POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/9, I distributed one handout, the excerpt from the Maine Human Rights Act regarding the award of damages. We discussed the Bunch case, and then looked at how the Maine statute deals with limitations on damages for discrimination. We then discussed the Sullivan case on p. 232 regarding "standing", and I also went over the standing portion of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 US 497. Our exam will be from 2:45-4:00 on Tuesday, and will cover through the Sullivan case. The exam is open-book and open-note.
As I previously wrote in this blog and explained in class, I do not plan to distribute extra copies of handouts at the exam. If you feel that you should get a handout that you missed (from today, for example) you must e-mail me with that request by Monday night. If there is an emergency that makes you unable to take the exam when scheduled, you must e-mail me as soon as possible to explain the problem, and (if you have a good reason for missing the exam) we can work out an alternative time.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
December 7, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 12/7, I distributed two handouts: one an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery sanctions, and the other an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence regarding the rules of privilege. I went over one Maine Supreme court case regarding discovery sanctions, St. Paul Insurance v. Hays, 2001 ME 71, and one regarding religious privilege, Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine, 2005 ME 57. We discussed the Libby, Richmond and Cody cases from the text. We will pick up Thursday with the (previously-assigned) Bunch case on p. 218. The additional reading for Thursday 12/9 is to read through p. 235 of the text. The test on Tuesday 12/14 at 2:45 will cover from the last exam through Thursday's reading. (I also cautioned the class that I do not plan to bring extra copies of all the handouts to the exam, so that everyone should make sure that they have a complete set of handouts by the end of Thursday's class.)
In class today, Tuesday 12/7, I distributed two handouts: one an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery sanctions, and the other an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence regarding the rules of privilege. I went over one Maine Supreme court case regarding discovery sanctions, St. Paul Insurance v. Hays, 2001 ME 71, and one regarding religious privilege, Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine, 2005 ME 57. We discussed the Libby, Richmond and Cody cases from the text. We will pick up Thursday with the (previously-assigned) Bunch case on p. 218. The additional reading for Thursday 12/9 is to read through p. 235 of the text. The test on Tuesday 12/14 at 2:45 will cover from the last exam through Thursday's reading. (I also cautioned the class that I do not plan to bring extra copies of all the handouts to the exam, so that everyone should make sure that they have a complete set of handouts by the end of Thursday's class.)
Thursday, December 2, 2010
December 2, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/2, we discussed the Dorsey case on p. 199 of the text. We went through the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process, and I went over three recent Maine Supreme Court cases regarding service of process: Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98, Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, and Gaeth v. Deacon, 2009 ME 9. We will pick up next week with the Libby case and discovery sanctions. The additional reading assignment for Tuesday 12/7 is to finish reading Chapter 5 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 12/2, we discussed the Dorsey case on p. 199 of the text. We went through the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process, and I went over three recent Maine Supreme Court cases regarding service of process: Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98, Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, and Gaeth v. Deacon, 2009 ME 9. We will pick up next week with the Libby case and discovery sanctions. The additional reading assignment for Tuesday 12/7 is to finish reading Chapter 5 of the text.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
November 30, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/30, I distributed two handouts; a comment key to the Dworman brief, and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. I handed back the Dworman, case briefs, and we went over them. The class did evaluations of me. Then we finished the last two cases in Chapter 4, Kopp and Gebbia. We got through the Salmon case on p. 192 of the text. We will pick up with Dorsey case, p.199, which was previously assigned. I would like you to read over the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure excerpt, and be prepared to discuss how the Dorsey case would have come out in Maine. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 12/2 is to read through p. 214 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 11/30, I distributed two handouts; a comment key to the Dworman brief, and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. I handed back the Dworman, case briefs, and we went over them. The class did evaluations of me. Then we finished the last two cases in Chapter 4, Kopp and Gebbia. We got through the Salmon case on p. 192 of the text. We will pick up with Dorsey case, p.199, which was previously assigned. I would like you to read over the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure excerpt, and be prepared to discuss how the Dorsey case would have come out in Maine. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 12/2 is to read through p. 214 of the text.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
November 23, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/23, I collected the Dworman case briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. I distributed one handout, which was my own version of that case brief. I will return Dworman when we get back from Thanksgiving break. I also discussed one recent federal court case applying Dworman, Tidwell v. Zawacki, 645 F. Supp 2d 7 (D. Me. 2009). Finally, we went over the Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil case. I had previously assigned the last two unread cases from Chapter 4, Kopp and Gebbia, and we will begin with those two when we resume next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/30 is to read pp. 189-202 of the text. I hope that you all have a good Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/23, I collected the Dworman case briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. I distributed one handout, which was my own version of that case brief. I will return Dworman when we get back from Thanksgiving break. I also discussed one recent federal court case applying Dworman, Tidwell v. Zawacki, 645 F. Supp 2d 7 (D. Me. 2009). Finally, we went over the Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil case. I had previously assigned the last two unread cases from Chapter 4, Kopp and Gebbia, and we will begin with those two when we resume next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/30 is to read pp. 189-202 of the text. I hope that you all have a good Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
November 18, 2010
POS 282 --Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/18, we began with questions about the case brief assignment for next Tuesday. We went over the Bohlander case, and then I also discussed two Maine cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital and Von Schack v. Von Schack. We began our discussion of Ruhrgas v. Marathon. The assignment for Tuesday 11/23 is to do the Dworman case brief assigned on Tuesday. Once you finish that case brief, to the extent you have time, read the two remaining (previously unassigned) Chapter 4 textbook cases, Kopp v. Kopp and Gebbia v. Walmart.
In class today, Thursday 11/18, we began with questions about the case brief assignment for next Tuesday. We went over the Bohlander case, and then I also discussed two Maine cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital and Von Schack v. Von Schack. We began our discussion of Ruhrgas v. Marathon. The assignment for Tuesday 11/23 is to do the Dworman case brief assigned on Tuesday. Once you finish that case brief, to the extent you have time, read the two remaining (previously unassigned) Chapter 4 textbook cases, Kopp v. Kopp and Gebbia v. Walmart.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
November 16, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/16, I distributed one handout, the next case brief assignment, which is reproduced below. We started into the concepts of Chapter 4 of the text. I talked about a U.S. Supreme Court case, Burch v. Louisiana, which limited the rights of states to reduce the size and unanimity of juries in felony trials. We compared the federal and Maine requirements for jury size and unanimity. We discussed subject matter jurisdiction and the Edwards case from the text, and we will pick up with the Bohlander case on p. 162. The assignment for Thursday 11/18 is to start on the case brief assignment.
Assignment due Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Commerce Bank and Trust v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, 861 A.2d 662 . 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 142, Commerce Bank v. Dworman.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
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/ 23, 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. Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
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.
In class today, Tuesday 11/16, I distributed one handout, the next case brief assignment, which is reproduced below. We started into the concepts of Chapter 4 of the text. I talked about a U.S. Supreme Court case, Burch v. Louisiana, which limited the rights of states to reduce the size and unanimity of juries in felony trials. We compared the federal and Maine requirements for jury size and unanimity. We discussed subject matter jurisdiction and the Edwards case from the text, and we will pick up with the Bohlander case on p. 162. The assignment for Thursday 11/18 is to start on the case brief assignment.
Assignment due Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Commerce Bank and Trust v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, 861 A.2d 662 . 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 142, Commerce Bank v. Dworman.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
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/ 23, 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. Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
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.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
November 11, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/11, I distributed one handout, a set of federal and Maine statutes regarding juries, long-arm statutes, and full faith and credit for gay marriages. The class chose to do another case brief as our third written assignment. I'll plan on distributing that assignment on Tuesday 11/16, with a due date of Tuesday 11/23 (the class before Thanksgiving).
We finished our discussion of conflict of laws by going over the Maine contract case of Schroeder v. Rynel. Then we discussed the Full Faith and Credit clause by looking at the federal and Maine same-sex marriage statutes, and going over the Karstetter case from the text. We will launch into Chapter 4 of the text next week. The assignment for Tuesday 11/16 is to read through p. 173 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 11/11, I distributed one handout, a set of federal and Maine statutes regarding juries, long-arm statutes, and full faith and credit for gay marriages. The class chose to do another case brief as our third written assignment. I'll plan on distributing that assignment on Tuesday 11/16, with a due date of Tuesday 11/23 (the class before Thanksgiving).
