POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/29,we went over Kopp and Gebbia. I then discussed a First Circuit case regarding the amount in controversy Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to finish reading chapter 4 of the text (the only additional case is Gilmore, p. 143).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/29, I handed back the content-neutrality papers, and we went over them a bit. Regarding the exam on Friday May 10, we decided to start the exam at 8:30, rather than the official scheduled time of 8:00. We went over the arguments made by the state in Virginia v. Loving, and compared those arguments to those made in the two same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court this year, Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to read in the text Grutter v. Bollinger (pp. 707-716) which we will discuss in conjunction with the current Supreme Court case regarding affirmative action in higher education, Fisher v. University of Texas.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
April 26, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/26, we began by going over the Robey case. I then discussed two additional cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Attaway v. Omega, and McIntyre v. Nicastro. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Kopp and Gebbia cases, through p. 143 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/26, I collected the Assignment #2 papers, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, my own version of that assignment,and a letter to the editor regarding filming people coming into Planned Parenthood. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Loving v. Virginia,and the discussion of Palmore v. Sidoti that follows Loving, pp. 639-642 of the text. We'll discuss these in relation to the current same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S.
In class today, Friday 4/26, we began by going over the Robey case. I then discussed two additional cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Attaway v. Omega, and McIntyre v. Nicastro. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Kopp and Gebbia cases, through p. 143 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/26, I collected the Assignment #2 papers, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, my own version of that assignment,and a letter to the editor regarding filming people coming into Planned Parenthood. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Loving v. Virginia,and the discussion of Palmore v. Sidoti that follows Loving, pp. 639-642 of the text. We'll discuss these in relation to the current same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
April 24, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. We then went over the handout from last class, the Maine subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We turned to personal jurisdiction, covering general assertions of personal jurisdiction, and specific assertions of personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Robey, getting up to the issue of whether the Kentucky court could assert specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seller. We will pick up at that point on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is to review Robey, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. I clarified some questions about Assignment #2, and emphasized that the assignment is solely focused on content-neutrality, and students should avoid drifting into other issues that the Court discussed in those cases. We then went over all of the Morse v. Frederick opinions. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is finish Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. We then went over the handout from last class, the Maine subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We turned to personal jurisdiction, covering general assertions of personal jurisdiction, and specific assertions of personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Robey, getting up to the issue of whether the Kentucky court could assert specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seller. We will pick up at that point on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is to review Robey, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. I clarified some questions about Assignment #2, and emphasized that the assignment is solely focused on content-neutrality, and students should avoid drifting into other issues that the Court discussed in those cases. We then went over all of the Morse v. Frederick opinions. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is finish Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
Monday, April 22, 2013
April 22, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, Maine civil and criminal jurisdictional statutes. We went over the Cheap Escape case, and then I also talked about a Maine subject matter jurisdiction case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, and a federal subject matter jurisdiction case, Bowles v. Russell. We went over the significance of the subject matter jurisdiction label for when a lawyer's failings will be important, and when they won't. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 135 of the text (jurisdiction over the person).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, two news articles about political t-shirts in schools. We went over the Tinker case, and discussed how it might apply (or how it might be distinguished) regarding the banning of those t-shirts. I also went over the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bethel v. Fraser, and how it distinguished Tinker. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 272 of the text (Morse) and to continue work on assignment #2, due Friday 2/26.
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, Maine civil and criminal jurisdictional statutes. We went over the Cheap Escape case, and then I also talked about a Maine subject matter jurisdiction case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, and a federal subject matter jurisdiction case, Bowles v. Russell. We went over the significance of the subject matter jurisdiction label for when a lawyer's failings will be important, and when they won't. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 135 of the text (jurisdiction over the person).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, two news articles about political t-shirts in schools. We went over the Tinker case, and discussed how it might apply (or how it might be distinguished) regarding the banning of those t-shirts. I also went over the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bethel v. Fraser, and how it distinguished Tinker. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 272 of the text (Morse) and to continue work on assignment #2, due Friday 2/26.
