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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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).
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).
Thursday, February 19, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)