesday. We finished discussing Chapter 2 of the text, and I also went over one additional U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with punitive damages, Philip Morris v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007). If for any reason you are unable to make it to the exam on Tuesday 10/20, please be sure to e-mail me as soon as possible to make alternative arrangements--if you do not get in touch right away, you may well lose your chance to make up the exam. Be sure to bring a #2 pencil with which to take the exam.

October 8, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/8, I first went over the upcoming class schedule. There is no class on Tuesday 10/13. On Thursday 10/15 we will finish going over Chapter 2 of the text, and I will also give you a practice exam to go over the types of questions that will be in the exam (it is not a study session). The exam will be on Tuesday 10/20, and will cover all of the textbook and classroom material covered so far this semester. It will be open book and open note. I will hand the exam back on Thursday 10/22, and we'll go over it at that time.
We started our discussion today by going over "duty to report" cases, and I talked about the Maine Superior Court case of Cilley v. Lane, 2009 WL 558273 (Me. Super.) We spent the rest of the class talking about Lawrence v. Texas from the textbook. The assignment for Thursday 10/15 is to finish reading and preparing to discuss the remainder of Chapter 2 of the text.

October 6, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/6, we began by finishing our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia. I then went over two case that will be argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, which both raise the question under the 8th Amendment of the imposition of life sentences for minors.
We discussed the Mobbley case on p. 77 and the Holland case on P. 79 of the text. The assignment for Thursday 10/8 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 97 of the text.

October 1, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/1, State Senator Richard Rosen addressed the class, and led a discussion of many issues that he deals with as a member of the Maine Legislature. That talk basically took the class period, so the assignment for next Tuesday 10/6 remains to read and prepare to discuss through p. 80 of the textbook.

September 29, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/29, I returned the Goss briefs, and I also distributed a Comment Key that went along with those corrected briefs. We then discussed the Suggs v. Norris case, and got through the Justice Stewart's plurality opinion in Gregg v. Georgia. The assignment for Thursday 10/1 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 80 of the text. What I mean by being prepared to discuss a case is to have worked out all of the elements of the case brief, although I am not asking you to write it out and hand it in. Remember that on Thursday October 1, we will also have Sen. Richard Rosen, a long-time member of the Maine legislature, speak to the class. Come prepared with things you'd like to know about our Legislature.

September 24, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today Thursday 9/24, I collected the Goss briefs, and we spent the entire class going over the Goss case. I will plan on handing them back on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 71 of the textbook.

September 22, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed one handout, my formatting comments to the Katko case brief. I passed back those briefs, and we went over both the format and the substance of the Katko case. We looked at the use of precedent and persuasive authority. We then went on to discuss the Goss case a little. I explained the prior proceedings in the case, and also the use of Section 1983 in bringing a federal court action. Finally we discussed the two bases of federal jurisdiction, including the federal question jurisdiction in the Goss case. The assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to complete the Goss brief, which was assigned last Thursday (see the 9/17 blog entry) and is due on this Thursday 9/24.

September 17, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law

In class today, Thursday 9/17, I distributed two handouts, one a Sample Brief of the Katko case, and the other a graded homework assignment that is reproduced below and is due a week from today. We discussed Justice Souter's concurrence in Glucksberg, the Connecticut v. Doe decision, and then the Katko brief. I collected your Katko briefs, which will be returned next Tuesday. The assignment is to start working on the Goss assignment below:

Assignment due Thursday, September 24, 2009
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Goss v. Lopez. The case can be found on the website of our textbook.

To access the case, go to

http://college.hmco.com/pic/schubert9e
select “student companion site”
select “general resources”
select “additional cases”
select “Chapter 1”
select “Goss v. Lopez”

The Brief should be in exactly the format used in the Sample Brief Template distributed in class, and the three Case Briefs distributed (AAC, Glucksberg, and Katko).

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Thursday 9/24, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

IMPORTANT:If you e-mail your paper to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

September 15, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, I distributed one handout, a sample brief of Washington v. Glucksberg. We spend the class going over the Facts, Issues, and Holding of that case. We also discussed the concepts of "following", "distinguishing", "reversing", and "overruling" prior precedent. On Thursday 9/17 we will discuss briefly Justice Souter's concurrence in Glucksberg, and also briefly discuss the Connecticut v. Doe decision (previously assigned). The assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to read the case of Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa, 1971) (text, p. 47). Then write up a Brief of that decision, using the Sample Brief Template and the 2 Sample Briefs (AAC and Glucksberg) as models for format (not just the Facts, Issues, and Holding, but the entire Format). I will collect this assignment, but I will not grade it.