Friday, April 19, 2013
April 19, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/19, I distributed one handout, a review of federal and certain state laws regarding both adoption rights and recognition of same-sex marriage ( since adoption by a couple is often limited to married couples). I then went over the 2011 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, in which that Court distinguished Finstuen,and reached the result that Louisiana (unlike Oklahoma) need not issue a new birth certificate to an unmarried same-sex adoptive couple. We also looked at whether getting married would change the prospects of such a couple. We began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, going over the other part of the Adar opinion, holding that there was no right by the same-sex couple to even bring their action in federal court (no subject-matter jurisdiction). We will continue next Monday with further exploration into the world of subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to read through p. 128 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/19, we began with a discussion of the application of the Brandenburg test of incitement to the hypothetical possibility of incitement in the case of the brothers alleged to be behind the Boston marathon bombings. We then returned to Snyder v. Phelps, beginning with the internet posting in that case that the Court chose not to deal with. We looked at how a flow chart of Snyder might look, and compared the characterizations of the relevant factors by the majority with the same categories by the dissent. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to review Tinker v. Des Moines, previously assigned.
In class today, Friday 4/19, I distributed one handout, a review of federal and certain state laws regarding both adoption rights and recognition of same-sex marriage ( since adoption by a couple is often limited to married couples). I then went over the 2011 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, in which that Court distinguished Finstuen,and reached the result that Louisiana (unlike Oklahoma) need not issue a new birth certificate to an unmarried same-sex adoptive couple. We also looked at whether getting married would change the prospects of such a couple. We began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, going over the other part of the Adar opinion, holding that there was no right by the same-sex couple to even bring their action in federal court (no subject-matter jurisdiction). We will continue next Monday with further exploration into the world of subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to read through p. 128 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/19, we began with a discussion of the application of the Brandenburg test of incitement to the hypothetical possibility of incitement in the case of the brothers alleged to be behind the Boston marathon bombings. We then returned to Snyder v. Phelps, beginning with the internet posting in that case that the Court chose not to deal with. We looked at how a flow chart of Snyder might look, and compared the characterizations of the relevant factors by the majority with the same categories by the dissent. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to review Tinker v. Des Moines, previously assigned.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
April 17, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes dealing with same-sex and other adoptions and new birth certificates. I went over a Maine conflict of law rule case, Collins v. Trius. We then talked about the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, and went over the Finstuen case as well as the Maine statutes. I will begin on Friday with the 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, with a different view of Full Faith and Credit and same-sex adoptions. The assignment for Friday 4/19 (although I failed to say it in class) is to read through p. 128 of the text (Cheap Escape).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is reproduced below. That assignment is due Friday 4/26. We talked about the question of content-neutrality and how it relates to the near-universal desire to exclude the Westboro Baptist Church from memorial observances. We talked about the relation between matters of public concern and the requirement of content-neutrality. We finished our general discussion of the expansion of First Amendment protection from public officials, to public figures, to matters of public concern. We also discussed the case of Hustler v. Falwell regarding the intersection of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Free Speech, and how the flow chart from that case was not followed in Snyder v. Phelps. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of targeting,both in terms of the WBC demonstration, and the internet "Epic", and then move on to Alito's dissent. The assignment for Friday 4/19 is to read through p. 267 of the text.
Assignment #2
One of the things that’s been crucial in the Court’s treatment of Free Speech issues has been a determination of whether the government’s restriction on speech has been found to be “content-neutral” or not.
The Court has sometimes been split, though, in deciding and articulating exactly what it means by this concept of content-neutrality, as well as when that concept is to be applied.
For this assignment, I’m asking you to write a series of numbered paragraphs, (following the numbering below) which address the Court’s approach to content-neutrality.
