POS 282--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/27, I handed back last Tuesday's exams, and we went over them. We then had a brief discussion about the role of ethics and morality both in the formation, as well as in the enforcement, of public policy. We will start next Tuesday with the Gregg capital punishment case. The additional assignment for Tuesday, 11/1 is to read through p. 78 of the text (the Mobbley case).
POS 395--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, we held our Judicial Conference in which each student Justice explained how they ruled, and why. I will return the Opinions on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/1 is to prepare an oral presentation to the class about the case that you chose or that was assigned to you. Go to the merits briefs tab on the Supreme Court website, find the case on the ABA site that you are directed to. Read enough of the briefs so that you can talk for about 5 minutes on the issues presented in the case, the scope of the question presented, and any previously decided cases that have set the rules for the resolution of your case (like Bell v. Wolfish set the background for the Florence case). Try to make your presentation interesting and understandable. After the presentations we will vote on the next case for the class to tackle.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
October 25, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam and we will go over it on Thursday. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 10/27 is to read pp. 63-76 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, I distributed one handout, a recent article by Linda Greenhouse discussing "judicial activism" and "judicial engagement". We then discussed the two Court of Appeals decisions assigned for today, Florence and Roberts (which is reported at 239 F.3d 107). The assignment for Thursday 10/27 is to finish your Florence opinion, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, the class took Exam #1. I will return the exam and we will go over it on Thursday. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 10/27 is to read pp. 63-76 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 10/25, I distributed one handout, a recent article by Linda Greenhouse discussing "judicial activism" and "judicial engagement". We then discussed the two Court of Appeals decisions assigned for today, Florence and Roberts (which is reported at 239 F.3d 107). The assignment for Thursday 10/27 is to finish your Florence opinion, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
October 20, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/20, I began by going over federal court jurisdiction, both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. I had a sample test for the class, going over the types of questions that you might expect on Tuesday's test. We then finished the Lawrence case, and also discussed Connecticut v. Doe. The assignment for Tuesday 10/25 is to prepare for the open-book, open-note test on Tuesday. It will cover all of the material covered in class thus far.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/20, we went over the Essex County Brief, and the Carter Phillips oral argument in which Phillips occasionally defended that brief. The assignment for Tuesday October 25 is to read two Court of Appeals decisions in this line of cases. One is the Florence 3rd Circuit decision, Florence v. Board, 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir., 2010) and the other is an older First Circuit case, Roberts v. Rhode Island, 239 F.2d 107 (1st. Cir., 2001). These opinions can be accessed from the Fogler site by going to library.umaine.edu; select Indexes and databases; select Lexis Nexis Academic, and put in the citation. You should also be working on your Opinions, which are due on Thursday 10/27.
In class today, Thursday 10/20, I began by going over federal court jurisdiction, both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. I had a sample test for the class, going over the types of questions that you might expect on Tuesday's test. We then finished the Lawrence case, and also discussed Connecticut v. Doe. The assignment for Tuesday 10/25 is to prepare for the open-book, open-note test on Tuesday. It will cover all of the material covered in class thus far.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/20, we went over the Essex County Brief, and the Carter Phillips oral argument in which Phillips occasionally defended that brief. The assignment for Tuesday October 25 is to read two Court of Appeals decisions in this line of cases. One is the Florence 3rd Circuit decision, Florence v. Board, 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir., 2010) and the other is an older First Circuit case, Roberts v. Rhode Island, 239 F.2d 107 (1st. Cir., 2001). These opinions can be accessed from the Fogler site by going to library.umaine.edu; select Indexes and databases; select Lexis Nexis Academic, and put in the citation. You should also be working on your Opinions, which are due on Thursday 10/27.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
October 18, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, I began by letting the class know that we will have Test #1 on Tuesday 10/25. The test will be open-book and open-note. On Thursday 10/20 I will go over some sample questions. We then finished our discussion of the Glucksberg case, tracing the process by which the Court decided that the asserted right was not "fundamental". We then went to Lawrence v. Texas, and looked at the process there in terms of defining the right and deciding whether it was fundamental. We left off with the question of how Justice Kennedy analyzed the "legitimate" state interest involved. We will pick up with that question on Thursday, as well as going over the previously assigned case of Connecticut v. Doe (p.44) The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to review Lawrence and Doe.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, I distributed Assignment #1, which is reproduced below, and which is due Thursday, October 27. After going over that assignment, we went into a discussion of the oral argument in Florence, comparing the position taken by Goldstein at oral argument with the positions taken in the Florence brief. I also went over an additional case, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of an arrest of a woman for a seatbelt violation. The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to read the brief of respondent Essex County, again comparing the positions taken in the brief with those taken at oral argument.