We finished our discussion of conflict of laws by going over the Maine contract case of Schroeder v. Rynel. Then we discussed the Full Faith and Credit clause by looking at the federal and Maine same-sex marriage statutes, and going over the Karstetter case from the text. We will launch into Chapter 4 of the text next week. The assignment for Tuesday 11/16 is to read through p. 173 of the text.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
November 9, 2010
POSA 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/9, I first handed back the Jeremiah T. case briefs. I also distributed two handouts, the case brief comment key, and my own version of the case brief. We then launched into a discussion of conflict of law rules, going over the Hubbard case from p. 140 and the Land case from p. 180. In discussing the Land case, I also went over the two bases of Federal Court jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. I also went over two Maine cases regarding conflict of law rules, Collins v. Trius and Flaherty v. Allstate. The assignment for Thursday, 11/11 is to read through p. 161 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 11/9, I first handed back the Jeremiah T. case briefs. I also distributed two handouts, the case brief comment key, and my own version of the case brief. We then launched into a discussion of conflict of law rules, going over the Hubbard case from p. 140 and the Land case from p. 180. In discussing the Land case, I also went over the two bases of Federal Court jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. I also went over two Maine cases regarding conflict of law rules, Collins v. Trius and Flaherty v. Allstate. The assignment for Thursday, 11/11 is to read through p. 161 of the text.
Friday, November 5, 2010
November 4, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/4, I collected the Jeremiah T. case briefs, and we went over them. I will return them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/9 is to read in the text pp. 140-149, 159-161. and 179-182.
In class today, Thursday 11/4, I collected the Jeremiah T. case briefs, and we went over them. I will return them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/9 is to read in the text pp. 140-149, 159-161. and 179-182.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
November 2, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/2, I first took questions about the Jeremiah T. case brief, which is due on Thursday. We went over the Apsey case and the Michigan Supreme Court case that reversed the opinion Court of Appeals case that is in our text. We also covered the Strunk case. The assignment for Thursday November 4 is to complete the Jeremiah T. brief assigned last week. The brief is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Please also read the Hubbard case which starts on p. 140 of the text, but only if you have time after you finish the case brief.
In class today, Tuesday 11/2, I first took questions about the Jeremiah T. case brief, which is due on Thursday. We went over the Apsey case and the Michigan Supreme Court case that reversed the opinion Court of Appeals case that is in our text. We also covered the Strunk case. The assignment for Thursday November 4 is to complete the Jeremiah T. brief assigned last week. The brief is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Please also read the Hubbard case which starts on p. 140 of the text, but only if you have time after you finish the case brief.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
October 28, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/28, I distributed one handout, the case brief assignment which is due in one week, on Thursday 11/4. That assignment is copied below. We finished our discussion of the Gonzalez v. Raich case, and I also included the outcome in the follow-up case on remand to the Court of Appeals. We went over State v.Butler, and I also included the later U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the same issue as Butler. The assignment for Tuesday 11/2 (election day--don't forget to vote) is to begin work on the Jeremiah T. case brief, and also read through p. 140 of the text.
Assignment due Thursday, November 4, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Guardianship of Jeremiah T.,
2009 ME 74, 976 A2d 955 . 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 “2009 Opinions”
--select 2009 ME 74, Guardianship of Jeremiah T
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
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/ 4, 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. Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
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.
In class today, Thursday 10/28, I distributed one handout, the case brief assignment which is due in one week, on Thursday 11/4. That assignment is copied below. We finished our discussion of the Gonzalez v. Raich case, and I also included the outcome in the follow-up case on remand to the Court of Appeals. We went over State v.Butler, and I also included the later U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the same issue as Butler. The assignment for Tuesday 11/2 (election day--don't forget to vote) is to begin work on the Jeremiah T. case brief, and also read through p. 140 of the text.
Assignment due Thursday, November 4, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Guardianship of Jeremiah T.,
2009 ME 74, 976 A2d 955 . 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 “2009 Opinions”
--select 2009 ME 74, Guardianship of Jeremiah T
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
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/ 4, 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. Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
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.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
October 26, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/26, we finished our discussion of punitive damages with a description of the 2007 Supreme Court case of Philip Morris v. Williams. We then went over the Pape case, and, using the handout from last week, discussed how the case would come out under the Maine RPC. We began our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich, which we will continue on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 10/28 is to read through p. 136 of the text. Also on Thursday I plan to distribute another graded case brief assignment, which will be due on Thursday 11/4.
In class today, Tuesday 10/26, we finished our discussion of punitive damages with a description of the 2007 Supreme Court case of Philip Morris v. Williams. We then went over the Pape case, and, using the handout from last week, discussed how the case would come out under the Maine RPC. We began our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich, which we will continue on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 10/28 is to read through p. 136 of the text. Also on Thursday I plan to distribute another graded case brief assignment, which will be due on Thursday 11/4.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
October 21, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/21, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. We compared Maine law regarding harboring criminals with the New Mexico statute in the Mobbley case. We went over the Holland case, and compared it to the Maine law regarding common law crimes. We talked about some instances where Maine does mandate reporting of misdeeds by others. We also discussed punitive damages cases like Johnson as they affect business ethics. The assignment for Tuesday 10/26 is to review the MRPC handout, and compare Maine advertising rules with those of Florida in the Pape case. The additional reading is to read through p. 121 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 10/21, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. We compared Maine law regarding harboring criminals with the New Mexico statute in the Mobbley case. We went over the Holland case, and compared it to the Maine law regarding common law crimes. We talked about some instances where Maine does mandate reporting of misdeeds by others. We also discussed punitive damages cases like Johnson as they affect business ethics. The assignment for Tuesday 10/26 is to review the MRPC handout, and compare Maine advertising rules with those of Florida in the Pape case. The additional reading is to read through p. 121 of the text.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
October 19, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/19, I handed back Exam #1, and we spent most of the class going over the test. We also went over the Mobbley case at p. 77 of the text. I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statute regarding Hindering Apprehension. The assignment for Thursday 10/21 is to finish reading to the end of Chapter 2 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 10/19, I handed back Exam #1, and we spent most of the class going over the test. We also went over the Mobbley case at p. 77 of the text. I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statute regarding Hindering Apprehension. The assignment for Thursday 10/21 is to finish reading to the end of Chapter 2 of the text.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
October 14, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/14, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam and we will go over it on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/19 is to read in the text pp.77-83 and 89-97.
In class today, Thursday 10/14, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam and we will go over it on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/19 is to read in the text pp.77-83 and 89-97.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
October 7, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/7, I returned the Cruzan case briefs. I also distributed the Cruzan Comment Key, and my own version of the Cruzan brief. After reviewing that brief, I gave a short Sample Test, in preparation for next Thursday's exam. We then went on to discuss the Suggs case and Gregg v. Georgia from the textbook. There is no class on Tuesday 10/12. On Thursday 10/14, we'll have Exam #1; open-book, open-note exam over all the material covered thus far in the semester (including Gregg v. Georgia).
In class today, Thursday 10/7, I returned the Cruzan case briefs. I also distributed the Cruzan Comment Key, and my own version of the Cruzan brief. After reviewing that brief, I gave a short Sample Test, in preparation for next Thursday's exam. We then went on to discuss the Suggs case and Gregg v. Georgia from the textbook. There is no class on Tuesday 10/12. On Thursday 10/14, we'll have Exam #1; open-book, open-note exam over all the material covered thus far in the semester (including Gregg v. Georgia).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
October 5, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/5, I collected and we went over the Cruzan case briefs. I will return them on Thursday 10/7, as well as my sample Cruzan brief. On Thursday, we will also go over some sample questions for our first test. That test will be on Thursday 10/14 (open-book and open-note, but only your own materials). The additional reading assignment for Thursday 10/7 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 63-76 of the text. (There is no class on Tuesday 10/12).
In class today, Tuesday 10/5, I collected and we went over the Cruzan case briefs. I will return them on Thursday 10/7, as well as my sample Cruzan brief. On Thursday, we will also go over some sample questions for our first test. That test will be on Thursday 10/14 (open-book and open-note, but only your own materials). The additional reading assignment for Thursday 10/7 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 63-76 of the text. (There is no class on Tuesday 10/12).
Thursday, September 30, 2010
September 30, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/30, I returned the Katko briefs and distributed two handouts; one was the key to the my comments on the Katko brief, and the other was the Maine criminal statute regarding criminal responsibility in situations similar to that in Katko. We went over the Katko briefs, and I stressed the importance of following the case brief format I have assigned. We discussed the use of secondary authority in the Katko opinion (Prosser and the Restatement), and the use of persuasive authority as well (Iowa case with different circumstances --"key facts"--and cases from different jurisdictions). We discussed those things that are not "facts" at all. I went over one additional case, Pappas v. Clark, 494 N.W. 2d 245 (Iowa App. 1992) which rejected recovery for a wrong-doer due to public policy. I went over the Cruzan case, going over particular questions like "citation" and "trial court defense", and then discussing different standards for the burden of persuasion, and the idea of substituted judgment. The assignment for Tuesday 10/5 is to write up and prepare to hand in at the beginning of class the Cruzan brief previously assigned.