1) Start with Texas v. Johnson (p. 234). Brennan says that the Texas statute is not content-neutral. In what sense does he find it not to be neutral? Is it simply because the statute covers a particular subject (flags)? Or is it because the statute prohibits a certain viewpoint to the flag (anti-flag)? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Brennan in this context? Then describe Rehnquist’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
2) Next go to Hill v. Colorado (p. 247). Stevens characterized the Colorado statute as content-neutral. What questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? Then describe what process Scalia uses in reaching the opposite conclusion. What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context?
3) Third is R.A.V. v. St. Paul (p. 255). Scalia describes that ordinance as not content-neutral. Again, what questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context? Then describe White’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
4) Fourth is Snyder v. Phelps (p. 258). How does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Roberts in this context? How does Alito then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
5) Fifth is Tinker v. Des Moines (p. 264). How does Fortas analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Fortas in this context? How does Black then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
6) Finally, there’s Morse v. Frederick (p. 267). Does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What questions does he ask in order to decide that the school can suspend Frederick? Then discuss Stevens’ dissent. How does Stevens analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
Here’s a (fictitious) example of the format I’m looking for:
Roberts decides that this statute is not content-neutral. He asks whether the statute could be enforced without reference to the content of the signs. “If the signs said ‘I love babies’ as oppose to ‘I hate baby-killers’, there would have been no violation”. (Cohen, right-hand column, p. 242). The “intimidation” that the statute forbids, says Roberts, only exists in the context of the message itself. You can’t decide if the sign-holder intended to intimidate unless you look at the content of the sign, and that’s what makes the law content-based. Alito, on the other hand, believes that the statute is content neutral. He asks whether “intimidation” itself is a category that is based on content. He answers that intimidation is “proscribed as a result of any communication” (Cohen, left-hand column, p. 242), and so the statute on its face, and in its enforcement, is content neutral.
You are encouraged to use snippets of quotations from the opinions to illustrate your points. When you quote, you should just cite to the text page number (as above), and to the left or right column. Your paper should be 2-3 pages long.
Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and 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.
The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, April 26th. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes dealing with same-sex and other adoptions and new birth certificates. I went over a Maine conflict of law rule case, Collins v. Trius. We then talked about the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, and went over the Finstuen case as well as the Maine statutes. I will begin on Friday with the 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, with a different view of Full Faith and Credit and same-sex adoptions. The assignment for Friday 4/19 (although I failed to say it in class) is to read through p. 128 of the text (Cheap Escape).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is reproduced below. That assignment is due Friday 4/26. We talked about the question of content-neutrality and how it relates to the near-universal desire to exclude the Westboro Baptist Church from memorial observances. We talked about the relation between matters of public concern and the requirement of content-neutrality. We finished our general discussion of the expansion of First Amendment protection from public officials, to public figures, to matters of public concern. We also discussed the case of Hustler v. Falwell regarding the intersection of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Free Speech, and how the flow chart from that case was not followed in Snyder v. Phelps. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of targeting,both in terms of the WBC demonstration, and the internet "Epic", and then move on to Alito's dissent. The assignment for Friday 4/19 is to read through p. 267 of the text.
Assignment #2
One of the things that’s been crucial in the Court’s treatment of Free Speech issues has been a determination of whether the government’s restriction on speech has been found to be “content-neutral” or not.
The Court has sometimes been split, though, in deciding and articulating exactly what it means by this concept of content-neutrality, as well as when that concept is to be applied.
For this assignment, I’m asking you to write a series of numbered paragraphs, (following the numbering below) which address the Court’s approach to content-neutrality.
1) Start with Texas v. Johnson (p. 234). Brennan says that the Texas statute is not content-neutral. In what sense does he find it not to be neutral? Is it simply because the statute covers a particular subject (flags)? Or is it because the statute prohibits a certain viewpoint to the flag (anti-flag)? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Brennan in this context? Then describe Rehnquist’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
2) Next go to Hill v. Colorado (p. 247). Stevens characterized the Colorado statute as content-neutral. What questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? Then describe what process Scalia uses in reaching the opposite conclusion. What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context?
