POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Thursday 2/24, I distributed assignment #2,which is copied below. After going through the assignment, we waded through the beginning of the oral argument, seeing the places in which Farley got sidetracked or into a thicket.The assignment for Tuesday March 15 is to work on the King assignment. I hope you have a fun and safe spring break.
Assignment #2
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of Kentucky v. King. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 6 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday March 17. 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.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: Go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case. (Take a pass for Justice Thomas, who as usual asked no questions). Discuss how the questions asked or the comments made by a Justice may reflect a view of what the outcome should be. Remember that the Court issues two kinds of things: a Judgment (whether the decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court is affirmed or reversed); and an Opinion (the reasoning used to get to the result), Justices may agree on a result (a judgment) without agreeing on an opinion.
Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers. Start out the paper by telling me whether the page numbers from the transcript from which you are working are located on the bottom of the page, or at the top right of the page (so that I can follow the version of the transcript that you are working from).
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.
Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against King), but also rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. An important part of the assignment is for you to identify those issues. For this, you will need to be guided by the arguments raised by the parties in their briefs, as well as the assigned Amicus Brief. The issues may include, but are not limited to, questions such as whether “lawful” is the correct legal standard for testing police-created exigent circumstances; does it allow the police too much leeway; if “lawfulness” is accepted as the standard, does it gut the warrant requirement too much; if the Court does not accept the “lawfulness” standard, what standard should it choose for police-created exigencies; does it make any difference whether the knock is a request for consent, rather than just a prelude to kicking the door in; does it make a difference whether the police made a demand for the door to be opened or not.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
Justice Thomas raised questions about Drake’s proposed test of overall reasonableness of the search. He asked Drake why kicking down doors isn’t justified, and therefore “reasonable”, as soon as the police smelled the marijuana (25:7) Drake replied that, while the smell of marijuana would supply probable cause for the police to get a warrant, there still has to be an exigent circumstance before the police can enter without a warrant (25:14). Thomas replied that if “reasonableness” is the standard, he doesn’t see why it’s unreasonable to just kick down the door once the police know that there’s marijuana behind the door (26:2). This exchange indicates that Thomas either accepts overall reasonableness as a standard, (and since the police action is reasonable, King loses) or that reasonableness is not a good standard (in which case King also loses). I predict therefore that Thomas will vote against King.
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Kentucky’s position is correct, how do you answer King’s objections that the “lawfulness” standard allows police too much leeway?
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try used an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before March 17, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating a prediction. But, if they do decide the case before March 17 , I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the Court has complicated my life.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/24, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exams, and we will go over them, when we return on Tuesday 3/15. The additional assignment for that day is to read in the text pp. 72-89. Have a fun and safe Spring Break.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
February 22,2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Tuesday 2/22, we first talked about today's oral argument in Bond v. U.S., raising Tenth Amendment and standing issues. We also decided that I would distribute the King assignment on Thursday (2/24) but that it would not be due right away after Spring Break. We then went back to work on the King case. We outlined the U.S. amicus brief, and then tried to clarify the positions staked out in the King brief that did not go to the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert on. The assignment for Thursday 2/24 is to re-read the oral argument, focusing on the reaction of various Justices to the arguments presented.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/22, we finished the Gregg case, and then discussed Connecticut v. Doe and Suggs v. Norris. We will have Test #1 on Thursday. Remember that if, for any reason you cannot be in class, contact me as soon as possible to see if a make-up test can be scheduled.
In class today, Tuesday 2/22, we first talked about today's oral argument in Bond v. U.S., raising Tenth Amendment and standing issues. We also decided that I would distribute the King assignment on Thursday (2/24) but that it would not be due right away after Spring Break. We then went back to work on the King case. We outlined the U.S. amicus brief, and then tried to clarify the positions staked out in the King brief that did not go to the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert on. The assignment for Thursday 2/24 is to re-read the oral argument, focusing on the reaction of various Justices to the arguments presented.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/22, we finished the Gregg case, and then discussed Connecticut v. Doe and Suggs v. Norris. We will have Test #1 on Thursday. Remember that if, for any reason you cannot be in class, contact me as soon as possible to see if a make-up test can be scheduled.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
February 17, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Thursday 2/17, we finished going over last part of King's brief, in which Drake argued that acceptance of the "lawfulness" standard would lead down a slippery slope of evasion of the warrant requirement. In our discussion, I also reviewed the cases of Brigham City (2006) and Fisher (2009), as a demonstration of how the slippery slope might operate in successive Supreme Court cases. We did not really get the amicus brief of the U.S., and so we will start with that brief on Tuesday. The additional reading assignment for Tuesday 2/22 is to listen to and read the Supreme Court oral argument in this case, available from the Supreme Court website and from c-span.org.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/17, I began the class by announcing that the first exam in the class will be on Thursday 2/24. The exam will be open-book, open-handout, open-note (but, in each case, only your own). I gave a sample test, with four multiple choice questions. In addition to the multiple choice questions on the exam, there will also be some short answer questions. We went over several concepts that will be important for the exam, including understanding: the holding of the court; court organization; federal jurisdiction; types of authority; treatment of precedent; and citation form for both legislation and court decisions. We then began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, going through Justice Stewart's opinion. We will pick up next Tuesday with the dissenting opinions in Gregg, and then also discuss the previously assigned Connecticut v. Doe. The additional assignment for Tuesday 2/22 is to read the remaining case in Chapter 1 of the text, Suggs v. Norris on pp. 54-57.