In class today, Thursday 9/30, I returned the Katko briefs and distributed two handouts; one was the key to the my comments on the Katko brief, and the other was the Maine criminal statute regarding criminal responsibility in situations similar to that in Katko. We went over the Katko briefs, and I stressed the importance of following the case brief format I have assigned. We discussed the use of secondary authority in the Katko opinion (Prosser and the Restatement), and the use of persuasive authority as well (Iowa case with different circumstances --"key facts"--and cases from different jurisdictions). We discussed those things that are not "facts" at all. I went over one additional case, Pappas v. Clark, 494 N.W. 2d 245 (Iowa App. 1992) which rejected recovery for a wrong-doer due to public policy. I went over the Cruzan case, going over particular questions like "citation" and "trial court defense", and then discussing different standards for the burden of persuasion, and the idea of substituted judgment. The assignment for Tuesday 10/5 is to write up and prepare to hand in at the beginning of class the Cruzan brief previously assigned.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
September 28, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/28, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the graded assignment for next Tuesday that is reproduced below. We went over the Connecticut v. Doe case, and the began our discussion of the Katko case. We will continue with that case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/30 is to begin work on the assignment below:
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. The case can be found on the website of our textbook.
To access the case, go to
http://college.hmco.com/pic/schubert9e
select “instructor companion site”
select “general resources”
select “retired cases”
select Cruzan v. Director
The Brief should be in exactly the format used in the Sample Brief Template distributed in class, and the Case Briefs distributed (AAC, Glucksberg and Katko).
In addition to the usual segments of the brief, though, include a few sentences that explain the view of the Dissenting Justices; no particular format is needed for this section.
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 10/5, 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 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.
In class today, Tuesday 9/28, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the graded assignment for next Tuesday that is reproduced below. We went over the Connecticut v. Doe case, and the began our discussion of the Katko case. We will continue with that case on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/30 is to begin work on the assignment below:
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. The case can be found on the website of our textbook.
To access the case, go to
http://college.hmco.com/pic/schubert9e
select “instructor companion site”
select “general resources”
select “retired cases”
select Cruzan v. Director
The Brief should be in exactly the format used in the Sample Brief Template distributed in class, and the Case Briefs distributed (AAC, Glucksberg and Katko).
In addition to the usual segments of the brief, though, include a few sentences that explain the view of the Dissenting Justices; no particular format is needed for this section.
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 10/5, 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 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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
September 23, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday, 9/23, we finished going over the case of Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at the flow chart of "fundamental" personal interests and "legitimate" governmental interests, the treatment of precedent such as the Casey case, and the use of "morality" in making law. I also discussed three recent decisions of lower courts that looked to Lawrence in their treatment of various gay rights issues: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78817 (gay marriage); Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93612 (don't ask, don't tell); and Florida Department of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G., 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14014 (gay adoptions). We will continue with Connecticut v. Doe (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/28 is to read the rest of Chapter One of the text. Then write out (to be handed in, but not graded) a case brief of the case of Katko v. Briney p. 47. Follow the case brief template that was previously distributed.
In class today, Thursday, 9/23, we finished going over the case of Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at the flow chart of "fundamental" personal interests and "legitimate" governmental interests, the treatment of precedent such as the Casey case, and the use of "morality" in making law. I also discussed three recent decisions of lower courts that looked to Lawrence in their treatment of various gay rights issues: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78817 (gay marriage); Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93612 (don't ask, don't tell); and Florida Department of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G., 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14014 (gay adoptions). We will continue with Connecticut v. Doe (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/28 is to read the rest of Chapter One of the text. Then write out (to be handed in, but not graded) a case brief of the case of Katko v. Briney p. 47. Follow the case brief template that was previously distributed.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
September 21, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/21, I distributed one handout, my version of the Issues in the Glucksberg case. I stressed the importance of making sure that you either check your maine.edu e-mail account, or else forward that mail to an account that you do check. We finished going over the Glucksberg case, including a lesson in how a court treats precedent: following, distinguishing, reversing or overruling it. We also went over the difference between concurring in the Opinion of the court, versus concurring just in the court's Judgment. We went over the 1986 decision of Bowers v. Hartwick, and began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We will conclude our discussion of Lawrence on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/23 is to read through p. 46 of the text, preparing again (write out, but not to hand in) the Issues in Connecticut v. Doe.
In class today, Tuesday 9/21, I distributed one handout, my version of the Issues in the Glucksberg case. I stressed the importance of making sure that you either check your maine.edu e-mail account, or else forward that mail to an account that you do check. We finished going over the Glucksberg case, including a lesson in how a court treats precedent: following, distinguishing, reversing or overruling it. We also went over the difference between concurring in the Opinion of the court, versus concurring just in the court's Judgment. We went over the 1986 decision of Bowers v. Hartwick, and began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We will conclude our discussion of Lawrence on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/23 is to read through p. 46 of the text, preparing again (write out, but not to hand in) the Issues in Connecticut v. Doe.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
September 16, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/16, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding assisted suicide and the penalties for it, and we went over correct citation form for Maine statutes. I went over the history of the Maine referendum question regarding assisted suicide, and the new law in Washington. We discussed the policy and institutional power relationships involved in a federal constitutional challenge to such a state law. We then went into the exact issues raised by Chief Justice Rehnquist: whether the asserted right was "fundamental"; and (since the right to assisted suicide is not fundamental) whether the state ban on assisted suicide is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. We will pick up next Tuesday with a discussion of the treatment of precedent, and of how Justice Souter characterized the right asserted by the doctors. For next Tuesday, September 21, I have sent e-mails to the class changing the assignment from what I had assigned in class. Instead of reading to the end of Chapter 1, I want you to read the case of Lawrence v. Texas, pp. 82-88 of the text, and take a shot at writing out (not to hand in) the Issues as framed by Justice Kennedy (using our case brief format).
In class today, Thursday 9/16, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding assisted suicide and the penalties for it, and we went over correct citation form for Maine statutes. I went over the history of the Maine referendum question regarding assisted suicide, and the new law in Washington. We discussed the policy and institutional power relationships involved in a federal constitutional challenge to such a state law. We then went into the exact issues raised by Chief Justice Rehnquist: whether the asserted right was "fundamental"; and (since the right to assisted suicide is not fundamental) whether the state ban on assisted suicide is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. We will pick up next Tuesday with a discussion of the treatment of precedent, and of how Justice Souter characterized the right asserted by the doctors. For next Tuesday, September 21, I have sent e-mails to the class changing the assignment from what I had assigned in class. Instead of reading to the end of Chapter 1, I want you to read the case of Lawrence v. Texas, pp. 82-88 of the text, and take a shot at writing out (not to hand in) the Issues as framed by Justice Kennedy (using our case brief format).
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
September 14, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/14, we continued our discussion of the AAC case and how to brief that case. We looked at the Augusta and Bangor parade ordinances as well, and I went over the First Circuit case of Sullivan v. Augusta from 2007, as well as the 1997 case challenging the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Thursday 9/16 is to read pp. 28-42 of the text. In addition, write out the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for the majority opinion in Glucksberg (to discuss, but not to hand in.)
In class today, Tuesday 9/14, we continued our discussion of the AAC case and how to brief that case. We looked at the Augusta and Bangor parade ordinances as well, and I went over the First Circuit case of Sullivan v. Augusta from 2007, as well as the 1997 case challenging the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Thursday 9/16 is to read pp. 28-42 of the text. In addition, write out the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for the majority opinion in Glucksberg (to discuss, but not to hand in.)
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
September 7, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/7, I distributed two handouts, one my Sample Brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case, and the other, excerpts from the Augusta and Bangor parade Ordinances. I began today by discussing the program that the class will watch on Thursday, a history of the 14th Amendment from the end of the Civil War to the time of the New Deal under FDR. Look for issues of Judicial power versus Legislative power, federal power versus state power, and individual rights versus corporate rights. We went over some of the history of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's three major clauses, Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection, as well as the doctrine of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Due Process clause. We then went back to the case brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case in the text, and we got through the first of the Issues in the case, the 30 day notice requirement. The class will watch the Supreme Court program on Thursday 9/9, and the we will continue with the AAC brief on Tuesday 9/14. There is no specific assignment for Thursday 9/9, but you certainly could start on the assignment for Tuesday 9/14, which is to review the Sample AAC Brief, and also the look over the Augusta and Bangor Ordinances and decide whether either of those ordinances is subject to the same constitutional shortcomings as the 6th Circuit decided applied to the Dearborn Ordinance.