3) Third is R.A.V. v. St. Paul (p. 255). Scalia describes that ordinance as not content-neutral. Again, what questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context? Then describe White’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
4) Fourth is Snyder v. Phelps (p. 258). How does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Roberts in this context? How does Alito then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
5) Fifth is Tinker v. Des Moines (p. 264). How does Fortas analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Fortas in this context? How does Black then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
6) Finally, there’s Morse v. Frederick (p. 267). Does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What questions does he ask in order to decide that the school can suspend Frederick? Then discuss Stevens’ dissent. How does Stevens analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
Here’s a (fictitious) example of the format I’m looking for:
Roberts decides that this statute is not content-neutral. He asks whether the statute could be enforced without reference to the content of the signs. “If the signs said ‘I love babies’ as oppose to ‘I hate baby-killers’, there would have been no violation”. (Cohen, right-hand column, p. 242). The “intimidation” that the statute forbids, says Roberts, only exists in the context of the message itself. You can’t decide if the sign-holder intended to intimidate unless you look at the content of the sign, and that’s what makes the law content-based. Alito, on the other hand, believes that the statute is content neutral. He asks whether “intimidation” itself is a category that is based on content. He answers that intimidation is “proscribed as a result of any communication” (Cohen, left-hand column, p. 242), and so the statute on its face, and in its enforcement, is content neutral.
You are encouraged to use snippets of quotations from the opinions to illustrate your points. When you quote, you should just cite to the text page number (as above), and to the left or right column. Your paper should be 2-3 pages long.
Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and 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.
The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, April 26th. 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. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
Monday, April 15, 2013
April 15, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/15, I handed back the Davis case briefs, as well as my comment key, and we reviewed them. We then went back to our discussion of Conflict of Law rules and the Land case. We went over federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and then discussed how the Erie doctrine locked the federal court into the Indiana Hubbard Conflict of Law rule. I plan to start on Wednesday with a Maine Conflict of Law case, Collins v. Trius. The assignment for Wednesday 4/17 is to review Full Faith and Credit and Finstuen, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/15, I discussed a 2003 Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Black, which dealt with a Virginia statute that criminalized cross burning with intent to intimidate, and how the outcome of that case was different from that in R.A.V. We also talked about the lines regarding incitement to violence. We then started our discussion of Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the concept of state action as it pertains to state tort law, and also started discussing the evolution of First Amendment protection against state tort actions. We talked about N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, and will pick up on Wednesday with the expansion of First Amendment protection for defendants from public officials to public figures, and beyond. The assignment for Wednesday 4/17 is to review Snyder v. Phelps, previously assigned.
In class today, Monday 4/15, I handed back the Davis case briefs, as well as my comment key, and we reviewed them. We then went back to our discussion of Conflict of Law rules and the Land case. We went over federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and then discussed how the Erie doctrine locked the federal court into the Indiana Hubbard Conflict of Law rule. I plan to start on Wednesday with a Maine Conflict of Law case, Collins v. Trius. The assignment for Wednesday 4/17 is to review Full Faith and Credit and Finstuen, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/15, I discussed a 2003 Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Black, which dealt with a Virginia statute that criminalized cross burning with intent to intimidate, and how the outcome of that case was different from that in R.A.V. We also talked about the lines regarding incitement to violence. We then started our discussion of Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the concept of state action as it pertains to state tort law, and also started discussing the evolution of First Amendment protection against state tort actions. We talked about N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, and will pick up on Wednesday with the expansion of First Amendment protection for defendants from public officials to public figures, and beyond. The assignment for Wednesday 4/17 is to review Snyder v. Phelps, previously assigned.