In class today, Thursday 2/17, we finished going over last part of King's brief, in which Drake argued that acceptance of the "lawfulness" standard would lead down a slippery slope of evasion of the warrant requirement. In our discussion, I also reviewed the cases of Brigham City (2006) and Fisher (2009), as a demonstration of how the slippery slope might operate in successive Supreme Court cases. We did not really get the amicus brief of the U.S., and so we will start with that brief on Tuesday. The additional reading assignment for Tuesday 2/22 is to listen to and read the Supreme Court oral argument in this case, available from the Supreme Court website and from c-span.org.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/17, I began the class by announcing that the first exam in the class will be on Thursday 2/24. The exam will be open-book, open-handout, open-note (but, in each case, only your own). I gave a sample test, with four multiple choice questions. In addition to the multiple choice questions on the exam, there will also be some short answer questions. We went over several concepts that will be important for the exam, including understanding: the holding of the court; court organization; federal jurisdiction; types of authority; treatment of precedent; and citation form for both legislation and court decisions. We then began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, going through Justice Stewart's opinion. We will pick up next Tuesday with the dissenting opinions in Gregg, and then also discuss the previously assigned Connecticut v. Doe. The additional assignment for Tuesday 2/22 is to read the remaining case in Chapter 1 of the text, Suggs v. Norris on pp. 54-57.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
February 15,2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Tuesday 2/15, we went over King's brief in Kentucky v. King. We discussed the 1948 Johnson case, the connection between the sound of movement and the destruction of evidence, and the test that King proposed to decide whether evidence should be suppressed when the police actions create an exigency. We left off in the King brief with the discussion of what's wrong with the "lawful action" standard proposed by Kentucky. The assignment for Thursday 2/17 is to read the amicus brief of the United States.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/15, we went over Lawrence v. Texas. We also discussed the 1986 Bowers case, which Lawrence overruled. The assignment for Thursday 2/17 is to read in the textbook pp. 63-70 (Gregg v. Georgia) and 43-46 (Connecticut v. Doe).
In class today, Tuesday 2/15, we went over King's brief in Kentucky v. King. We discussed the 1948 Johnson case, the connection between the sound of movement and the destruction of evidence, and the test that King proposed to decide whether evidence should be suppressed when the police actions create an exigency. We left off in the King brief with the discussion of what's wrong with the "lawful action" standard proposed by Kentucky. The assignment for Thursday 2/17 is to read the amicus brief of the United States.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/15, we went over Lawrence v. Texas. We also discussed the 1986 Bowers case, which Lawrence overruled. The assignment for Thursday 2/17 is to read in the textbook pp. 63-70 (Gregg v. Georgia) and 43-46 (Connecticut v. Doe).
Thursday, February 10, 2011
February 10,2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 2/10, we went over the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in the King case. We concentrated on the choice of tests that courts have developed regarding how to judge when evidence obtained by police-created exigencies are admissible. The assignment for Tuesday 2/15 is to read King's (Respondent's) Brief in Kentucky v. King, available from the abanet site via the supremecourt.gov site.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/10, we finished our discussion of the Glucksberg case. We also discussed the concepts of following versus distinguishing precedent. We went over some basic power distribution questions in our legal system, including: the power of the individual to decide things,versus the power of government to dictate what is allowed; the power of the federal government versus the power of state government; and the power of the judiciary versus the power of the legislature (and the executive). The assignment for Tuesday is to read again the Lawrence v. Texas case that was assigned on Tuesday, comparing it to the Glucksberg decision in terms of the characterization of the liberty interest at stake, the analysis of the history of that interest, and the hurdle that must be met (the test) for the constitutionality of the law involved.