September 10, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/10, I began by talking about yesterdays' U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the First Amendment free speech case of Citizens United v. FEC. We the went over the Bangor parade ordinance that was distributed last time. I prefaced the discussion of Glucksberg by going over a history of the long strange journey of the Fourteenth Amendment and especially the Due Process Clause. We talked about the history of the right to privacy. We then began going over the holding in Glucksberg. The assignment for Tuesday September 15, once again, is to prepare to discuss the Holding for Glucksberg and Conn. v. Doe. Make sure to follow the format of the template and the AAC case Sample Brief.

September 8, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed one handout, the parade ordinances for Augusta and Bangor. We finished our discussion of AAC v. Dearborn case, and completed going over the Sample Brief for that case. We went over the concepts of mandatory and persuasive authority. I also talked about the recent First Circuit case of Sullivan v. City of Augusta, 511 F.3d 16 (1st Cir., 2007) in which there were challenges to the Augusta parade ordinance similar to the challenges in AAC. On Thursday 9/10 we will go over the Bangor parade ordinance. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to read through p. 46 of the textbook (the Doe case). Prepare to discuss "Holdings" for the Glucksberg case (p. 33) and the Doe case (p. 44).

September 3, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/3, I distributed two handouts: a case brief template, and a sample case brief of AAC v. Dearborn. We discussed some of the concepts of jurisprudence from the beginning of Chapter One of the text, including the concept of Natural Law. I went over the Maine Court system, and the Federal Court system, and introduced the citation format for those systems. We began discussing the AAC case, and the AAC brief, including the cause of action segment by which the 14th Amendment incorporated, as against the states, the Bill of Rights protections that were aimed at limiting only the Federal government. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to review the handouts from today, and to read in the textbook pp. 28-42.

September 1, 2009

POS 282--Introduction to Law
In class today, Tuesday, 9/1 I distributed two handouts: one was the syllabus, and the other was a short newspaper article about the new Afghan law that allows Shiite husbands the right to deny food to their wives. We discussed both the syllabus and the article. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read through p. 28 of the textbook.

April 30, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/30, I first collected the Safford papers for those who did one. I went over two recent Supreme Court decisions, FCC v. Fox regarding the FCC's indecency regulation changes for broadcast media, and Dean v. U.S. regarding the requirement of a mens rea for the accidental discharge of a gun during a bank robbery. We then watched portions of the oral argument in yesterday's Supreme Court argument in the NW Austin M.U.D. v. Holder voting rights case. Have a good summer.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/30, we went over the concepts in Chapter 10 of the text. I also discussed the constitutional implications of Tuesday's Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox. We also discussed an earlier FCC indecency case, FCC v. Pacifica, and two election debate exclusion cases, Arkansas E.T.C. v. Forbes and the Dennis Kucinich v. MSNBC case . Our third exam will be Tuesday May 5 at 8:00 am. The exam will be for 75 minutes, just like our previous exams, and will cover the material in Chapters 7-10, plus any previously discussed material that is relevant to these chapters.

April 28, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we started with a discussion of a recent 4th Amendment case, Arizona v. Gant. We watched the c-span stakeout after the oral argument in the Safford case. Then I went over the background of the upcoming case of NW Austin M.U.D. #1 v. Holder, which will be argued tomorrow (Wednesday). The assignment if you are doing the Safford paper is to complete that paper, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, 4/30. If you are not doing the paper, I would like you to watch the c-span broadcast of the oral argument, which is the only argument authorized by the Court this term for same day audio release. (Go to c-span.org, and search around for the broadcast.)

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we began by going over today's Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Fox, which dealt with the issue of FCC regulation of "fleeting expletives". We then discussed the concepts of Chapter 9 of the text, including minority ownership and cross ownership FCC rules. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text.

April 23, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/23, we went over the Safford oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to continue working on the Safford papers.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/23, we went over the concepts of trademark law. I distributed one handout, the Maine trademark statute. I went over three cases that were not in the text, Fox v. Franken, LL Bean v. Drake Publishers, and Best Flavors v. Mystic River Brewing. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to read in the text chapter 9 (pp. 351-385) and to read in the casebook the Red Lion case on p. 210.