Friday, April 12, 2013
April 12, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/12, I collected the Davis case briefs, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, an outline of the Davis case that I prepared, and my version of the Davis brief. I plan to return the Davis briefs on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/15, in addition to reviewing the Land case, is to read pp. 115- 118 of the text (Full Faith and Credit).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, I began by completing our discussion of the Bangor targeted residential picketing ordinance, and comparing its analysis with that of both the Hill majority and the dissent. We then went through the R.A.V. case, looking at both the majority and the (disagreeing) concurrence. I plan to begin on Monday with a description of a 2003 case, Virginia v. Black, that appeared to present the same issues as R.A.V.. The assignment for Monday 4/15 is to read Snyder v. Phelps, pp. 258-263.
In class today, Friday 4/12, I collected the Davis case briefs, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, an outline of the Davis case that I prepared, and my version of the Davis brief. I plan to return the Davis briefs on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/15, in addition to reviewing the Land case, is to read pp. 115- 118 of the text (Full Faith and Credit).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, I began by completing our discussion of the Bangor targeted residential picketing ordinance, and comparing its analysis with that of both the Hill majority and the dissent. We then went through the R.A.V. case, looking at both the majority and the (disagreeing) concurrence. I plan to begin on Monday with a description of a 2003 case, Virginia v. Black, that appeared to present the same issues as R.A.V.. The assignment for Monday 4/15 is to read Snyder v. Phelps, pp. 258-263.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
April 10, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/10, we first went over some questions about the Davis case brief. I clarified that briefing the retroactivity issue meant that you're not briefing the issue of whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the Davis search, only whether there's a remedy for that admitted violation. I also clarified that, after Disposition, you should state the issue as Breyer saw it. We then went over the Hubbard case, discussing the concept of conflict of law rules, looking at existing Indiana precedent for those rules, and seeing how the Hubbard Court changed those rules in this case. We looked at the analysis as it's done under the new rules. We will pick up with the Land case (previously assigned, p. 146) on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/12 is to finish work on the Davis case brief, which is due at the beginning of class, as well as to review Land.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/10, we reviewed Stevens' opinion in Hill, and then went into both the Scalia and Kennedy dissents. I also talked about a 1997 Maine Superior Court decision, Bangor v. Stauble, which raised the constitutionality of Bangor's targeted residential picketing ordinance. We will start on Friday with the Court's analysis of the content-neutrality of the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Friday 4/12 is to review the R.A.V. case, previously assigned, paying particular attention to the structure of that opinion.
In class today, Wednesday 4/10, we first went over some questions about the Davis case brief. I clarified that briefing the retroactivity issue meant that you're not briefing the issue of whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the Davis search, only whether there's a remedy for that admitted violation. I also clarified that, after Disposition, you should state the issue as Breyer saw it. We then went over the Hubbard case, discussing the concept of conflict of law rules, looking at existing Indiana precedent for those rules, and seeing how the Hubbard Court changed those rules in this case. We looked at the analysis as it's done under the new rules. We will pick up with the Land case (previously assigned, p. 146) on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/12 is to finish work on the Davis case brief, which is due at the beginning of class, as well as to review Land.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/10, we reviewed Stevens' opinion in Hill, and then went into both the Scalia and Kennedy dissents. I also talked about a 1997 Maine Superior Court decision, Bangor v. Stauble, which raised the constitutionality of Bangor's targeted residential picketing ordinance. We will start on Friday with the Court's analysis of the content-neutrality of the Bangor ordinance. The assignment for Friday 4/12 is to review the R.A.V. case, previously assigned, paying particular attention to the structure of that opinion.
Monday, April 8, 2013
April 8, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/8,we went over the Butler case. I also discussed the 1971 Supreme Court opinion in Harris v. N.Y. We began our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson, going over the idea of conflict of law rules, and reviewing the causes of action. We will continue on Wednesday with the question of what advantage there was to having a particular states' rules and law apply, and how Greeson tried to accomplish that. The additional assignment for Wednesday 4/10 is to read in the text pp. 145-147 (Land), which applies the Hubbard decision in the federal court system.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/8, we went through the majority opinion in Hill. We traced the structure of the opinion, looking at what questions were addressed, and how those questions were answered. We will continue with the two dissenting opinions on Wednesday, focusing on the areas in which they clashed with the majority opinion. The additional assignment for Wednesday 4/10 is to read through p. 258 of the text.
