POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/11, I distributed one handout, Maine and Federal statutes regarding adoption, same-sex marriage, and recognition of same-sex marriage. We went over the Finstuen case, and then I talked about another adoption/ birth certificate case, Adar v. Smith. Finally, we went over the statutory handout, looking at Maine law regarding adoption, new birth certificates, and same-sex marriage and recognition of marriage, and the federal law (DOMA) regarding recognition of same-sex marriage. Exam #2 will be Thursday 12/18 from 9:30-10:45. If you are missing any handouts, email me with what you need no later than 8:00 pm on Wednesday 12/17.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/11, we first finished our discussion of the concurring and dissenting opinions in Richmond Newspapers. I then went over the 12/9 Supreme Court decision in Warger v. Shauers about juror dishonesty during voire dire. We then went into the Confrontation Clause cases, beginning with 1980 Ohio v. Roberts, then 2004 Crawford v. Washington, 2006 Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana, 2011 Michigan v. Bryant, and finally this term's Ohio v. Clark. Exam #2 will be Thursday 12/18 from 12:15-1:30. If you are missing any handouts, email me with what you need no later than 8:00 pm on Wednesday 12/17.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
December 9, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/9, we finished our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson, and then examined Land v. Yamaha. Regarding Land, we first talked about the Erie Doctrine. We then went over the two bases of federal court jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. We also went through the difference between a Statute of Repose versus a Statute of Limitations. We saw how, in Land, the federal courts ended up applying the Indiana conflict of law rule created in Hubbard v. Greeson. Finally, I discussed the Maine case of Collins v. Trius, in which the Maine Supreme Court applied the Restatement test to decide whether to apply Maine or Canadian law regarding a limitation on damages. The assignment for Thursday 12/11 is to finish Chapter III (Finstuen).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/9, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct regarding publicity in a case. We began our discussion by going over the cases (from the text) that expanded Batson to additional settings. We then went over the Sheppard case, looking at both what the Court decided, and what it left undecided. We looked at the handout, and how far Maine lawyers are allowed to go in trying their cases in the press before they are subject to punishment. I went through the case of Gannett v. DePasquale (from the text) that said that there was no right of the press to attend and report on court proceedings, and then we discussed Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, which had a different view. We got as far as Brennan's concurrence in Richmond Newspapers, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 12/11 is to read in the text through p. 573 (up to the 8th Amendment).
In class today, Tuesday 12/9, we finished our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson, and then examined Land v. Yamaha. Regarding Land, we first talked about the Erie Doctrine. We then went over the two bases of federal court jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. We also went through the difference between a Statute of Repose versus a Statute of Limitations. We saw how, in Land, the federal courts ended up applying the Indiana conflict of law rule created in Hubbard v. Greeson. Finally, I discussed the Maine case of Collins v. Trius, in which the Maine Supreme Court applied the Restatement test to decide whether to apply Maine or Canadian law regarding a limitation on damages. The assignment for Thursday 12/11 is to finish Chapter III (Finstuen).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/9, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct regarding publicity in a case. We began our discussion by going over the cases (from the text) that expanded Batson to additional settings. We then went over the Sheppard case, looking at both what the Court decided, and what it left undecided. We looked at the handout, and how far Maine lawyers are allowed to go in trying their cases in the press before they are subject to punishment. I went through the case of Gannett v. DePasquale (from the text) that said that there was no right of the press to attend and report on court proceedings, and then we discussed Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, which had a different view. We got as far as Brennan's concurrence in Richmond Newspapers, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 12/11 is to read in the text through p. 573 (up to the 8th Amendment).