April 21, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, the class first did evaluations. I briefly went over the week's oral argument schedule. We then went over a decision from earlier in the month, Entergy v. Riverkeeper, in which the majority of the Court approved of the EPA's use of a cost/benefit analysis in deciding what is the "best technology " available to minimize environmental impact. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to read the transcript of the oral argument in the case of Safford v. Redding, which was argued today.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, the class first did evaluations. I went over the previously assigned fair use cases of the Nation and Campbell. We then went over two Court of Appeals cases, Hustler Magazine v. Moral Majority, and Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to finish reading Chapter 8 in the text (trademark and unfair competition), and to read on p. 202 of the casebook the case of Time v. Petersen.

April 16, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we went over and discussed the Santa Fe v. Doe oral argument that had been previously assigned. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to work on the Safford paper. If you are not doing the paper, finish reading the Greenburg book.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we continued out discussion about copyright law. I went over five current copyright cases, Fairey v. Associated Press, The Author's Guild v. Google, The Football Association Premier League v. Youtube, Brave New Films v. Weiner, and the one that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick. The assignment for Tuesday 2/21 is to read in the text pp. 331-335, and to read in the casebook the Grokster case, p. 196

April 14, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed the optional third assignment, which is included below. We discussed the assignment, and I then went over the decisions in two cases we had talked about earlier in the semester, the Navajo case, and the improperly denied peremptory challenge case (Rivera). We will discuss the Santa Fe oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday is to begin work on the Safford paper.


Assignment #3 (Optional)*

For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case
of Safford Unified School District v. Redding, Supreme Court Docket # 08-479. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 8 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 30. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.


1) The first step in preparation for the prediction is to read the en banc Court of Appeals decision in this case, Redding v. Safford Unified School, 531 F.3d. 1071 (9th Cir. 2008). You can access the case through Lexis/ Nexis or you can go directly to the Ninth Circuit’s site;

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

select “advanced search” and type into the “by case name” box “redding v. safford”

The opinion was issued 7/11/2008, and the docket number in the Ninth Circuit was 05-15759

2) The second step is to read the briefs of the parties. (They are available through the Supreme Court’s website, or directly through the ABA website).

3) The third step is to read one already decided Supreme Court case. That case New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 US 325 (1985). The case are available through the LexisNexis site.

4) The final step in preparation for the prediction is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2009.

The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: To the extent possible, go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case.

The only important source of those indications will be the questions raised at oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.

The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.

Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Safford), but rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. The case raises two issues: the reasonableness of the search, and the existence of qualified immunity for the school. Your prediction should also reflect, to the extent possible, a Justice’s preference for jurisprudential considerations such as the need for a clear rule (as opposed to a case-by-case analysis).

For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Redding’s position is correct, how do you answer the school’s objections to the many practical problems in dealing with drugs in schools.

You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position with reference to the assigned briefs. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

For this paper, I have decided not to allow you to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.


*Previously Announced Change in the syllabus:

The syllabus had said that grading in this class would consist of three homework assignments, each counting as 30% of the final grade, as well as 10% based on class participation and attendance. As previously announced, I have decided to modify this scheme as follows: the third assignment is now optional. If you choose to complete a third assignment, the syllabus plan is unchanged. If you choose not to complete a third assignment, each of the two graded assignments will be worth 40% of the final grade, and 20% of the grade will be based on class participation and attendance.



CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, we began by going over the Maine Reporter's Shield Law
(which I had distributed last week). We looked specifically at the changes in that law from its earlier version to the version that was eventually passed. We then started our discussion of copyright law. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read in the textbook pp.323-331, and to read in the casebook the Nation case (p.186) and the Campbell case (p.191).

April 9, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/9, we continued watching the video of the Nurre v. Whitehead ("Ave Maria") oral argument. I also went over the recent Supreme Court decision in State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to listen on the internet to the oral argument of a 2000 Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Here's how to find it:

Go to oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999_99_62/argument

From that screen, first select the Santa Fe case(the tenth one down) and then select "expanded view"

This should give you the version of the oral argument that has the audio synchronized with the transcript, and which also identifies each of the Justices. (It will take a little while to load, so be patient).

After you have listened to the oral argument and thought about where each Justice is headed, read the case itself at 530 US 290.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/9, I distributed one handout, which included both the enacted version of the Maine Reporter's Shield Law, and the earlier version that was not enacted. We continued our discussion of a journalist's right of access to court proceedings, and we looked at the Maine closed-court statutes that I had distributed on Tuesday. I talked about one Maine Supreme Court case, in re Bailey M. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read in the text pp. 296-323 and the Feist case on p. 179 of the casebook.