In class today, Monday 4/8,we went over the Butler case. I also discussed the 1971 Supreme Court opinion in Harris v. N.Y. We began our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson, going over the idea of conflict of law rules, and reviewing the causes of action. We will continue on Wednesday with the question of what advantage there was to having a particular states' rules and law apply, and how Greeson tried to accomplish that. The additional assignment for Wednesday 4/10 is to read in the text pp. 145-147 (Land), which applies the Hubbard decision in the federal court system.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/8, we went through the majority opinion in Hill. We traced the structure of the opinion, looking at what questions were addressed, and how those questions were answered. We will continue with the two dissenting opinions on Wednesday, focusing on the areas in which they clashed with the majority opinion. The additional assignment for Wednesday 4/10 is to read through p. 258 of the text.
Friday, April 5, 2013
April 5, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/5, we first talked a little about the Davis brief due next Friday. I then went over a recent decision of the Maine Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of our state Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, John Doe v. Williams. We went over both the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion. We discussed the ex post facto part of the opinion, as well as touching on the substantive due process argument. The assignment for Monday 4/8 is review Butler (previously assigned) and read p. 112-114 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/5, we started with a review of the video of the provocative words of the Oregon adjunct law professor. We analyzed his actions both in terms of "fighting words" and the Cohen discussion of intent to provoke. We then finished our discussion of Cohen, both the majority and dissenting opinions. We looked at the three cases that preceded the Hill case. The assignment for Monday 4/8 is review (once again) Hill v. Colorado, paying particular attention to the structure of both the majority and dissenting opinions.
In class today, Friday 4/5, we first talked a little about the Davis brief due next Friday. I then went over a recent decision of the Maine Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of our state Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, John Doe v. Williams. We went over both the majority opinion, and the dissenting opinion. We discussed the ex post facto part of the opinion, as well as touching on the substantive due process argument. The assignment for Monday 4/8 is review Butler (previously assigned) and read p. 112-114 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/5, we started with a review of the video of the provocative words of the Oregon adjunct law professor. We analyzed his actions both in terms of "fighting words" and the Cohen discussion of intent to provoke. We then finished our discussion of Cohen, both the majority and dissenting opinions. We looked at the three cases that preceded the Hill case. The assignment for Monday 4/8 is review (once again) Hill v. Colorado, paying particular attention to the structure of both the majority and dissenting opinions.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
April 3, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/3, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (copied below) and an edited version of Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. ___ (2011). We went over that assignment, which will be due Friday 4/12. We finished our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich, discussing the due process issue left unaddressed in this opinion, as well as the federalism and separation of powers views of the dissent. I went over the 9th Circuit decision in the 2007 remand of Raich, (500 F.3d 850) in which the Court of Appeals addressed Raich's due process argument. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of the Law Court's decision last month in the Sex Offender registry case regarding ex post facto prohibition (see text, p. 99). The assignment for Friday 4/5 is to begin work on the Davis brief, read the discussion on retroactivity (p. 105-106) and review Butler (p.103), previously assigned.
Assignment due Friday, April 12, 2013
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. ____ (2011). I have distributed an edited version of this case to the class. If you are not in class and need that edited version, email me for it.
For the Facts, Issue and Holding, I am looking for you to brief only the retroactivity issue (Part IV of Alito’s opinion).
In addition, I want you to add the Issue as Breyer sees it.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Remember that the Legal Question is (usually) copied from the Appellant’s Contention. Everything and only those things that 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 to each other, 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 specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Friday 4/12, 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. If you have questions, ask me.