In class today, Thursday 2/10, we went over the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in the King case. We concentrated on the choice of tests that courts have developed regarding how to judge when evidence obtained by police-created exigencies are admissible. The assignment for Tuesday 2/15 is to read King's (Respondent's) Brief in Kentucky v. King, available from the abanet site via the supremecourt.gov site.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/10, we finished our discussion of the Glucksberg case. We also discussed the concepts of following versus distinguishing precedent. We went over some basic power distribution questions in our legal system, including: the power of the individual to decide things,versus the power of government to dictate what is allowed; the power of the federal government versus the power of state government; and the power of the judiciary versus the power of the legislature (and the executive). The assignment for Tuesday is to read again the Lawrence v. Texas case that was assigned on Tuesday, comparing it to the Glucksberg decision in terms of the characterization of the liberty interest at stake, the analysis of the history of that interest, and the hurdle that must be met (the test) for the constitutionality of the law involved.
Monday, February 7, 2011
February 8, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/8, I returned the Snyder papers, and we discussed them. I told the class about the opening of the Graton Constitutional Law Essay contest, and we discussed the possible application to the WBC Epic. We went over the context of the Kentucky v.King case, and the kind of issues that are at stake in the case.
The assignment for Thursday 2/10 is to read the opinion of the Kentucky Supreme Court in the case of King v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (as the case was called in the Kentucky Supreme Court). Go to the Fogler library site
http://library.umaine.edu/
Select Indexes & Databases
In “databases a-z” go to “L” and select LexisNexis Academic
The dialogue box for “Easy Search” should appear. In “Look up a Legal Case” /”By Citation” enter the citation: 302 S.W. 3d 649
This should bring up the Opinion for you.
(Remember to use periods in “S.W.3d”)
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/8, I distributed three handouts: the comment key to the Lyman brief, my sample brief of the Glucksberg decision, and an alternate version of Glucksberg issues, together with the Maine statute regarding assisted suicide. I handed back the class's Lyman case briefs, and we went over my comments to the brief. We also discussed the difference between a subjective and an objective test (in determining whether the distress was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it). We then got back to our discussion of Glucksberg. I went over the two bases of federal trial court jurisdiction. We got as far in Glucksberg as the ways in which the majority distinguished the Cruzan and Casey cases. We will continue with Glucksberg on Thursday. The additional reading for Thursday 2/10 is to read in the text pp. 82-88, Lawrence v. Texas.
In class today, Tuesday 2/8, I returned the Snyder papers, and we discussed them. I told the class about the opening of the Graton Constitutional Law Essay contest, and we discussed the possible application to the WBC Epic. We went over the context of the Kentucky v.King case, and the kind of issues that are at stake in the case.
The assignment for Thursday 2/10 is to read the opinion of the Kentucky Supreme Court in the case of King v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (as the case was called in the Kentucky Supreme Court). Go to the Fogler library site
http://library.umaine.edu/
Select Indexes & Databases
In “databases a-z” go to “L” and select LexisNexis Academic
The dialogue box for “Easy Search” should appear. In “Look up a Legal Case” /”By Citation” enter the citation: 302 S.W. 3d 649
This should bring up the Opinion for you.
(Remember to use periods in “S.W.3d”)
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/8, I distributed three handouts: the comment key to the Lyman brief, my sample brief of the Glucksberg decision, and an alternate version of Glucksberg issues, together with the Maine statute regarding assisted suicide. I handed back the class's Lyman case briefs, and we went over my comments to the brief. We also discussed the difference between a subjective and an objective test (in determining whether the distress was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it). We then got back to our discussion of Glucksberg. I went over the two bases of federal trial court jurisdiction. We got as far in Glucksberg as the ways in which the majority distinguished the Cruzan and Casey cases. We will continue with Glucksberg on Thursday. The additional reading for Thursday 2/10 is to read in the text pp. 82-88, Lawrence v. Texas.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
February 3, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term -- 2011
In class today I collected the Snyder v. Phelps papers, and we discussed how the case might and should turn out. It is my intent to hand back those papers next Tuesday. The class then voted on which case we should grapple with next. The winner of our vote was Kentucky v. King, argued on January 12, which had the police in hot pursuit of a drug dealer, but then not sure about which door he had ducked into. Finally, I went over three recent Supreme Court decisions: one dealing with liberty interests in a state parole system; one dealing with retaliation against a fiance of an employee who had claimed Title VII sex discrimination; and the last dealing with the power of credit card issuers to raise interest rates without giving specific notice of that rate increase. The assignment for Tuesday 2/8 is to read the Petitioners Brief in the case of Kentucky v. King. The brief can be found through the Supreme Court website/ merits briefs/ online merits briefs (to the abanet site) and scrolling down to Kentucky v. King.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/3, I first apologized for not having completed the grading of the Lyman case briefs. I'll finish them this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. I distributed one handout, my own version of the Lyman brief. We finished our review of the Maine statute (distributed last Thursday) regarding use of force in defense of premises. We then began our discussion of the Glucksberg case, exploring both the methodology of determining whether a give right is "fundamental", and the consequences if the the right does belong in that category. The assignment for Tuesday 2/8 is to re-read Glucksberg in light of today's (hopefully) clarifying explanation of what the Court was doing.