April 7, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I returned the Caperton papers, and we went over them. I then showed a video of an oral argument from the Ninth Circuit regarding high school graduation ceremony. We'll finish the discussion of that case on Thursday, and then start catching up on recent Supreme Court decisions. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read Chapter 8 of Greenburg.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I distributed one handout containing some Maine Rules and statutes regarding closed hearings, evidence, and publicity. We went over the beginning of Chapter 7 of the text, and discussed the assigned Nebraska Press Assoc. and Kobe Bryant cases. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read the remainder of Chapter 7 of the text.

April 2, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we went over the Caperton case--the predictions of how the case would come out, and the thoughts about how it should be decided. I plan to return the papers next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read Chapter 7 in Greenburg.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 4/2, I returned the exams, and we went over them. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read pp. 259-281 in the textbook. Also read the Nebraska Press case on p. 140 of the casebook and the Bryant case on p. 145 of the casebook.

March 31, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/31, I collected the Caperton papers. I will return them next Tuesday. Julie Saad talked to the class about federal job and internship opportunities. On Thursday 4/2 we will discuss the Caperton papers. The assignment for Thursday 4/2 is to read Chapter 6 of the Greenburg book.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 3/31, we had Exam #2. I will return the exams, and we will go over them, on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 4/2 is to read pp. 249-259 in the textbook.

March 26, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I went over a Supreme Court decision from yesterday, Puckett v. U.S., which dealt with what happens when the government backs out of a plea agreement with a criminal defendant, but the defendant's attorney fails to properly object to the prosecutor's behavior. We also started a discussion of the recent FDA preemption case, Wyeth v. Levine, about a woman's efforts to recover damages after an improper shot led to amputation of her arm. On Tuesday, March 31, we will have a guest speaker in the class. She is Julie Saad of the federal Office of Personnel Management, and she'll be talking to our class about federal careers and internships. She'll be giving a large Universit-wide talk in Minsky Hall at 3:30 on Monday, but then she'll come talk just to our class on Tuesday morning. Also, your Caperton papers are due on Tuesday.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 3/26, we went over some more concepts of Chapter 6 of the text, as well as the Maine FOAA statute. I also talked about three Maine Supreme Court cases, Blethen v. Portland School Committee, Blethen v. State of Maine, and Gannett v. University of Maine. On Tuesday 3/31, we will have our second exam. It will cover all material from where we left off at the last exam up to the end of Chapter 6. Please remember to bring sharp #2 pencils.

March 24, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/24, I reminded the class that the Caperton assignment is due next Tuesday 3/31. We then went over the concept of "standing" in recent cases, including the Mayfield (Madrid bombing) oral argument that c-span covered this past weekend, and the Supreme Court decision in Summers v. Earth Island that was decided earlier this month. The assignment is to continue working on the Caperton paper.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 3/24, I reminded the class that Test #2 will be on Tuesday 3/31. I distributed 2 handouts, one regarding civil and criminal trespass statutes in Maine, and the other containing the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) . We discussed the federal and state rules regarding taping of conversations and the rules regarding trespass, and we began our discussion of the Maine FOAA. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read in the textbook the remainder of Chapter 6, and to read in the casebook U.S. v. Reporters Committee, p. 130.

March 19, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/19, I distributed and we went over Assignment #2, which is due Tuesday 3/31. That assignment is reproduced below. Note that the assignment also includes a change to the syllabus regarding grading, as the third paper is made optional. We discussed the Amicus Brief of the Conference of Chief Justices. I also talked about two non-Supreme Court cases, one regarding the constitutionality of parts of the Patriot Act, in which the oral argument will be shown on c-span this Saturday night at 7:00, and the other dealing with an attempt to revive the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment in the context of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to begin work on the Caperton assignment.

For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of Caperton v. Massey Coal Company, Supreme Court Docket # 08-22. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 10 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Tuesday March 31. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.

1) The first step in preparation for the prediction is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the case, which was heard by the Supreme Court on March 3, 2009. The transcript was previously assigned as reading.

2) The second step is to read briefs of the parties, as well as the Amicus Brief of the Conference of Chief Justices in Support of Neither Party (also previously assigned). (See the blog --www.goldmanmaine.blogspot.com--for directions to these materials if you have not previously accessed them).

The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: To the extent possible, go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case.

The only important source of those indications will be the questions raised at oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.