In class today, Tuesday 9/7, I distributed two handouts, one my Sample Brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case, and the other, excerpts from the Augusta and Bangor parade Ordinances. I began today by discussing the program that the class will watch on Thursday, a history of the 14th Amendment from the end of the Civil War to the time of the New Deal under FDR. Look for issues of Judicial power versus Legislative power, federal power versus state power, and individual rights versus corporate rights. We went over some of the history of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's three major clauses, Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection, as well as the doctrine of Incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the Due Process clause. We then went back to the case brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case in the text, and we got through the first of the Issues in the case, the 30 day notice requirement. The class will watch the Supreme Court program on Thursday 9/9, and the we will continue with the AAC brief on Tuesday 9/14. There is no specific assignment for Thursday 9/9, but you certainly could start on the assignment for Tuesday 9/14, which is to review the Sample AAC Brief, and also the look over the Augusta and Bangor Ordinances and decide whether either of those ordinances is subject to the same constitutional shortcomings as the 6th Circuit decided applied to the Dearborn Ordinance.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
September 2, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/2, I distributed one handout, a Sample Brief Template. We then went into a discussion of the ideas in the introductory part of the text. We discussed the recent U.S. District Court decision striking down California's constitutional ban on gay marriage, the concept of "common law", and the idea of equitable relief. I went over the structure of the Federal Court system, and the structure of the Maine Court system. I also went over citation form for the the three levels of the Federal system and the Maine Supreme Court. We then started working together on using the Sample Brief Template to construct a brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case from the text. We got into the "Cause of Action" segment, and will complete the brief next week. The assignment for Tuesday, September 7 is to brief the AAC v. Dearborn case, using the Template to guide you as to what belongs in each segment. The assignment will not be graded or handed in, but it still should be done.
In class today, Thursday 9/2, I distributed one handout, a Sample Brief Template. We then went into a discussion of the ideas in the introductory part of the text. We discussed the recent U.S. District Court decision striking down California's constitutional ban on gay marriage, the concept of "common law", and the idea of equitable relief. I went over the structure of the Federal Court system, and the structure of the Maine Court system. I also went over citation form for the the three levels of the Federal system and the Maine Supreme Court. We then started working together on using the Sample Brief Template to construct a brief of the AAC v. Dearborn case from the text. We got into the "Cause of Action" segment, and will complete the brief next week. The assignment for Tuesday, September 7 is to brief the AAC v. Dearborn case, using the Template to guide you as to what belongs in each segment. The assignment will not be graded or handed in, but it still should be done.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
August 31, 2010
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 8/31, I distributed one handout, the syllabus, and we went over it. I discussed a moment in the recent confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan that highlighted three aspects of the power structure of our government: federal v. state power; legislative v. judicial power; and individual decision-making v. governmental power. The assignment for Thursday 9/2 is to read pp. 1-28 of the textbook.
In class today, Tuesday 8/31, I distributed one handout, the syllabus, and we went over it. I discussed a moment in the recent confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan that highlighted three aspects of the power structure of our government: federal v. state power; legislative v. judicial power; and individual decision-making v. governmental power. The assignment for Thursday 9/2 is to read pp. 1-28 of the textbook.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
April 29, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/29, I collected your CLS papers, and we spent most of the class going over that case, and predicting its outcome. If you e-mailed your paper to me, I will reply to confirm receipt. If you get no reply, make sure to contact me, because I did not receive anything.
We also went over the case of Salazar v. Buono, decided yesterday, that ruled 5-4 that a lower court erred in issuing an injunction regarding a cross placed on what was originally public land (and that Congress then transferred to private ownership).
I hope that you have a good summer, and that you keep following what the Supreme Court is up to.
In class today, Thursday 4/29, I collected your CLS papers, and we spent most of the class going over that case, and predicting its outcome. If you e-mailed your paper to me, I will reply to confirm receipt. If you get no reply, make sure to contact me, because I did not receive anything.
We also went over the case of Salazar v. Buono, decided yesterday, that ruled 5-4 that a lower court erred in issuing an injunction regarding a cross placed on what was originally public land (and that Congress then transferred to private ownership).
I hope that you have a good summer, and that you keep following what the Supreme Court is up to.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
April 27, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/27, I began by emphasising a requirement of the CLS paper that's due on Thursday--that every part of the paper, including the Justice's questions during oral argument, needs to be complete with citations.
After that I went over some developments in the Court. The first was yesterday's grant of cert. in the California violent videos sales to minors case, Schwartzenegger v. Video Software Dealers. We discussed oral arguments in a case being argued today, Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Co. regarding the standards for granting injunctions against genetically modified alfalfa. Tomorrow's oral argument in Doe v. Reed takes on the right of petition-signers to keep their names private. We discussed three older oral arguments, Merck v. Reynolds, regarding the statute of limitations in securities fraud cases (and which was decided today against Merck); Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Fla. DEP, regarding the 5th Amendment taking clause in the context of efforts to stop beach erosion, and Samantar v. Yousef, regarding the immunity of foreign officials sued in the U.S. for the torture of victims back in their home country. The assignment for Thursday April 29 is to finish the CLS paper, which is due the beginning of class (9:30) on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 4/27, I began by emphasising a requirement of the CLS paper that's due on Thursday--that every part of the paper, including the Justice's questions during oral argument, needs to be complete with citations.
After that I went over some developments in the Court. The first was yesterday's grant of cert. in the California violent videos sales to minors case, Schwartzenegger v. Video Software Dealers. We discussed oral arguments in a case being argued today, Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Co. regarding the standards for granting injunctions against genetically modified alfalfa. Tomorrow's oral argument in Doe v. Reed takes on the right of petition-signers to keep their names private. We discussed three older oral arguments, Merck v. Reynolds, regarding the statute of limitations in securities fraud cases (and which was decided today against Merck); Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Fla. DEP, regarding the 5th Amendment taking clause in the context of efforts to stop beach erosion, and Samantar v. Yousef, regarding the immunity of foreign officials sued in the U.S. for the torture of victims back in their home country. The assignment for Thursday April 29 is to finish the CLS paper, which is due the beginning of class (9:30) on Thursday.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
April 22, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/22,I went over three Supreme Court decisions from this week: United States v. Stevens (whether the federal "crush video" statute violates the First Amendment's free speech protection); Perdue v. Kenny A. (the standards for determining whether a reasonable attorney's fee can be increased for the superior job done by the attorneys); and Conkright v. Frommert (whether a pension plan administrator gets to exercise his discretion in calculating pensions once he has already abused that discretion once before). The assignment for Tuesday 4/27 is to continue working on your CLS papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 4/29.
In class today, Thursday 4/22,I went over three Supreme Court decisions from this week: United States v. Stevens (whether the federal "crush video" statute violates the First Amendment's free speech protection); Perdue v. Kenny A. (the standards for determining whether a reasonable attorney's fee can be increased for the superior job done by the attorneys); and Conkright v. Frommert (whether a pension plan administrator gets to exercise his discretion in calculating pensions once he has already abused that discretion once before). The assignment for Tuesday 4/27 is to continue working on your CLS papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 4/29.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
April 20, 2010
POS 359-The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/20, we spent the class going over yesterday's oral argument in CLS v. Martinez. I also went over three additional cases that were discussed in the oral argument, but which we had not previously discussed in class: Bob Jones University v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574((1983); Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001); and Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R., 547 U.S. 47 (2006). The assignment for Thursday 4/22 is to continue working on your CLS papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 4/29.
In class today, Tuesday 4/20, we spent the class going over yesterday's oral argument in CLS v. Martinez. I also went over three additional cases that were discussed in the oral argument, but which we had not previously discussed in class: Bob Jones University v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574((1983); Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001); and Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R., 547 U.S. 47 (2006). The assignment for Thursday 4/22 is to continue working on your CLS papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 4/29.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
April 15, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/15, I distributed one handout, Assignment #3, which is included below. This assignment is due on the last day of class, Thursday 4/29. After going over the requirements of the assignment, the class completed course evaluations. I then went over a few cases that have been argued in the Court, but have not yet been decided: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which asks the question whether certain aspects of providing "material support" to a designated terrorist organization might infringe on the Free Speech guaranty of the First Amendment; and Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, which ask whether Florida's imposition of life sentences against juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on Cruel or Unusual punishment.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/20 is to start your work on Assignment #3 by reading the oral argument on CLS v. Martinez, due to be argued on Monday 4/19.