Thursday, December 4, 2014
December 4, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/4, we first went over the Strunk case. We then began our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson and the subject of conflict of law rules. We admired the work of Greeson's attorney in deciding to bring the case in Indiana so that Indiana courts would apply Illinois substantive law. We will pick up next week with how it all went terribly wrong. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/9 is to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie doctrine and Land v. Yamaha). I distributed copies of Land to those students who were in class but had purchased the text online by chapters (and had not purchased Chapter IV). (If you were not in class and do not have access to Chapter IV of the text, I left a few extra copies of Land in my mailbox in the Political Science Office, directly across the hall from our classroom).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/4, i distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding jury size, unanimity, and use of peremptory challenges, and we went over that handout. I talked about two 2012 Supreme Court opinions regarding effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. We then went over the Batson case and the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution against black jurors in a trial against a black defendant. We will begin on Tuesday with a look at how Batson got expanded to other circumstances. We'll then look at public trials and the press. The assignment for Tuesday 12/9 is to review Sheppard v. Maxwell (previously assigned) and to read as well Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, through p. 569 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 12/4, we first went over the Strunk case. We then began our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson and the subject of conflict of law rules. We admired the work of Greeson's attorney in deciding to bring the case in Indiana so that Indiana courts would apply Illinois substantive law. We will pick up next week with how it all went terribly wrong. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/9 is to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie doctrine and Land v. Yamaha). I distributed copies of Land to those students who were in class but had purchased the text online by chapters (and had not purchased Chapter IV). (If you were not in class and do not have access to Chapter IV of the text, I left a few extra copies of Land in my mailbox in the Political Science Office, directly across the hall from our classroom).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 12/4, i distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding jury size, unanimity, and use of peremptory challenges, and we went over that handout. I talked about two 2012 Supreme Court opinions regarding effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. We then went over the Batson case and the use of peremptory challenges by the prosecution against black jurors in a trial against a black defendant. We will begin on Tuesday with a look at how Batson got expanded to other circumstances. We'll then look at public trials and the press. The assignment for Tuesday 12/9 is to review Sheppard v. Maxwell (previously assigned) and to read as well Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, through p. 569 of the text.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
December 2, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/2, we first looked at how some of the concepts of Chapter III had been exemplified in the State v. Brown case that we briefed. We also talked about how the ex post facto prohibition worked generally, and specifically in the case of sex offender registries. We then went through the Butler case, both the majority and the dissent. I discussed the lineup of Justices in the Miranda opinion itself, and then the lineup in the case of Harris v. N.Y, in which the U.S. Supreme Court tackled the same issue as the Ohio court had confronted in Butler. We then moved on to retroactive application of court decisions and the Dempsey case. I made a chart of the four U.S. Supreme Court opinions that the Montana Dempsey Court looked at, why the Montana court was free to decided this issue for itself after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, and how the Montana court did in the end decide the issue. The assignment for Thursday 12/4 is to read in the text through p. 116 (Strunk and Hubbard).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/2, we discussed the two assigned cases regarding the right to counsel. I began by giving some background to the Powell case, going over the history of the Scottsboro Boys Case multiple trials. We went over the majority and dissenting opinions in Powell. We then saw how Gideon v. Wainwright expanded that right to cases that did not require "special circumstances". The assignment for Thursday 12/4 is to read in the text through p. 566 of the text (Batson and Sheppard).
In class today, Tuesday 12/2, we first looked at how some of the concepts of Chapter III had been exemplified in the State v. Brown case that we briefed. We also talked about how the ex post facto prohibition worked generally, and specifically in the case of sex offender registries. We then went through the Butler case, both the majority and the dissent. I discussed the lineup of Justices in the Miranda opinion itself, and then the lineup in the case of Harris v. N.Y, in which the U.S. Supreme Court tackled the same issue as the Ohio court had confronted in Butler. We then moved on to retroactive application of court decisions and the Dempsey case. I made a chart of the four U.S. Supreme Court opinions that the Montana Dempsey Court looked at, why the Montana court was free to decided this issue for itself after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, and how the Montana court did in the end decide the issue. The assignment for Thursday 12/4 is to read in the text through p. 116 (Strunk and Hubbard).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 12/2, we discussed the two assigned cases regarding the right to counsel. I began by giving some background to the Powell case, going over the history of the Scottsboro Boys Case multiple trials. We went over the majority and dissenting opinions in Powell. We then saw how Gideon v. Wainwright expanded that right to cases that did not require "special circumstances". The assignment for Thursday 12/4 is to read in the text through p. 566 of the text (Batson and Sheppard).