The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.

Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Caperton), but rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. An important part of the assignment is for you to identify those issues. For this, you will need to refer to the arguments raised by the parties in their briefs, as well as the assigned Amicus Brief. When you refer to the briefs, cite them by page number. The issues include, but are not limited to, questions such as whether “probability of bias” is the correct legal standard for campaign contribution cases; if it is the correct standard, whether the Justices will decide how the standard is defined, or will just announce a standard and let others decide how to define it; if the Justices do go into the definition, will they accept the factors laid out by Olson in the Petitioner’s brief (such as the amount of money, whether it is given during the pendency of an active case, etc.); and how they will deal with the specific problems raised in the Respondent’s brief about the many practical hurdles involved in creating such a constitutional standard. Your prediction should also reflect, to the extent possible, a Justice’s preference for jurisprudential considerations such as the need for a clear rule (as opposed to a case-by-case analysis).

For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Caperton’s position is correct, how do you answer Massey’s objections to the many practical problems in crafting a constitutional standard.

You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position with reference to the assigned briefs. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

For this paper, I have decided not to allow you to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.


Change in the syllabus:

The syllabus had said that grading in this class would consist of three homework assignments, each counting as 30% of the final grade, as well as 10% based on class participation and attendance. As discussed in class, I have decided to modify this scheme as follows: the third assignment is now optional. If you choose to complete a third assignment, the syllabus plan is unchanged. If you choose not to complete a third assignment, each of the two graded assignments will be worth 40% of the final grade, and 20% of the grade will be based on class participation and attendance.



CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 3/19, I spent most of the class going over the case of Veilleux v. NBC. we went through the various causes of action, and why the First Circuit did or did not allow the jury verdict for each one to stand. We also went over the case of Hustler v. Falwell from the casebook, and how that case affected the Veilleux case. The assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to read in the text pp. 223-228, and to read in the casebook the case of Miller v. NBC (p. 124) and Houchins v. KQED (p. 127).

March 17, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday, 3/17, I showed the c-span interviews with the lawyers for the two sides in the Caperton case, and then we discussed some of the oral argument transcript in that case. We will continue that discussion on Thursday, The additional assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to read one of the Amicus briefs in the Caperton case, the "Brief of the Conference of Chief Justices in Support of Neither Party". You can access the brief by going to the Supreme Court site, selecting Merits Briefs/On-line Briefs/ Caperton, and then this brief is the next to the last one in the list.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday, 3/17, I began by reminding the class that the second exam will be two weeks from today, Tuesday 3/31. We went back to our discussion of the four privacy torts by beginning with the Shulman case from the casebook. I went over three Maine invasion of privacy cases, Muratore v. Scotia Prince, Cole v. Chandler, and Halco v. Davey. We will pick up on Thursday with the Falwell case that was previously assigned. The additional assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to read the beginning of Chapter 6 of the text, pp. 214-223.

February 26, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/26, we spent most of the class going over yesterday's Summum decision. We also talked a little about the "Class Apart" American Experience program. The assignment for Tuesday March 17 is to read the transcript of the oral argument in the Caperton case. The case will be argued on Tuesday March 3, and the transcript will be available later that same day on the Supreme Court website. Have a good Spring break.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 2/26, we continued our discussion of the four invasion of privacy torts. I went over one additional Maine case, Nelson v. Maine Times, that rejected claims for three of the four privacy torts. The assignment for Tuesday March 17 is to finish reading Chapter 5 of the text (pp. 187-211) and to read in the casebook the Shulman case (p. 110) and the Falwell case (p. 118). Have a good Spring break.

February 24, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/24, I began by going over the oral arguments in the Court yesterday. I then talked about a case in which the Supreme Court granted cert. that involves the placement of a cross on government property. We began our discussion of the Caperton briefs, and we will continue that discussion on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 2/26 is to watch a program on the internet that told the story of a 1954 Supreme Court decision that extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to Mexican-Americans. The program can be accessed at
www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/class/
(or, in case of any trouble,just go to pbs.org and follow the trail to American Experience and then to this program, "A Class Apart")

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/24, we continued with the anti-SLAPP case of Schelling v. Lindell, and discussed how broadly the case might affect defamation law. We then went over cyberspace liability, and I discussed the Maine case of Fitch v. Doe. Going on to Chapter 5 of the text, I went over the Maine case of Estate of Bertiaume v Pratt. we will pick up with the privacy torts on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 2/26 is to read in the casebook the Hoffman case (p. 96) the McNamara case (p. 99) and the Diaz case (p. 105).