ASSIGNMENT #3
For this assignment, I would like you to trace how the argument of the parties as developed in their legal briefs in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez gets reflected in the oral argument that is held in the case, and what kind of reception that argument receives. That oral argument is scheduled for Monday 4/19, and the transcript will be available later that day on the Supreme Court’s website. I have previously assigned the three briefs of the parties. (The Brief [CLS-B] and Reply Brief [CLS-RB] of CLS, and the Brief of Martinez [Mar-B].)
I want you to pick three specific points on which the two parties disagree in their briefing, and which were the subject of at least some questioning during the oral argument. At least one of the points should be a point of law (e.g. is this “conduct”, as opposed to “speech”), and at least one should be a question about how a prior case should be either followed or distinguished by the Court.
For each of the three points:
1) identify the position of each side’s argument in the briefing, giving specific page references to that brief;
2) identify where that position was presented in the oral argument, giving specific page and line references to that portion of argument;
3) discuss how the Justices involved in the questioning reacted to those positions taken by the parties.
Here’s a sample (fictitious) section to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
1) CLS had argued that the case of Citizen’s United v. FEC, ___ U.S. ___ (2010) governs the result in this case, because that case stands for the proposition that government cannot decide how a group is entitled to spend money that the state has distributed to it (CLS-B, p.31). Martinez answered that Citizens United is distinguishable, because that case dealt only with corporations, and CLS is not a corporation (Mar-B, p.4). CLS replied that Citizens United still applies, because the reasoning of the case says that the government cannot look to the viewpoint of the group to which it is distributing money, and that reasoning applies just as much to groups like CLS as it does to corporations CLS-RB, p.14).
2) At oral argument Justice Scalia asked Garre why Citizens United should not apply to this case, since in both cases the government was deciding how to distribute money, and it could not do so in a way that discriminates between viewpoints. (37:17). Garre replied that corporations are allowed certain rights and responsibilities that campus groups do not share (37:21).
3) Justice Scalia’s question, and his comment responding to Garre (“Says who?”) (38:2) indicate that Scalia is thinking that Citizens United is not distinguishable, and should be followed, and that what the University is engaged in is unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 29.
If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. 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. In terms of timeliness, any attachment that I cannot open will not be considered received; so the safest course is to copy and paste the paper into your e-mail as well as to attach it.
You papers will be graded on how well you support your position by reference to the briefs and the oral argument. 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.
You are not allowed to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. The only sources you should be consulting are the briefs and the oral argument. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In class today, Thursday 4/15, I distributed one handout, Assignment #3, which is included below. This assignment is due on the last day of class, Thursday 4/29. After going over the requirements of the assignment, the class completed course evaluations. I then went over a few cases that have been argued in the Court, but have not yet been decided: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which asks the question whether certain aspects of providing "material support" to a designated terrorist organization might infringe on the Free Speech guaranty of the First Amendment; and Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, which ask whether Florida's imposition of life sentences against juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on Cruel or Unusual punishment.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/20 is to start your work on Assignment #3 by reading the oral argument on CLS v. Martinez, due to be argued on Monday 4/19.
ASSIGNMENT #3
For this assignment, I would like you to trace how the argument of the parties as developed in their legal briefs in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez gets reflected in the oral argument that is held in the case, and what kind of reception that argument receives. That oral argument is scheduled for Monday 4/19, and the transcript will be available later that day on the Supreme Court’s website. I have previously assigned the three briefs of the parties. (The Brief [CLS-B] and Reply Brief [CLS-RB] of CLS, and the Brief of Martinez [Mar-B].)
I want you to pick three specific points on which the two parties disagree in their briefing, and which were the subject of at least some questioning during the oral argument. At least one of the points should be a point of law (e.g. is this “conduct”, as opposed to “speech”), and at least one should be a question about how a prior case should be either followed or distinguished by the Court.
For each of the three points:
1) identify the position of each side’s argument in the briefing, giving specific page references to that brief;
2) identify where that position was presented in the oral argument, giving specific page and line references to that portion of argument;
3) discuss how the Justices involved in the questioning reacted to those positions taken by the parties.
Here’s a sample (fictitious) section to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
1) CLS had argued that the case of Citizen’s United v. FEC, ___ U.S. ___ (2010) governs the result in this case, because that case stands for the proposition that government cannot decide how a group is entitled to spend money that the state has distributed to it (CLS-B, p.31). Martinez answered that Citizens United is distinguishable, because that case dealt only with corporations, and CLS is not a corporation (Mar-B, p.4). CLS replied that Citizens United still applies, because the reasoning of the case says that the government cannot look to the viewpoint of the group to which it is distributing money, and that reasoning applies just as much to groups like CLS as it does to corporations CLS-RB, p.14).
2) At oral argument Justice Scalia asked Garre why Citizens United should not apply to this case, since in both cases the government was deciding how to distribute money, and it could not do so in a way that discriminates between viewpoints. (37:17). Garre replied that corporations are allowed certain rights and responsibilities that campus groups do not share (37:21).
3) Justice Scalia’s question, and his comment responding to Garre (“Says who?”) (38:2) indicate that Scalia is thinking that Citizens United is not distinguishable, and should be followed, and that what the University is engaged in is unlawful viewpoint discrimination.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 29.
If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. 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. In terms of timeliness, any attachment that I cannot open will not be considered received; so the safest course is to copy and paste the paper into your e-mail as well as to attach it.
You papers will be graded on how well you support your position by reference to the briefs and the oral argument. 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.
You are not allowed to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. The only sources you should be consulting are the briefs and the oral argument. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
April 13. 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/13, we began with a discussion of the retirement of Justice Stevens. We then talked about the 7th Circuit's decision in their Christian Legal Society case, and its differences and similarities to the CLS case before the Supreme Court. I went over another case that was cited as precedent in our case, University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000). The assignment for Thursday 4/15 is to watch on c-span an interview with Justice Stevens. The program can be accessed by going to c-span.org, selecting c-span series, selecting America and the Courts, and selecting "C-span interview with Justice Stevens". (If time and interest permit, you might also want to go to the c-span "archives" to watch other programs featuring or discussing Justice Stevens.)
In class today, Tuesday 4/13, we began with a discussion of the retirement of Justice Stevens. We then talked about the 7th Circuit's decision in their Christian Legal Society case, and its differences and similarities to the CLS case before the Supreme Court. I went over another case that was cited as precedent in our case, University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000). The assignment for Thursday 4/15 is to watch on c-span an interview with Justice Stevens. The program can be accessed by going to c-span.org, selecting c-span series, selecting America and the Courts, and selecting "C-span interview with Justice Stevens". (If time and interest permit, you might also want to go to the c-span "archives" to watch other programs featuring or discussing Justice Stevens.)
Thursday, April 8, 2010
April 8, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/8, we went over many of the cases that the two sides in Christian Legal Society are hoping to either have the Court "follow" or "distinguish". The cases were Widmar v. Vincent; Good News Club v. Milford; Santa Fe v. Doe; Healy v. James; Roberts v. Jaycees; Hurley v. Irish-American GLB Group; and Boy Scouts v. Dale. The assignment for Tuesday April 13 is to read the Seventh Circuit's decision in a very similar Christian Legal Society case: Christian Legal Society v. Walker. You can find the case by going to the Fogler Library site for Lexis/Nexis. Select the "Legal" tab, and then select the "Federal and State Cases" tab. In the dialogue box that appears go to "Citation Number" and enter 453 F.3d 853. Read both the majority and dissenting opinions.
In class today, Thursday 4/8, we went over many of the cases that the two sides in Christian Legal Society are hoping to either have the Court "follow" or "distinguish". The cases were Widmar v. Vincent; Good News Club v. Milford; Santa Fe v. Doe; Healy v. James; Roberts v. Jaycees; Hurley v. Irish-American GLB Group; and Boy Scouts v. Dale. The assignment for Tuesday April 13 is to read the Seventh Circuit's decision in a very similar Christian Legal Society case: Christian Legal Society v. Walker. You can find the case by going to the Fogler Library site for Lexis/Nexis. Select the "Legal" tab, and then select the "Federal and State Cases" tab. In the dialogue box that appears go to "Citation Number" and enter 453 F.3d 853. Read both the majority and dissenting opinions.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
April 6. 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/6, I first went over three recent lower court cases that interpreted decisions of the Supreme Court. One case dealt with the new restrictions that the District of Columbia imposed regarding the registration of firearms, as well as the use of assault weapons and high capacity magazines; the two other cases involved campaign finance laws that limited contributions to political parties and to "527" organizations. We then continued with our discussion of the the Christian Legal Society case, and we went over the background case of Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia. The assignment for Thursday 4/8 is to read and prepare to discuss the Petitioner's Reply Brief in the CLS case, available again via the Supreme Court's website.