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.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/3, I first went over the planned scheduling of the next assignment, which will be due April 26th. We finished our discussion of Chaplinsky, looking at how the N.H. statute was interpreted by the state court to limit its reach, and then how the U.S. Supreme Court approved the statute as interpreted in that way. We then went over Harlan's opinion in Cohen, getting up to the portion of Harlan's opinion that discussed the downside if there were a ruling in favor of the government. We watched a video from Jonathan Turley's blog that featured an offensive adjunct professor of law (but not me) and we will discuss on Friday whether his words/actions are protected as Free Speech. The assignment for Friday 4/5 is to review the remainder of Cohen as well as Hill, (previously assigned).
In class today, Wednesday 4/3, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (copied below) and an edited version of Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. ___ (2011). We went over that assignment, which will be due Friday 4/12. We finished our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich, discussing the due process issue left unaddressed in this opinion, as well as the federalism and separation of powers views of the dissent. I went over the 9th Circuit decision in the 2007 remand of Raich, (500 F.3d 850) in which the Court of Appeals addressed Raich's due process argument. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of the Law Court's decision last month in the Sex Offender registry case regarding ex post facto prohibition (see text, p. 99). The assignment for Friday 4/5 is to begin work on the Davis brief, read the discussion on retroactivity (p. 105-106) and review Butler (p.103), previously assigned.
Assignment due Friday, April 12, 2013
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. ____ (2011). I have distributed an edited version of this case to the class. If you are not in class and need that edited version, email me for it.
For the Facts, Issue and Holding, I am looking for you to brief only the retroactivity issue (Part IV of Alito’s opinion).
In addition, I want you to add the Issue as Breyer sees it.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Remember that the Legal Question is (usually) copied from the Appellant’s Contention. Everything and only those things that 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 to each other, 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 specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Friday 4/12, 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. If you have questions, ask me.
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.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/3, I first went over the planned scheduling of the next assignment, which will be due April 26th. We finished our discussion of Chaplinsky, looking at how the N.H. statute was interpreted by the state court to limit its reach, and then how the U.S. Supreme Court approved the statute as interpreted in that way. We then went over Harlan's opinion in Cohen, getting up to the portion of Harlan's opinion that discussed the downside if there were a ruling in favor of the government. We watched a video from Jonathan Turley's blog that featured an offensive adjunct professor of law (but not me) and we will discuss on Friday whether his words/actions are protected as Free Speech. The assignment for Friday 4/5 is to review the remainder of Cohen as well as Hill, (previously assigned).
Monday, April 1, 2013
April 1, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/1, we first finished our discussion of Caperton. We looked at how Justice Benjamin on the West Virginia Supreme Court had asked the wrong question regarding his recusal, and then discussed the dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court. We started Gonzales v. Raich, and will pick up with Section V of Stevens' opinion. The assignment for Wednesday 4/3 is to read through p. 105 of the text (Butler).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/1, I shared a flow chart that I had put together of Justice Brennan's opinion in Texas v. Johnson. We went through the majority opinion, and then looked at how the dissenting opinion differed from the majority. We started on Chaplinsky, and got through how Murphy narrowed the question before the Court by using the New Hampshire Supreme Court's interpretation of the state statute involved in the case. The assignment for Wednesday 4/3 is to read through p. 253 of the text.
In class today, Monday 4/1, we first finished our discussion of Caperton. We looked at how Justice Benjamin on the West Virginia Supreme Court had asked the wrong question regarding his recusal, and then discussed the dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court. We started Gonzales v. Raich, and will pick up with Section V of Stevens' opinion. The assignment for Wednesday 4/3 is to read through p. 105 of the text (Butler).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/1, I shared a flow chart that I had put together of Justice Brennan's opinion in Texas v. Johnson. We went through the majority opinion, and then looked at how the dissenting opinion differed from the majority. We started on Chaplinsky, and got through how Murphy narrowed the question before the Court by using the New Hampshire Supreme Court's interpretation of the state statute involved in the case. The assignment for Wednesday 4/3 is to read through p. 253 of the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)