February 19, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/19, I first announced the winner of the "what case will we do next" contest, which was the judge recusal case. I went some more into the background of that case. We then watched the remainder of the Clarence Thomas speech to the Manhattan Club,in which Thomas discussed his view of judicial power and decision-making. The assignment for Tuesday February 24 is to read the Petitioner's and Respondent's Merits Briefs in the judge recusal case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., #08-221. The easiest way to find the briefs is to go directly to the ABA site:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/home.htm
and then scroll down to the Caperton case. (You can also get to the ABA site from the Supreme Court's own site (www.supremecourtus.gov) and select Merit Briefs).

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 2/19, we continued our discussion of defamation. We went over the handout from last time, which included the Maine statutes on retractions, statute of limitation, and the anti-SLAPP statute. We discussed the retraction in the Beal case. Regarding statutes of limitation, I went over one California case, Hebrew Academy v. Goldman. Regarding Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, I went over one case, Morse Bros. v. Webster, and we began our discussion of another, Schelling v. Lindell. We will pick up with the rest of the Schelling case next week. The assignment for Tuesday 2/24 is to read in the text about the second of the 4 privacy torts, pp. 178-187.

February 17, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/17, I handed back the Summum papers. I discussed 2 cases that distinguished government speech from private speech, Rust v. Sullivan 500 US 173(1991) and Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 US 533(2001). I then went over twelve cases set for oral argument for the last week of February and the 1st week of March, and the class voted for which one we will spend time preparing for (results will be announced Thursday). Finally, I showed a few minutes of a speech given by Justice Thomas last October regarding the proper role of judges in our system. On Thursday we will watch for remainder of the Thomas speech. The assignment for Thursday 2/19 is to read Chapter 5 of the Greenburg book.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/17, I distributed one handout, regarding retraction of stories in Maine and other subjects. I discussed three cases regarding the law of defamation, CACI v. Randi Rhodes, Beal v. Bangor Publishing, and Gomes v. University of Maine. On Thursday we will finish our discussion of defamation. The assignment for Thursday 2/19 is to read in the text pp. 165-178.

February 12, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/12, I collected the Summum papers. We spent the class reviewing the class's predictions, and also going over what the "right" (as opposed to "likely") outcome would be. I plan on returning the papers on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 2/17 is to read in the Jan Greenburg book pp. 1-107.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 2/12, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I then discussed the impact of the First Amendment on common law defamation, going over N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (text, p. 131) and Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton (text, p. 135). The assignment for Tuesday 2/17 is to read in the text pp. 148-162, and the Zeran case on p. 85 of the casebook.

February 10, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/10, we continued our discussion of the Summum case. The prediction paper regarding that case is due Thursday 2/12, and the only assignment is to finish your work on that paper.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/10, we had exam #1. I plan to return the exam on Thursday 2/12, and go over it then (there were some problems, though, at the faculty development center that grades the multiple choice --broken scanner and sick employee-- so we'll see how that goes). For the remainder of Thursday's class, I'll continue going over some of the concepts that have already been assigned in Chapter 4, and so the assignment for Thursday 2/12 is to just review the reading that's already been assigned.

February 5, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/5, we continued our discussion of the Summum case and the prediction assignment. We included two sub-questions to address--how the Justices seem to feel about the need for and appropriateness of signs (explaining whose speech this is) and the question of hybrid categories (as opposed to the two choices of government speech versus private speech. The assignment for Tuesday 2/10 is to continue working on the papers, which are due Thursday 2/12.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 2/5, we began with a short sample test, which demonstrated the types of questions and strategies for coming up with the correct answers. We then continued the discussion of defamation. I went over two Maine Supreme Court case regarding defamation, Haworth v. Feigon and Caron v. Bangor Publishing. On Tuesday 2/10 we'll have our first exam. Please bring a #2 pencil to fill in the little circles.

February 3, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/3, I distributed 2 handouts; one was the assignment (due 2/12) which is copied below, and the second was two different Statements of the Issues from Summum. We spent much of class going over the requirements for the paper. I also went over 4 Supreme Court cases that contribute to an understanding of Summum: Lambs Chapel, 508 US 384(1993); Capital Square v. Pinette, 515 US 753 (1995); Arkansas v. Forbes, 523 US 666(1998); NEA v. Finley, 524 US 569 (1998); and Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assoc., 544 US 550(2005). The assignment for Thursday 2/5 is to begin work on the paper, reading and being prepared to discuss the 10th Circuit decision and the oral argument transcript.