In class today, Tuesday 4/6, I first went over three recent lower court cases that interpreted decisions of the Supreme Court. One case dealt with the new restrictions that the District of Columbia imposed regarding the registration of firearms, as well as the use of assault weapons and high capacity magazines; the two other cases involved campaign finance laws that limited contributions to political parties and to "527" organizations. We then continued with our discussion of the the Christian Legal Society case, and we went over the background case of Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia. The assignment for Thursday 4/8 is to read and prepare to discuss the Petitioner's Reply Brief in the CLS case, available again via the Supreme Court's website.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
April 1. 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/1, we continued our discussion of the upcoming Christian Legal Society case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/6 is to read the brief of the University of California Respondent, which is available via the Supreme Court web site.
In class today, Thursday 4/1, we continued our discussion of the upcoming Christian Legal Society case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/6 is to read the brief of the University of California Respondent, which is available via the Supreme Court web site.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
March 30, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/30, I returned the McDonald papers, and we briefly went over how they were graded. We then discussed the Nurre v. Whitehead case, as well as the concept of viewpoint discrimination regarding religious expression. For Thursday, 4/1, the assignment is to first review those parts of The Nine that discuss the career of Jay Sekulow (pp. 104-111;147-150); then, from the Supreme Court website/merits briefs, read the Petitioner's Brief in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, oral argument 4/19 (docket #08-1371).
In class today, Tuesday 3/30, I returned the McDonald papers, and we briefly went over how they were graded. We then discussed the Nurre v. Whitehead case, as well as the concept of viewpoint discrimination regarding religious expression. For Thursday, 4/1, the assignment is to first review those parts of The Nine that discuss the career of Jay Sekulow (pp. 104-111;147-150); then, from the Supreme Court website/merits briefs, read the Petitioner's Brief in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, oral argument 4/19 (docket #08-1371).
Thursday, March 25, 2010
March 25, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/25, I collected your McDonald papers, and we went over them. I plan on returning them on Tuesday. I discussed a decision this week on student loan discharge in bankruptcy, United Student Aid v. Espinosa. The assignment for Tuesday 3/30 is to read Justice Alito's dissent from the denial of cert. in a free speech and religion case, Nurre v. Whitehead. Justice Alito's dissent can be found by going to the Supreme Court site
www.supremecourt.gov
select "orders and journals"
select "orders of the court"
select and download "order list 3/22"
this is a 27 page download, and the Alito dissent is found on pp. 22-27 of the download.
I also want you to watch the oral argument that was held last year in the Ninth Circuit in this case. That oral argument can be found at
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283553-1
In class today, Thursday 3/25, I collected your McDonald papers, and we went over them. I plan on returning them on Tuesday. I discussed a decision this week on student loan discharge in bankruptcy, United Student Aid v. Espinosa. The assignment for Tuesday 3/30 is to read Justice Alito's dissent from the denial of cert. in a free speech and religion case, Nurre v. Whitehead. Justice Alito's dissent can be found by going to the Supreme Court site
www.supremecourt.gov
select "orders and journals"
select "orders of the court"
select and download "order list 3/22"
this is a 27 page download, and the Alito dissent is found on pp. 22-27 of the download.
I also want you to watch the oral argument that was held last year in the Ninth Circuit in this case. That oral argument can be found at
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283553-1
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
March 23, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/23, we began with an excursion into the constitutionality of the new health care law. Regarding the McDonald assignment, I stressed that part of that assignment is to not just describe the questioning during the oral argument of the case, but to also give the point of the questions. I then went over 2 recent Supreme Court cases that touched on practice in the federal courts, Hertz v. Friend, (3/2/2010) regarding federal diversity jurisdiction, and Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (3/2/2010) regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 3/25 is to complete the previously assigned McDonald paper, which is due at the beginning of class (9:30) on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 3/23, we began with an excursion into the constitutionality of the new health care law. Regarding the McDonald assignment, I stressed that part of that assignment is to not just describe the questioning during the oral argument of the case, but to also give the point of the questions. I then went over 2 recent Supreme Court cases that touched on practice in the federal courts, Hertz v. Friend, (3/2/2010) regarding federal diversity jurisdiction, and Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (3/2/2010) regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 3/25 is to complete the previously assigned McDonald paper, which is due at the beginning of class (9:30) on Thursday.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
March 18, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 3/18, I finished going over the Snyder v. Phelps case in which cert. was granted 3/8. I then talked about the 3/8 unanimous decision of the Court in Milavetz v. U.S., a bankruptcy law case which discussed the First Amendment standard for review of commercial speech. The assignment for next Tuesday, 3/23 is to continue your work on the McDonald oral argument assignment.
In class today, Thursday 3/18, I finished going over the Snyder v. Phelps case in which cert. was granted 3/8. I then talked about the 3/8 unanimous decision of the Court in Milavetz v. U.S., a bankruptcy law case which discussed the First Amendment standard for review of commercial speech. The assignment for next Tuesday, 3/23 is to continue your work on the McDonald oral argument assignment.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
March 16, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 3/16, I distributed assignment #2, which is reproduced below. I also asked the class to read an article from the New Yorker, and listen to an interview from NPR, both about a profile that Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Justice Stevens. I went over the requirements for the assignments for the assignment, and then I talked about a new First Amendment case that the Court just granted cert. on, Snyder v. Phelps. Here are the web sites for the Toobin article and interview:
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124597191
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper analyzing certain questions raised in the oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The only important source for this analysis will be the questions raised at the oral argument (no other research is needed or wanted). Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
Specifically, I want you to address the following four questions:
1) What was the Justices’ reception to McDonald’s attempt to resurrect the Privileges and Immunities clause? (Which Justices weighed in on the question; what seemed to be the thrust of each of their line of questioning; what were the responses by the lawyers?)
2) If the Court does “incorporate” the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does the incorporation bring with it the body of case law that develops directly in the Federal Second Amendment cases, or might the Second Amendment mean something different for the states than for the Federal government?
3) If the Court does not incorporate the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does that mean that the states are free to ban all handguns, or all guns of any kind?
4) Is the right that is protected one of self-defense in the home, or is it a broader right than that?
Here’s a Sample (though fictional) answer:
Justice Souter asked whether the right is only to arm bears, or whether the right extends to other animals as well (P.7, L.20-22). Gura answered that the right extends to all hibernating mammals (P.7-8, L223-25,1-8). Souter was forcing Gura into admitting that his reasoning would extend the right far beyond the words of the Second Amendment; Gura’s reply explained that this was not a problem as he saw it, because the right to hibernation preceded the codification of the right to arm bears. Amphibians, however, were excluded because they are cold-blooded (P.10, L12-15).
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday March 25, 2010. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. 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.
Your papers will be graded on how directly and completely you respond to the questions assigned, and how well you explain the point of the questions and the answers. 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.
You may not collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 3/16, I distributed assignment #2, which is reproduced below. I also asked the class to read an article from the New Yorker, and listen to an interview from NPR, both about a profile that Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Justice Stevens. I went over the requirements for the assignments for the assignment, and then I talked about a new First Amendment case that the Court just granted cert. on, Snyder v. Phelps. Here are the web sites for the Toobin article and interview:
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124597191
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper analyzing certain questions raised in the oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The only important source for this analysis will be the questions raised at the oral argument (no other research is needed or wanted). Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
Specifically, I want you to address the following four questions:
1) What was the Justices’ reception to McDonald’s attempt to resurrect the Privileges and Immunities clause? (Which Justices weighed in on the question; what seemed to be the thrust of each of their line of questioning; what were the responses by the lawyers?)
2) If the Court does “incorporate” the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does the incorporation bring with it the body of case law that develops directly in the Federal Second Amendment cases, or might the Second Amendment mean something different for the states than for the Federal government?
3) If the Court does not incorporate the protections of the Second Amendment against the states, does that mean that the states are free to ban all handguns, or all guns of any kind?
4) Is the right that is protected one of self-defense in the home, or is it a broader right than that?