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
November 25, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/25, I handed back the Brown case briefs, as well as the Comment Key. We then finished our far-ranging discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We will start with dictum and the Butler case (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/2 is to read through p. 110 of the text (Dempsey). Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/25, we went over the Ormsby opinion. We discussed the technique of using non-custodial interrogations in order to accomplish some of what the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed in terms of non-Mirandized statements in Seibert. I also went over two other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) and the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Prescott (2012). These cases complete our study of Chapter 11 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday 12/2 is to read in Chapter 12 of the text through p. 551 (Powell v. Alabama and Gideon v. Wainwright). Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/25, I handed back the Brown case briefs, as well as the Comment Key. We then finished our far-ranging discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We will start with dictum and the Butler case (previously assigned) next Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/2 is to read through p. 110 of the text (Dempsey). Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/25, we went over the Ormsby opinion. We discussed the technique of using non-custodial interrogations in order to accomplish some of what the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed in terms of non-Mirandized statements in Seibert. I also went over two other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) and the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Prescott (2012). These cases complete our study of Chapter 11 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday 12/2 is to read in Chapter 12 of the text through p. 551 (Powell v. Alabama and Gideon v. Wainwright). Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
November 20, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I collected the Brown case briefs, and also distributed my version of that brief. I plan to return the Brown briefs on Tuesday. We went over the brief. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius, looking at the words of the Constitution (both the taxing power and interstate commerce), and beginning the discussion over precedent prior to this case. We'll continue with NFIB on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 s to read in the text through p. 106 (Butler).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Ormsby, 2013 ME 88 (if you weren't in class, you can email me for the edited version, or read the whole thing at the Maine Supreme Court website (http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/index.shtml).
We finished our discussion of Miranda, then talked about some exceptions as pointed out in the textbook chart. We went over the Seibert case. I then discussed the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of Salinas v. Texas, about the consequences when a suspect becomes silent when asked questions during a non-custodial interrogation. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Ormsby Maine Supreme Court decision.
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I collected the Brown case briefs, and also distributed my version of that brief. I plan to return the Brown briefs on Tuesday. We went over the brief. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius, looking at the words of the Constitution (both the taxing power and interstate commerce), and beginning the discussion over precedent prior to this case. We'll continue with NFIB on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 s to read in the text through p. 106 (Butler).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Ormsby, 2013 ME 88 (if you weren't in class, you can email me for the edited version, or read the whole thing at the Maine Supreme Court website (http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/index.shtml).
We finished our discussion of Miranda, then talked about some exceptions as pointed out in the textbook chart. We went over the Seibert case. I then discussed the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case of Salinas v. Texas, about the consequences when a suspect becomes silent when asked questions during a non-custodial interrogation. The assignment for Tuesday 11/25 is to read and prepare to discuss the Ormsby Maine Supreme Court decision.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
November 18, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, we went over a number of questions regarding the Brown case brief. I first clarified that you should not brief those issues that are contained in the footnotes to the case (pages 5-6). You should, however, brief the issues that are addressed in the body of the opinion, even if part of the Court's discussion is dictum (e.g., equitable estoppel and Blue Hill ordinance). For issues that are dictum, indicate this by putting "[DICTUM]" prior to that "Issue". We went over the substance of a number of the issues raised, and we also discussed some of the politics behind the decision. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to complete the Brown case brief, due at the beginning of class. After we finish our discussion of Brown, we'll go on to discuss NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, I first handed back the Davis outlines, as well as my version of that outline. We went over the theme of police culpability as reflected in the three Davis opinions. We also did a brief overview of the four exclusionary rule cases we covered, in terms of which ones featured any police culpability. We then left the 4th Amendment and turned to the 5th and 6th. We started with the text of those amendments, and saw how limited the literal protections are. We then covered Escobedo, which itself was midstream in terms of 5th and 6th Amendment development. We saw how Escobedo extended the point at which the right to counsel attached, as well as intertwining of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We then started out discussion of Miranda. We first discussed how Miranda's situation was not covered by the rule in Escobedo, and then went through the rule regarding exactly what police need to tell suspects, and when they need to tell them that. We will finish Miranda on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to finish reading Chapter 11 (including Seibert).