Assignment #1
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress has increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.
Your first job as a new Justice is to write the Court’s opinion in the Florence v. Board case.
Your opinion is not a prediction of the votes; don’t worry about the other Justices, just concentrate on reaching and justifying the decision that you think makes the most sense. Where you cite to the oral argument, you’re looking to the response of the lawyers rather than the viewpoint expressed by the other Justices.
Since this will be your first Supreme Court opinion, here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the argument raised by the losers, both in their brief and in the oral argument?
• You should have at least two specific references to each party’s position in the briefs (two for Florence and two for Essex County) , with specific reference to the page number of the argument.
• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• You should deal specifically with how Bell is to be interpreted in light of the present case.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Because of the particular factual situations raised by this case, it would be helpful for us to use a common vocabulary. Please use these terms with these meanings:
Visual strip search: observing the naked body of the arrestee, with no particular cavity focus.
Visual cavity search: close observation of the body cavity, with the arrestee opening his mouth, etc.
Squat and cough: just like it sounds.
Cavity search: digital search by the jailers of body cavities.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects Florence’s position that the reasonableness of the visual cavity search depends on the proximity of the jailer to the arrestee. While his brief argues that the state has no constitutional right to conduct a visual cavity search absent probable cause (Florence Brief, p. 47), at oral argument he conceded that such routine practices do not require probable cause at all, and that the only constitutional question is the proximity of the jailer to the arrestee (17:6). We refuse to establish such a yard-stick test as a principle of our constitution.
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 October 27. 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 paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using 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 October 27, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating your analysis. But, if they do decide the case before then, I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog, as well as e-mail you through the MaineStreet portal. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the other Justices on the Court have written their views before receiving the benefit of your view.
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, I began by letting the class know that we will have Test #1 on Tuesday 10/25. The test will be open-book and open-note. On Thursday 10/20 I will go over some sample questions. We then finished our discussion of the Glucksberg case, tracing the process by which the Court decided that the asserted right was not "fundamental". We then went to Lawrence v. Texas, and looked at the process there in terms of defining the right and deciding whether it was fundamental. We left off with the question of how Justice Kennedy analyzed the "legitimate" state interest involved. We will pick up with that question on Thursday, as well as going over the previously assigned case of Connecticut v. Doe (p.44) The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to review Lawrence and Doe.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 10/18, I distributed Assignment #1, which is reproduced below, and which is due Thursday, October 27. After going over that assignment, we went into a discussion of the oral argument in Florence, comparing the position taken by Goldstein at oral argument with the positions taken in the Florence brief. I also went over an additional case, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of an arrest of a woman for a seatbelt violation. The assignment for Thursday 10/20 is to read the brief of respondent Essex County, again comparing the positions taken in the brief with those taken at oral argument.
Assignment #1
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress has increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.
Your first job as a new Justice is to write the Court’s opinion in the Florence v. Board case.
Your opinion is not a prediction of the votes; don’t worry about the other Justices, just concentrate on reaching and justifying the decision that you think makes the most sense. Where you cite to the oral argument, you’re looking to the response of the lawyers rather than the viewpoint expressed by the other Justices.
Since this will be your first Supreme Court opinion, here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the argument raised by the losers, both in their brief and in the oral argument?