Assignment #1

For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, Supreme Court Docket # 07-665.

The paper should be 2-3 pages long. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday February 12 (this is one week earlier than the tentative date given in the syllabus). If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.


1) The first step in preparation for the prediction, is to read the lower court decision in this case, Summum v. Pleasant Grove City 483 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir., 2007).

You can find this case by going to the Lexis/Nexis site on the Fogler library website, as outlined in the first-day handout, Useful Legal Websites. (Go to the Fogler site, then LexisNexis Academic, click the “Legal” tab, select “Federal and State cases” on the left, at the citation number enter 483 F.3d 1044 (or whatever citation you are searching)). Ignore the introductory materials, and go right to where the actual opinion starts.

2) For the second step In preparation for your prediction, you must read the transcript of the oral argument of the case, which was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12, 2008. You can find the transcript of the oral argument by going to the Supreme Court’s web site:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
and clicking on
oral arguments/ argument transcripts
scrolling down to the November 3-November 12 Argument Session, and selecting 07-665 Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

3) The third step is to read 2 already decided Supreme Court cases. There are no cases that are right on point, but I’ve chosen two that I think are most helpful. They are
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) and Capital Square v. Pinette, 515 US 753 (1995). Both of these case are available through the LexisNexis site.


4) You might like to read the briefs of the parties, although these are not mandatory (unlike the oral argument, and cases, which are mandatory). For the Merits briefs select Merits Briefs/ On Line Merits Briefs and then scroll down alphabetically to Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. Then scroll down again to Pleasant Grove City.

or you can go directly to the ABA briefs at
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov08.shtml#polar


The specific assignment is this: To the extent possible, go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case.

One important source of those indications will be the questions raised at oral argument. For example, you might write that Justice Scalia would seem to have no Establishment clause trouble, even if the speech is government speech, because on p. 6, lines 17-19, he seems to approve of government saying that the Ten Commandments are an important part of our national heritage, and implying that that’s exactly what the government says in accepting this monument (as opposed to the government saying that these are the “words of God”). Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.

Another source will the the Justice’s votes and opinions in the previously decided cases. These will be discussed in class, and some are also specifically part of the assignment, As an example for how to cite a particular page of an opinion, you would write Van Orden v. Perry, 545 US 677, 682 (2005) the first time you cite the case, and thereafter just write Van Orden at 683.

This paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument and the previous cases”. You will, though, need to make the case that any previously decided cases are indicative of a Justice’s view in this case because it is analogous to the issues in this case.

Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Summum), but rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties (e.g. whether this is government speech, or whether it is private speech of the Fraternal Order of Eagles). It should also reflect, to the extent possible, a Justice’s preference for jurisprudential considerations such as the need for a clear rule (as opposed to a case-by-case analysis).

You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument and the previously decided cases. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

For this paper, I have decided to allow you to collaborate with one other student of your choosing, if you wish to do so. Any collaborative submission impliedly asserts and confirms that you have both worked on the paper, and that you are neither just copying or allowing the other student to copy, from the work of the other. Other than this optional collaboration with one other student, the work should be your own. Do not go trolling through the legal blogs to copy what others think. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.

As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this cases; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before February 12, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating a prediction. But, if they do decide the case before February 12, I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if they have complicated my life.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/3, I first announced that Exam #1 would be on Tuesday 2/10. We then finished up our discussion Of Chapter 3, and moved right on to Chapter 4. The assignment for Thursday, 2/5 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp.122-148.

January 29 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/29, I distributed one handout, selected portions of the U.S. Constitution. I went over a brief version of the strange history of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. We started talking about a case that will (probably) be the subject of the first paper, Pleasant Grove v. Summum. I went over two 2005 Ten Commandment cases, Van Orden and McCreary. We also traced some of the theories of the Summum case to the legal theories litigated by Jay Sekulow (and discussed by Toobin). The reading assignment for Tuesday 2/3 is to finish reading the Toobin book.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 1/29, I distributed one handout, selected portions of the Smith Act, and we discussed its provisions that apply to journalists. I went over law and order and national security interests in conflict with the First Amendment. We started talking about personal injury cases. The reading assignment for Tuesday 2/3 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 109-122 of the text.