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, we went over a number of questions regarding the Brown case brief. I first clarified that you should not brief those issues that are contained in the footnotes to the case (pages 5-6). You should, however, brief the issues that are addressed in the body of the opinion, even if part of the Court's discussion is dictum (e.g., equitable estoppel and Blue Hill ordinance). For issues that are dictum, indicate this by putting "[DICTUM]" prior to that "Issue". We went over the substance of a number of the issues raised, and we also discussed some of the politics behind the decision. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to complete the Brown case brief, due at the beginning of class. After we finish our discussion of Brown, we'll go on to discuss NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/18, I first handed back the Davis outlines, as well as my version of that outline. We went over the theme of police culpability as reflected in the three Davis opinions. We also did a brief overview of the four exclusionary rule cases we covered, in terms of which ones featured any police culpability. We then left the 4th Amendment and turned to the 5th and 6th. We started with the text of those amendments, and saw how limited the literal protections are. We then covered Escobedo, which itself was midstream in terms of 5th and 6th Amendment development. We saw how Escobedo extended the point at which the right to counsel attached, as well as intertwining of the 5th and 6th Amendment protections. We then started out discussion of Miranda. We first discussed how Miranda's situation was not covered by the rule in Escobedo, and then went through the rule regarding exactly what police need to tell suspects, and when they need to tell them that. We will finish Miranda on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 11/20 is to finish reading Chapter 11 (including Seibert).
Thursday, November 13, 2014
November 13, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Brown. I talked a little about the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel that's part of the Brown case. We then finished our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to begin work on the Brown case brief, and also to review NFIB v. Sebelius (previously assigned).
Assignment due Thursday November 20th, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Brown, 2014 ME 83, 95 A.3d 82. (If you were not in class today, you can email me for my edited version of the case).
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything 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 Thursday 11/20, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.
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. If you don’t get a confirmation by the end of the day, email me.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I collected the Davis outlines. We went over them, and I plan to grade them this weekend and return them next Tuesday. I then discussed the Nov. 10th decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carroll v. Carman, a civil suit against a policeman who engaged in an (arguably) unconstitutional search in a "knock and talk" case. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to read in the text pp. 517-529 (Escobedo and Miranda).
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the Maine Supreme Court opinion in State v. Brown. I talked a little about the doctrine of Equitable Estoppel that's part of the Brown case. We then finished our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to begin work on the Brown case brief, and also to review NFIB v. Sebelius (previously assigned).
Assignment due Thursday November 20th, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Brown, 2014 ME 83, 95 A.3d 82. (If you were not in class today, you can email me for my edited version of the case).
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything 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 Thursday 11/20, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.
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. If you don’t get a confirmation by the end of the day, email me.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/13, I collected the Davis outlines. We went over them, and I plan to grade them this weekend and return them next Tuesday. I then discussed the Nov. 10th decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carroll v. Carman, a civil suit against a policeman who engaged in an (arguably) unconstitutional search in a "knock and talk" case. The assignment for Tuesday 11/18 is to read in the text pp. 517-529 (Escobedo and Miranda).