• You should have at least two specific references to each party’s position in the briefs (two for Florence and two for Essex County) , with specific reference to the page number of the argument.
• You should have at least three specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• You should deal specifically with how Bell is to be interpreted in light of the present case.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Because of the particular factual situations raised by this case, it would be helpful for us to use a common vocabulary. Please use these terms with these meanings:
Visual strip search: observing the naked body of the arrestee, with no particular cavity focus.
Visual cavity search: close observation of the body cavity, with the arrestee opening his mouth, etc.
Squat and cough: just like it sounds.
Cavity search: digital search by the jailers of body cavities.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects Florence’s position that the reasonableness of the visual cavity search depends on the proximity of the jailer to the arrestee. While his brief argues that the state has no constitutional right to conduct a visual cavity search absent probable cause (Florence Brief, p. 47), at oral argument he conceded that such routine practices do not require probable cause at all, and that the only constitutional question is the proximity of the jailer to the arrestee (17:6). We refuse to establish such a yard-stick test as a principle of our constitution.
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 October 27. 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 paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using 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 October 27, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating your analysis. But, if they do decide the case before then, I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog, as well as e-mail you through the MaineStreet portal. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the other Justices on the Court have written their views before receiving the benefit of your view.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
October 13, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/13, I handed back the Price-Rite case briefs, as well as distributing a key to the numbered comments that I made on the briefs. We then finally went over the Maine criminal statute regarding use of force in defense of premises, and how it might relate to the situation in Katko v. Briney. We started our discussion of the Glucksberg case, going over the consequences of whether a right is put into the box called "fundamental" or not. We will pick up next Tuesday with an examination of how the Court went about figuring out which box to put this right into. The additional assignment for Tuesday 10/18 is to read in the text the case of Texas v. Lawrence, starting on p.83 of the text, and briefing the case for yourselves.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/13, I distributed one handout, a Bangor Daily News editorial regarding strip searches and the Florence case. We went over several aspects of the Florence case and the Petitioners Brief: the vocabulary of "reasonable suspicion"; the vocabulary of strip searches; the four categories of questions of concern to the Justices that we discussed last week; and the precedents of Bell v. Wolfish and Turner v. Safley, and the way that the Florence brief tries to distinguish those cases. The assignment for Tuesday 10/18 is to read the oral argument transcript in the case, paying particular attention to those questions by the Justices that highlight ambiguities in the Petitioners brief, (At the end of the week the Court should also post the audio of that oral argument, so that you can listen and read along at the same time.)
In class today, Thursday 10/13, I handed back the Price-Rite case briefs, as well as distributing a key to the numbered comments that I made on the briefs. We then finally went over the Maine criminal statute regarding use of force in defense of premises, and how it might relate to the situation in Katko v. Briney. We started our discussion of the Glucksberg case, going over the consequences of whether a right is put into the box called "fundamental" or not. We will pick up next Tuesday with an examination of how the Court went about figuring out which box to put this right into. The additional assignment for Tuesday 10/18 is to read in the text the case of Texas v. Lawrence, starting on p.83 of the text, and briefing the case for yourselves.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/13, I distributed one handout, a Bangor Daily News editorial regarding strip searches and the Florence case. We went over several aspects of the Florence case and the Petitioners Brief: the vocabulary of "reasonable suspicion"; the vocabulary of strip searches; the four categories of questions of concern to the Justices that we discussed last week; and the precedents of Bell v. Wolfish and Turner v. Safley, and the way that the Florence brief tries to distinguish those cases. The assignment for Tuesday 10/18 is to read the oral argument transcript in the case, paying particular attention to those questions by the Justices that highlight ambiguities in the Petitioners brief, (At the end of the week the Court should also post the audio of that oral argument, so that you can listen and read along at the same time.)