January 27, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/27, I discussed yesterday's 5 Supreme Court decisions. I emphasized two cases, Arizona v. Johnson, (a 4th Amendment case regarding the right of police to frisk passengers in a car even if police did not have reasonable suspicion in the first place that criminal activity was afoot) and Crawford v. Nashville (a Title VII retaliatory firing case in which the Court had to decide what it meant to "oppose" the sexual harassment of the supervisor). The assignment for Thursday 1/29 is to read in Toobin Chapters 20, 21, and 22 ("I know her heart").

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 1/27, we finished discussing Chapter 2 of the text, but did not get to Chapter 3 yet. On Thursday 1/29, we will begin with the national security concepts of Chapter 3 and the already-assigned Pentagon Papers case. The additional assignment for Thursday 1/29 is to read the remainder of Chapter 3 of the text, and to read in the casebook the Olivia (p. 53) Winters (p. 55) and Kendrick (p. 58)cases.

January 22, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/22, we first discussed some ways in which we see Toobin's description of the judicial tendencies of the Justices being played out in other cases. I then briefly talked about four of the five cases decided by the Court yesterday, and talked in more detail about the fifth case, Pearson v. Callahan, which dealt with the flow chart for determining whether police are entitled to qualified immunity when they are sued for their (mis)deeds. The assignment for Tuesday, 1/27 is to read Part III of the Toobin book.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 1/22, we went over more of Chapter 2 of the text, including detailed discussions of the three casebook cases assigned, Simon & Schuster, Tornillo, and McIntyre. I also discussed one U.S. Supreme Court case decided yesterday, Locke v. Karass, which discussed compelled speech under the First Amendment in the context of union activities. On Tuesday 1/27, we will finish our discussion of Chapter 2 of the text, and move on to Chapter 3. The assignment for Tuesday 1/27 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 81-93 of the textbook, and the case of N.Y. Times v. U.S. starting on p. 40 of the casebook.

January 20, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/20, we went over two cases that preceded the Herring case, Leon and Evans. We then finished going over the Herring decision. We discussed two variables of judicial decision-making (in addition to liberal and conservative): bright-line rules v. case by case adjudication, and adherence to precedence v. going with what you think is right. The assignment for Thursday 1/22 is to read Part II of the Toobin book (chapters 11-13).

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 1/20, we went over the beginning of Chapter 2 of the text, talking about the importance of the First Amendment, different concepts of speech around the world, and then the concept of Prior Restraint. I discussed one non-text case involving the scope the First Amendment, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, regarding the reach of the First Amendment to the executive branch of the federal government. We began, but did not finish, our discussion of the Simon and Schuster case on p. 17 of the casebook. On Thursday, 1/22, we will finish our discussion of that case, and also discuss the previously assigned Tornillo case. The assignment for Thursday 1/22 is to read and prepare to discuss the rest of Chapter 2 of the text, and to read the McIntyre case on p. 27 of the casebook.

January 15, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/15, we went over two Supreme Court decisions from yesterday. Oregon v. Ice dealt with the 6th Amendment power of judges, (as opposed to juries), to decide facts relating to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences of imprisonment. We also started to go over yesterday's case of Herring v. U.S., dealing with the suppression of evidence under an unconstitutional (4th amendment) search and seizure. We will finish that discussion of Herring next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 1/20 is to read in Toobin through the end of Part One (Chapter 10).

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Thursday 1/15, we went over some of the concepts of Chapter 1 of the text. In particular, we discussed citation format (and the information that can be gleaned from citations), the Maine court system, and Federal court jurisdiction. As an illustration of the interrelationship between federal and state courts, and federal and state law, I went over the defamation case of Levinsky's v. Wal-Mart from the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The assignment for Tuesday 1/20 is to read and prepare to discuss in the text pages 33-57, and to read in the casebook the Tornillo case on page 13 and the Simon and Shuster case on p. 17.

January 13, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/13, I distributed two handouts: the syllabus,and a handout listing the nine Supreme Court Justices and also some useful Supreme Court websites. We went over some examples of federal and state law, and discussed the concepts of either following or distinguishing precedent. I briefly reviewed the three oral arguments that the Court heard on Monday 1/12. The assignment for Thursday 1/15 is to read through page 56 of The Nine by Toobin.

CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 1/13, I distributed one handout, the syllabus. We went over some examples of federal and state law, and discussed the concepts of either following or distinguishing precedent. I reviewed four recent issues in the news that raised federal and state mass media law issues The assignment for Thursday 1/15 is to read Chapter One of the text.