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
November 11, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, I began with a discussion of last week's 6th Circuit opinion which for the first time had a U.S. Court of Appeals uphold the constitutionality of state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. We then finished our analysis of Glassford v. BrickKicker, going through the different issues that the Court tackled. We also contrasted this Vermont case with the Maine case law that we looked at last week. We began our discussion of the the Caperton case, looking at the 1927 Tumey case and what it held. We will continue with Caperton on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 98 of the text (NFIB v. Sebelius).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, we first went over both the format and some substance of the Davis outline. That outline is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. We then talked about the October 1, 2014 Third Circuit decision of U.S. v. Katzin. We looked at how the majority and the dissenting opinions disagreed on what the holding in Davis really was. We also looked at how the 4th Amendment jurisprudence develops, both in terms of whether there's any incentive (reward) for bringing a successful 4th Amendment challenge, and whether the 4th Amendment issue even gets reached (if suppression can be decided before the substantive 4th Amendment issue). The assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to finish work on your Davis outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. If for any reason you cannot be in class on Thursday, you should e-mail your paper to me by the beginning of class, and make sure that you get a confirmation that I received and could read your outline (no confirmation, no credit).
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, I began with a discussion of last week's 6th Circuit opinion which for the first time had a U.S. Court of Appeals uphold the constitutionality of state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. We then finished our analysis of Glassford v. BrickKicker, going through the different issues that the Court tackled. We also contrasted this Vermont case with the Maine case law that we looked at last week. We began our discussion of the the Caperton case, looking at the 1927 Tumey case and what it held. We will continue with Caperton on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 98 of the text (NFIB v. Sebelius).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/11, we first went over both the format and some substance of the Davis outline. That outline is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. We then talked about the October 1, 2014 Third Circuit decision of U.S. v. Katzin. We looked at how the majority and the dissenting opinions disagreed on what the holding in Davis really was. We also looked at how the 4th Amendment jurisprudence develops, both in terms of whether there's any incentive (reward) for bringing a successful 4th Amendment challenge, and whether the 4th Amendment issue even gets reached (if suppression can be decided before the substantive 4th Amendment issue). The assignment for Thursday 11/13 is to finish work on your Davis outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. If for any reason you cannot be in class on Thursday, you should e-mail your paper to me by the beginning of class, and make sure that you get a confirmation that I received and could read your outline (no confirmation, no credit).
Thursday, November 6, 2014
November 6, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we began by discussing Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at rational basis review versus strict scrutiny, equal protection versus due process, and the rights of individual versus the power of government. We then began our discussion of Glassford v. BrickKicker. We looked at waiver of liability clauses. I discussed the Maine case of Lloyd v. Sugarloaf, the mountain biking case in which the Maine Supreme Court looked at the enforceability of waivers in Maine. We will begin next Tuesday with the question of what kind of clause was at issue in Glassford. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to finish Chapter II of the text (Caperton).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we first finished our discussion of Herring, paying particular attention to the culpability question. We traced the flow of the Court's opinion, and then also discussed the two dissents. We then turned to Davis (the subject of the outline assignment), going over the question of retroactivity as laid out in Linkletter and Griffith. The assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to continue working on the Davis outline, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 11/13.
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we began by discussing Lawrence v. Texas. We looked at rational basis review versus strict scrutiny, equal protection versus due process, and the rights of individual versus the power of government. We then began our discussion of Glassford v. BrickKicker. We looked at waiver of liability clauses. I discussed the Maine case of Lloyd v. Sugarloaf, the mountain biking case in which the Maine Supreme Court looked at the enforceability of waivers in Maine. We will begin next Tuesday with the question of what kind of clause was at issue in Glassford. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to finish Chapter II of the text (Caperton).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 11/6, we first finished our discussion of Herring, paying particular attention to the culpability question. We traced the flow of the Court's opinion, and then also discussed the two dissents. We then turned to Davis (the subject of the outline assignment), going over the question of retroactivity as laid out in Linkletter and Griffith. The assignment for Tuesday 11/11 is to continue working on the Davis outline, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 11/13.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
November 4, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, we first reviewed Gregg v. Georgia, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding Hindering Apprehension. We then discussed the Holland case, and looked again at the Maine statutes regarding both common law crimes, and the duty to report in child abuse cases. The assignment for Thursday 11/6 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 78 of the text (Lawrence and Glassford).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case that you'll be outlining, Davis v. U.S. We began by reviewing Mapp and Leon, and then went over how Hudson continued the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. We began our discussion of Herring, getting through the basic facts of the case and how the question posed continued again the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. The assignment for Thursday 4/6 is to review Herring, and to at least read Davis.