Thursday, October 6, 2011
October 6, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/6, the class handed in the Price-Rite briefs, and we spent the class period going over them. I will hand them back when we next meet on Thursday 10/13. The assignment for Thursday 10/13 is to read in the text pp. 28-46. It would be helpful to you to prepare a brief (at least the issues) of the Glucksberg and Connecticut v. Doe cases (although nothing will be passed in or graded).
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/6, the class first voted on which case which we should study for our first writing assignment. The winner was Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, which will be argued on Wednesday October 12. The assignment for our next class meeting on Thursday October 13 is to read the Petitioner's Brief in that case. The brief can be accessed by going to the Supreme Court website, selecting Merits Briefs, then on-line merits briefs, and then (once you're at the ABA site) selecting Florence either through the alphabetical listing of cases or going through the October cases.
For the remainder of the class we discussed the Douglas oral argument again. I suggested four categories of questions that the Justices were asking: questions about the institutional implications of a decision (separation of powers, federalism); the practical implications of a ruling; the conformity with precedent; and the scope of the rule that should be established.
In class today, Thursday 10/6, the class handed in the Price-Rite briefs, and we spent the class period going over them. I will hand them back when we next meet on Thursday 10/13. The assignment for Thursday 10/13 is to read in the text pp. 28-46. It would be helpful to you to prepare a brief (at least the issues) of the Glucksberg and Connecticut v. Doe cases (although nothing will be passed in or graded).
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 10/6, the class first voted on which case which we should study for our first writing assignment. The winner was Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, which will be argued on Wednesday October 12. The assignment for our next class meeting on Thursday October 13 is to read the Petitioner's Brief in that case. The brief can be accessed by going to the Supreme Court website, selecting Merits Briefs, then on-line merits briefs, and then (once you're at the ABA site) selecting Florence either through the alphabetical listing of cases or going through the October cases.
For the remainder of the class we discussed the Douglas oral argument again. I suggested four categories of questions that the Justices were asking: questions about the institutional implications of a decision (separation of powers, federalism); the practical implications of a ruling; the conformity with precedent; and the scope of the rule that should be established.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
October 4, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/4, we went over various aspects of the State v. Price-Rite opinion. We went over the outline of the case, the idea of questions of law and questions of fact, subject-matter jurisdiction, and examples of bad lawyering committed by both sets of lawyers. The assignment for Thursday 10/6 is to complete the Price-Rite case brief, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and one to use for our class discussion.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 10/4, I first gave a preview of an interesting case set for oral argument on Wednesday, Hosanna-Tabor Church V. EEOC. We spent the rest of the class doing a first pass over the Douglas oral argument. We looked at how the arguments made by Schwartz mirrored the structural power questions that we've previously discussed in class, and we also looked at the various types of issues that the Justices were concerned with. I also went over Gonzaga v. Doe, the 2002 Supreme Court decision that cut back the recognition of private causes of action in Spending Clause cases. The assignment for Thursday 10/6 is to read again the Davis oral argument, this time looking for the specific issues that the questions from the Justices centered around, and the viewpoints of the specific Justices as expressed in their questions.
In class today, Tuesday 10/4, we went over various aspects of the State v. Price-Rite opinion. We went over the outline of the case, the idea of questions of law and questions of fact, subject-matter jurisdiction, and examples of bad lawyering committed by both sets of lawyers. The assignment for Thursday 10/6 is to complete the Price-Rite case brief, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and one to use for our class discussion.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 10/4, I first gave a preview of an interesting case set for oral argument on Wednesday, Hosanna-Tabor Church V. EEOC. We spent the rest of the class doing a first pass over the Douglas oral argument. We looked at how the arguments made by Schwartz mirrored the structural power questions that we've previously discussed in class, and we also looked at the various types of issues that the Justices were concerned with. I also went over Gonzaga v. Doe, the 2002 Supreme Court decision that cut back the recognition of private causes of action in Spending Clause cases. The assignment for Thursday 10/6 is to read again the Davis oral argument, this time looking for the specific issues that the questions from the Justices centered around, and the viewpoints of the specific Justices as expressed in their questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)