Here’s a Sample (though fictional) answer:
Justice Souter asked whether the right is only to arm bears, or whether the right extends to other animals as well (P.7, L.20-22). Gura answered that the right extends to all hibernating mammals (P.7-8, L223-25,1-8). Souter was forcing Gura into admitting that his reasoning would extend the right far beyond the words of the Second Amendment; Gura’s reply explained that this was not a problem as he saw it, because the right to hibernation preceded the codification of the right to arm bears. Amphibians, however, were excluded because they are cold-blooded (P.10, L12-15).
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday March 25, 2010. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. 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.
Your papers will be graded on how directly and completely you respond to the questions assigned, and how well you explain the point of the questions and the answers. 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.
You may not collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
February 25, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/25, we went over the City of Chicago brief in the McDonald case. We looked at issues that included the nature of the asserted fundamental right, the characterization of the rules as a "ban", the question of states' rights as affected by incorporation, and the possible attempts to gain Justice Kennedy's attention. The assignment for Tuesday March 16 (when we reconvene after Spring Break) is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the March 2 hearing in the McDonald case.
I have that you have a safe and enjoyable break.
In class today, Thursday 2/25, we went over the City of Chicago brief in the McDonald case. We looked at issues that included the nature of the asserted fundamental right, the characterization of the rules as a "ban", the question of states' rights as affected by incorporation, and the possible attempts to gain Justice Kennedy's attention. The assignment for Tuesday March 16 (when we reconvene after Spring Break) is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the March 2 hearing in the McDonald case.
I have that you have a safe and enjoyable break.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
February 23, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/23, we spent the period going over the McDonald brief in the McDonald v. City of Chicago Second Amendment case. The assignment for Thursday 2/25 is to read the City of Chicago brief in the same case.
In class today, Tuesday 2/23, we spent the period going over the McDonald brief in the McDonald v. City of Chicago Second Amendment case. The assignment for Thursday 2/25 is to read the City of Chicago brief in the same case.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
February 18, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/18, I went over three habeus corpus cases from the current term. I then went over the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule for next week, after its February slumber. Next week, I will go over the rest of the oral argument schedule for the time that the University is on spring break. The assignment for Tuesday 2/23 is to read the petitioner McDonald's brief in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. That case will be argued on Tuesday March 2. Start at the Supreme Court's site (www.supremecourtus.gov); select "Merits briefs" and then "On-line merits briefs"; scroll down the alphabetical list until you select McDonald v. City of Chicago; then select "Brief for Petitioner". The reading is 91 pages long.
In class today, Thursday 2/18, I went over three habeus corpus cases from the current term. I then went over the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule for next week, after its February slumber. Next week, I will go over the rest of the oral argument schedule for the time that the University is on spring break. The assignment for Tuesday 2/23 is to read the petitioner McDonald's brief in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. That case will be argued on Tuesday March 2. Start at the Supreme Court's site (www.supremecourtus.gov); select "Merits briefs" and then "On-line merits briefs"; scroll down the alphabetical list until you select McDonald v. City of Chicago; then select "Brief for Petitioner". The reading is 91 pages long.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
February 16, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/16, I returned the papers, and we went over them. We discussed both the substance of the papers, and a number of common grammatical problems. We then went over a portion of the Toobin book, discussing the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" on the Court. I discussed one habeus corpus case,McDaniel v. Brown, regarding the "prosecutor's fallacy". The assignment for Thursday 2/18 is to read Part 3 of the Toobin book, pages 211-295.
In class today, Tuesday 2/16, I returned the papers, and we went over them. We discussed both the substance of the papers, and a number of common grammatical problems. We then went over a portion of the Toobin book, discussing the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" on the Court. I discussed one habeus corpus case,McDaniel v. Brown, regarding the "prosecutor's fallacy". The assignment for Thursday 2/18 is to read Part 3 of the Toobin book, pages 211-295.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
February 11, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/11, I collected the Citizens United papers, and we spent most of the class discussing them. I also briefly went over a part of the opinions that was not assigned, the evaluation of the 3 rationales for the Congressional restrictions. I plan to return the papers on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read in Toobin's book through p. 210.
In class today, Thursday 2/11, I collected the Citizens United papers, and we spent most of the class discussing them. I also briefly went over a part of the opinions that was not assigned, the evaluation of the 3 rationales for the Congressional restrictions. I plan to return the papers on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read in Toobin's book through p. 210.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
February 9, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/9, I did not do the Supreme Court's recent habeus cases, but instead talked more about the Citizens United case. I went over the commentary regarding whether this decision will make a big difference in elections, or not such a big difference; how this decision will affect other issues not directly decided, such as foreign influence in our elections, application to labor unions, and the continuing validity such prior cases as Buckley; and some proposed fixes, both constitutional and statutory, of those who want to limit the reach of the Citizens United decision. The assignment for Thursday 2/11 is to finish your paper on the Citizens United case; your paper is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 2/9, I did not do the Supreme Court's recent habeus cases, but instead talked more about the Citizens United case. I went over the commentary regarding whether this decision will make a big difference in elections, or not such a big difference; how this decision will affect other issues not directly decided, such as foreign influence in our elections, application to labor unions, and the continuing validity such prior cases as Buckley; and some proposed fixes, both constitutional and statutory, of those who want to limit the reach of the Citizens United decision. The assignment for Thursday 2/11 is to finish your paper on the Citizens United case; your paper is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
February 4, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday, 2/4, we began by going over some misconceptions about the Citizens United case. We then discussed the meaning of the "strict scrutiny" test that Justice Kennedy applied to the campaign finance law, and used the Bellotti case to illustrate how strict scrutiny works. Next week I will go over some other recent decisions of the Court. The assignment for Tuesday is to continue working on Assignment #1, which is due a week from today, Thursday 2/11.
In class today, Thursday, 2/4, we began by going over some misconceptions about the Citizens United case. We then discussed the meaning of the "strict scrutiny" test that Justice Kennedy applied to the campaign finance law, and used the Bellotti case to illustrate how strict scrutiny works. Next week I will go over some other recent decisions of the Court. The assignment for Tuesday is to continue working on Assignment #1, which is due a week from today, Thursday 2/11.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
February 2, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/2, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We began with announcements about the Maine Public Policy Scholars Program and the Graton Constitutional Essay Contest, both programs that are worthy of your attention. After going over the writing assignment due Thursday 2/11, we went on to discussing some points in the Citizens United case, such as the way in which the Supreme Court reached the constitutional issue, the other issues that were discussed in the sections of the opinion that I did not assign, and the role of majority and concurring opinions.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about your own agreement or disagreement with the two assigned portions of the Citizen’s United decision (Part III of each opinion). Do you agree with Justice Kennedy, or with Justice Stevens (or neither one, or portions of both)? What makes one viewpoint more persuasive than the other?
I’m not looking for an introduction to the case, or a summary of it—all of that is assumed. I’m looking for your recognition of the specific points on which Kennedy and Stevens clash, and a reasoned analysis about why you find one viewpoint more persuasive than the other. The paper should also briefly go over any major points on which the two opinions agree.
The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote, be sure to provide a page citation. For example, you might write:
Kennedy distinguished some previous cases that did allow speech restrictions based on who was speaking. He said that those cases were all based on allowing governments to “perform their functions”. Kennedy at p. 24.
Make sure that you deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Steven’s position on the “government functions” cases is correct, how do you answer Kennedy’s points about how those cases are different?
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the case you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, February 11. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
In class today, Tuesday 2/2, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We began with announcements about the Maine Public Policy Scholars Program and the Graton Constitutional Essay Contest, both programs that are worthy of your attention. After going over the writing assignment due Thursday 2/11, we went on to discussing some points in the Citizens United case, such as the way in which the Supreme Court reached the constitutional issue, the other issues that were discussed in the sections of the opinion that I did not assign, and the role of majority and concurring opinions.
Assignment #1
For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper about your own agreement or disagreement with the two assigned portions of the Citizen’s United decision (Part III of each opinion). Do you agree with Justice Kennedy, or with Justice Stevens (or neither one, or portions of both)? What makes one viewpoint more persuasive than the other?
I’m not looking for an introduction to the case, or a summary of it—all of that is assumed. I’m looking for your recognition of the specific points on which Kennedy and Stevens clash, and a reasoned analysis about why you find one viewpoint more persuasive than the other. The paper should also briefly go over any major points on which the two opinions agree.
