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.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)