In class today I collected the Snyder v. Phelps papers, and we discussed how the case might and should turn out. It is my intent to hand back those papers next Tuesday. The class then voted on which case we should grapple with next. The winner of our vote was Kentucky v. King, argued on January 12, which had the police in hot pursuit of a drug dealer, but then not sure about which door he had ducked into. Finally, I went over three recent Supreme Court decisions: one dealing with liberty interests in a state parole system; one dealing with retaliation against a fiance of an employee who had claimed Title VII sex discrimination; and the last dealing with the power of credit card issuers to raise interest rates without giving specific notice of that rate increase. The assignment for Tuesday 2/8 is to read the Petitioners Brief in the case of Kentucky v. King. The brief can be found through the Supreme Court website/ merits briefs/ online merits briefs (to the abanet site) and scrolling down to Kentucky v. King.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 2/3, I first apologized for not having completed the grading of the Lyman case briefs. I'll finish them this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. I distributed one handout, my own version of the Lyman brief. We finished our review of the Maine statute (distributed last Thursday) regarding use of force in defense of premises. We then began our discussion of the Glucksberg case, exploring both the methodology of determining whether a give right is "fundamental", and the consequences if the the right does belong in that category. The assignment for Tuesday 2/8 is to re-read Glucksberg in light of today's (hopefully) clarifying explanation of what the Court was doing.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
February 1,2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 2/1, we first went over questions regarding the Snyder v. Phelps paper due Thursday. I then discussed some general aspects of the Supreme Court operations, such as the assignment of opinion-writing, and different types of concurring opinions. I then introduced 8 current cases before the Court, and (barring bad weather) the class will vote on Thursday to decide which case to tackle next. The merits briefs for the cases, and the oral arguments,can be accessed via the Supreme Court's site. The cases are (with date of oral argument):
1) October 13--Skinner v. Switzer: the procedural mechanism for how a death-row inmate can try to force the state to test for DNA.
2) November 2--Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants: whether the First Amendment bars a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors.
3) November 3--Arizona Christian School v. Winn: the standing of a taxpayer to challenge an alleged establishment of religion by religious school tax credits, and the legality of such a scheme.
4) December 8--Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting: whether Arizona's law sanctioning employers who hire illegal aliens is preeempted by federal law on the subject.
5) January 11--McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro: whether a foreign manufacturer is subject to personal jurisdiction in whatever state a consumer has bought their stuff.
6) January 12--Kentucky v. King: Under the Fourth Amendment, whether a warrantless search is allowed under either the "exigent" circumstances or the "hot pursuit" exceptions to the general need for a warrant.
7) January 19--FCC v. AT&T: whether a corporation has "privacy" interests that are protected by the federal Freedom of Information Act.
8 February 22--Bond v. U.S.: whether a person convicted under a federal anti-chemical and biological warfare statute has standing to challenge that federal law as violating the Tenth Amendment.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/1, I collected the Lyman case briefs, and we spent the class going over them. My intention is to return them on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 2/3 is to read in the text pp. 28-42.
In class today, Tuesday 2/1, we first went over questions regarding the Snyder v. Phelps paper due Thursday. I then discussed some general aspects of the Supreme Court operations, such as the assignment of opinion-writing, and different types of concurring opinions. I then introduced 8 current cases before the Court, and (barring bad weather) the class will vote on Thursday to decide which case to tackle next. The merits briefs for the cases, and the oral arguments,can be accessed via the Supreme Court's site. The cases are (with date of oral argument):
1) October 13--Skinner v. Switzer: the procedural mechanism for how a death-row inmate can try to force the state to test for DNA.
2) November 2--Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants: whether the First Amendment bars a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors.
3) November 3--Arizona Christian School v. Winn: the standing of a taxpayer to challenge an alleged establishment of religion by religious school tax credits, and the legality of such a scheme.
4) December 8--Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting: whether Arizona's law sanctioning employers who hire illegal aliens is preeempted by federal law on the subject.
5) January 11--McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro: whether a foreign manufacturer is subject to personal jurisdiction in whatever state a consumer has bought their stuff.
6) January 12--Kentucky v. King: Under the Fourth Amendment, whether a warrantless search is allowed under either the "exigent" circumstances or the "hot pursuit" exceptions to the general need for a warrant.
7) January 19--FCC v. AT&T: whether a corporation has "privacy" interests that are protected by the federal Freedom of Information Act.
8 February 22--Bond v. U.S.: whether a person convicted under a federal anti-chemical and biological warfare statute has standing to challenge that federal law as violating the Tenth Amendment.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 2/1, I collected the Lyman case briefs, and we spent the class going over them. My intention is to return them on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 2/3 is to read in the text pp. 28-42.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)