Assignment due Thursday November 13, 2014
The assignment is to do an outline of Davis v. U.S. (distributed to the class 11/4).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices and italicize those added elements. Outline the majority, concurring, and the dissenting opinions.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.
Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 Thursday 11/13, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, we first reviewed Gregg v. Georgia, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding Hindering Apprehension. We then discussed the Holland case, and looked again at the Maine statutes regarding both common law crimes, and the duty to report in child abuse cases. The assignment for Thursday 11/6 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 78 of the text (Lawrence and Glassford).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 11/4, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case that you'll be outlining, Davis v. U.S. We began by reviewing Mapp and Leon, and then went over how Hudson continued the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. We began our discussion of Herring, getting through the basic facts of the case and how the question posed continued again the narrowing of the exclusionary rule. The assignment for Thursday 4/6 is to review Herring, and to at least read Davis.
Assignment due Thursday November 13, 2014
The assignment is to do an outline of Davis v. U.S. (distributed to the class 11/4).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices and italicize those added elements. Outline the majority, concurring, and the dissenting opinions.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.
Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 Thursday 11/13, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
October 30, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/30, I distributed two handouts, one an article about the history of the Supreme Court's death penalty decisions, and the other a set of Maine statutes (to go with the Mobbley and Holland cases). We worked our way through the Gregg v. Georgia opinions, paying particular attention to the different questions asked by the three opinions to determine whether capital punishment is cruel and unusual. The assignment for Tuesday is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 67 of the text, as well as the two handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/30, we began by finishing up our discussion of Mapp v. Ohio. We looked at both the majority opinion, and, briefly, the concurring and dissenting opinions. We then went over U.S. v. Leon, and saw how the standard set in Mapp was eroded in the case of warrants issued without probable cause. The assignment for Tuesday 11/4 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 517 (Hudson and Herring)
In class today, Thursday 10/30, I distributed two handouts, one an article about the history of the Supreme Court's death penalty decisions, and the other a set of Maine statutes (to go with the Mobbley and Holland cases). We worked our way through the Gregg v. Georgia opinions, paying particular attention to the different questions asked by the three opinions to determine whether capital punishment is cruel and unusual. The assignment for Tuesday is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 67 of the text, as well as the two handouts.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/30, we began by finishing up our discussion of Mapp v. Ohio. We looked at both the majority opinion, and, briefly, the concurring and dissenting opinions. We then went over U.S. v. Leon, and saw how the standard set in Mapp was eroded in the case of warrants issued without probable cause. The assignment for Tuesday 11/4 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 517 (Hudson and Herring)
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
October 28, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/28, I first handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then went over the last case in Chapter 1 of the text, Suggs v. Norris. The assignment for Thursday 10/30 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 59 in the text (Gregg v. Georgia).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/28, I first handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then began going over Mapp v. Ohio, getting as far as how the factual underpinnings of Wolf v. Colorado had been eroded. We will finish that discussion of Mapp on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/30 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 509 (U.S. v. Leon).
In class today, Tuesday 10/28, I first handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then went over the last case in Chapter 1 of the text, Suggs v. Norris. The assignment for Thursday 10/30 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 59 in the text (Gregg v. Georgia).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/28, I first handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then began going over Mapp v. Ohio, getting as far as how the factual underpinnings of Wolf v. Colorado had been eroded. We will finish that discussion of Mapp on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/30 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 509 (U.S. v. Leon).