The writing should be your own words. I don’t want long quotations dropped into the paper. Any quotations that you use should just be snippets. When you do quote, be sure to provide a page citation. For example, you might write:
Kennedy distinguished some previous cases that did allow speech restrictions based on who was speaking. He said that those cases were all based on allowing governments to “perform their functions”. Kennedy at p. 24.
Make sure that you deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Steven’s position on the “government functions” cases is correct, how do you answer Kennedy’s points about how those cases are different?
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the case you take, but rather on how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday, February 11. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
January 28, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/28, we finished our discussion of the Wood case, paying particular attention to the battle of the footnotes between Justices Sotomayor and Stevens. We began our discussion of the Citizens United case, and the commentary surrounding it. We will continue with the Citizens United case next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday, February 2 is to read the following excerpts from the Citizens United opinion (which can be found on the Supreme Court website, as we've previously accessed it): from Justice Kennedy's opinion, pp. 20-32 (as the pages are numbered within the opinion--pages 27-39 of the entire pdf page numbering); from Justice Stevens' dissent, pp.1-3 and 23-56 (pdf 88-90;110-143). These sections focus on the First Amendment rights of corporations.
In class today, Thursday 1/28, we finished our discussion of the Wood case, paying particular attention to the battle of the footnotes between Justices Sotomayor and Stevens. We began our discussion of the Citizens United case, and the commentary surrounding it. We will continue with the Citizens United case next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday, February 2 is to read the following excerpts from the Citizens United opinion (which can be found on the Supreme Court website, as we've previously accessed it): from Justice Kennedy's opinion, pp. 20-32 (as the pages are numbered within the opinion--pages 27-39 of the entire pdf page numbering); from Justice Stevens' dissent, pp.1-3 and 23-56 (pdf 88-90;110-143). These sections focus on the First Amendment rights of corporations.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
January 26, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/26, I distributed two handouts: one was the assignment for Thursday, which is reproduced below, and the other was the two formal questions on which the Supreme Court had granted certiorari. We started our discussion of the Wood case, going over the procedure in habeus corpus cases, the questions that the majority did and did not decide to answer, and the facts that they looked at regarding the evidence before the state court. We looked at the structure and outline of the majority opinion. We will continue (and finish) our discussion of Wood on Thursday.
Assignment for Thursday 1/28/2010:
Please read and prepare to discuss the following articles and commentary regarding last week’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. (Some of these sites may require (free) registration.)
Two articles by Adam Liptak in the New York Times—
“Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit” 1/22/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
“Justices Turn Minor Movie Case Into Blockbuster” 1/23/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/politics/23scotus.html
An article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post—
“Justice Kennedy Was Key to Conservatives Win in Campaign Finance Decision” 1/24/10
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302679_pf.html
An article in the New York Sun by Joseph Goldstein—
“ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling” 1/24/2010
www.nysun/com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/
The editorial in the 1/26/10 Bangor Daily News
“Corporate Citizenship”
www.bangordailynews.com/detail/135505.html
In class today, Tuesday 1/26, I distributed two handouts: one was the assignment for Thursday, which is reproduced below, and the other was the two formal questions on which the Supreme Court had granted certiorari. We started our discussion of the Wood case, going over the procedure in habeus corpus cases, the questions that the majority did and did not decide to answer, and the facts that they looked at regarding the evidence before the state court. We looked at the structure and outline of the majority opinion. We will continue (and finish) our discussion of Wood on Thursday.
Assignment for Thursday 1/28/2010:
Please read and prepare to discuss the following articles and commentary regarding last week’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. (Some of these sites may require (free) registration.)
Two articles by Adam Liptak in the New York Times—
“Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit” 1/22/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
“Justices Turn Minor Movie Case Into Blockbuster” 1/23/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/politics/23scotus.html
An article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post—
“Justice Kennedy Was Key to Conservatives Win in Campaign Finance Decision” 1/24/10
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302679_pf.html
An article in the New York Sun by Joseph Goldstein—
“ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling” 1/24/2010
www.nysun/com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/
The editorial in the 1/26/10 Bangor Daily News
“Corporate Citizenship”
www.bangordailynews.com/detail/135505.html
Thursday, January 21, 2010
January 21, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/21, we started with a discussion of the commerce clause cases of U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). We then continued and finished our discussion of the Comstock oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 1/26 is to read and prepare to discuss the case of Wood v. Allen, decided January 20, 2010. (You can access the case by going to the Supreme Court website, selecting Recent Opinions, and selecting this case.)
In class today, Thursday 1/21, we started with a discussion of the commerce clause cases of U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). We then continued and finished our discussion of the Comstock oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 1/26 is to read and prepare to discuss the case of Wood v. Allen, decided January 20, 2010. (You can access the case by going to the Supreme Court website, selecting Recent Opinions, and selecting this case.)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
January 19, 2010
POS 359-The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/19, I distributed one handout, a recent opinion column regarding the power of Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance. We finished our discussion of Michigan v. Fisher from last week, and began out discussion of U.S. v. Comstock. We discussed the power of states to civilly commit sexual predators, the spending power of Congress, and had gotten up to the scope of the interstate commerce power of Congress. We will continue with the Comstock oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 1/21 is to read the handout, and re-read the Comstock oral argument with the added background of today's classroom discussion.
In class today, Tuesday 1/19, I distributed one handout, a recent opinion column regarding the power of Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance. We finished our discussion of Michigan v. Fisher from last week, and began out discussion of U.S. v. Comstock. We discussed the power of states to civilly commit sexual predators, the spending power of Congress, and had gotten up to the scope of the interstate commerce power of Congress. We will continue with the Comstock oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 1/21 is to read the handout, and re-read the Comstock oral argument with the added background of today's classroom discussion.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
January 14, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/14, I distributed one handout, 18 USC 4248 regarding civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons (see next Tuesday's assignment). We talked about yesterday's 5-4 decision disallowing cameras in the trial of the California gay marriage ban, and also two posting on the c-span site, one the stakeout following the NFL anti-trust case, and the other the 2nd Circuit oral argument in Fox v. FCC regarding "fleeting expletives". We then went on to discuss the assignment for today, the opinions in Michigan v. Fisher. We will finish that discussion next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read the oral argument in a case that was argued this week, U.S. v. Comstock. To access the oral argument transcript, go the the Supreme Court's site
www.supremecourtus.gov
select "oral arguments"
select "argument transcripts"
select 08-1224, U.S. v. Comstock 1/12/2010.
Read and prepare to discuss this case regarding the power of Congress under the "necessary and proper" clause to order civil commitment of sex offenders after their prison term is up.
In class today, Thursday 1/14, I distributed one handout, 18 USC 4248 regarding civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons (see next Tuesday's assignment). We talked about yesterday's 5-4 decision disallowing cameras in the trial of the California gay marriage ban, and also two posting on the c-span site, one the stakeout following the NFL anti-trust case, and the other the 2nd Circuit oral argument in Fox v. FCC regarding "fleeting expletives". We then went on to discuss the assignment for today, the opinions in Michigan v. Fisher. We will finish that discussion next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read the oral argument in a case that was argued this week, U.S. v. Comstock. To access the oral argument transcript, go the the Supreme Court's site
www.supremecourtus.gov
select "oral arguments"
select "argument transcripts"
select 08-1224, U.S. v. Comstock 1/12/2010.
Read and prepare to discuss this case regarding the power of Congress under the "necessary and proper" clause to order civil commitment of sex offenders after their prison term is up.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
January 12, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/12, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, a list of the Justices, and selections from the U.S. Constitution. We went over them, and I also discussed last term's 6th Amendment case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, and yesterday's oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, both dealing with the right to confront at trial the technicians who write up the crime lab reports used in many criminal trials. The assignment for Thursday January 14, 2010:
-Go to the Supreme Court’s official website:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
-select “Recent Decisions”
-select
R-5 12/7/09 09-91 Michigan v. Fisher
and read and prepare to discuss it for Thursday’s class (nothing written, just read both the majority and dissenting opinions and think about which you find more persuasive).
In class today, Tuesday 1/12, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, a list of the Justices, and selections from the U.S. Constitution. We went over them, and I also discussed last term's 6th Amendment case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, and yesterday's oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, both dealing with the right to confront at trial the technicians who write up the crime lab reports used in many criminal trials. The assignment for Thursday January 14, 2010:
-Go to the Supreme Court’s official website:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
-select “Recent Decisions”
-select
R-5 12/7/09 09-91 Michigan v. Fisher
and read and prepare to discuss it for Thursday’s class (nothing written, just read both the majority and dissenting opinions and think about which you find more persuasive).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)