Thursday, October 23, 2014
October 23, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/23, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those exams back and go over them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/28 is to review from the text Suggs v. Norris, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/23, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those exams back and go over them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/28 is to read in the text through p. 504 (Mapp v. Ohio).
In class today, Thursday 10/23, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those exams back and go over them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/28 is to review from the text Suggs v. Norris, previously assigned.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/23, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those exams back and go over them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/28 is to read in the text through p. 504 (Mapp v. Ohio).
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
October 21, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/21, I distributed one handout, the Johnson Comment Key. I also handed back the Johnson case briefs, and we briefly went over them. We then finished our discussion of Katko v. Briney, both the majority and the dissenting opinions. Finally we went through the Maine statutory handout regarding use of force in defense of premises. We did not cover Suggs v. Norris, previously assigned, so that will not be on the exam. The assignment for Thursday 10/23 is to prepare for Exam #1 (on Thursday). The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, let me know before Thursday. If you have an emergency and cannot make the exam, make sure to contact me asap.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/21, we first finished our discussion of Safford v, Redding. In addition to going over the material in the text, we also went over the concept of qualified immunity and how it applied in that case. We then went over Terry v. Ohio, which actually had set the stage for many of the later cases that we studied so far this semester. The assignment for Thursday 10/23 is to prepare for Exam #1 (on Thursday). The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, let me know before Thursday. If you have an emergency and cannot make the exam, make sure to contact me asap.
In class today, Tuesday 10/21, I distributed one handout, the Johnson Comment Key. I also handed back the Johnson case briefs, and we briefly went over them. We then finished our discussion of Katko v. Briney, both the majority and the dissenting opinions. Finally we went through the Maine statutory handout regarding use of force in defense of premises. We did not cover Suggs v. Norris, previously assigned, so that will not be on the exam. The assignment for Thursday 10/23 is to prepare for Exam #1 (on Thursday). The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, let me know before Thursday. If you have an emergency and cannot make the exam, make sure to contact me asap.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/21, we first finished our discussion of Safford v, Redding. In addition to going over the material in the text, we also went over the concept of qualified immunity and how it applied in that case. We then went over Terry v. Ohio, which actually had set the stage for many of the later cases that we studied so far this semester. The assignment for Thursday 10/23 is to prepare for Exam #1 (on Thursday). The exam is open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, let me know before Thursday. If you have an emergency and cannot make the exam, make sure to contact me asap.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
October 16, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/16, I collected the Johnson case briefs, and then we went over them. I plan to grade them this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. Along the way, we went over the varying levels by which some one has to be convinced, from beyond a reasonable doubt all the way to a suspicionless dragnet. The class then took a sample test, in preparation for the first exam, which will be on Thursday 10/23. On Tuesday, we'll continue with the Katko case and the Maine statutory handout, previously assigned. The additional homework for Tuesday 10/21 is to read and prepare to discuss through the end of the chapter Suggs v. Norris).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/16, the class took a sample test, in preparation for the first exam, which will be on Thursday 10/23. We then completed our review of the Gant case, exploring how both the majority and dissent believed that they were being faithful to Belton. We began our discussion of Redding, getting to the right standard to use for searches in the school setting. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. Along the way we reviewed both the three standard questions regarding 4th Amendment violations (was there one; does the evidence get suppressed; can the victim successfully sue) as well as the levels of suspicion, from probable cause down to a suspicionless dragnet. The additional homework for Tuesday 10/21 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 497 of the text (Terry).
In class today, Thursday 10/16, I collected the Johnson case briefs, and then we went over them. I plan to grade them this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. Along the way, we went over the varying levels by which some one has to be convinced, from beyond a reasonable doubt all the way to a suspicionless dragnet. The class then took a sample test, in preparation for the first exam, which will be on Thursday 10/23. On Tuesday, we'll continue with the Katko case and the Maine statutory handout, previously assigned. The additional homework for Tuesday 10/21 is to read and prepare to discuss through the end of the chapter Suggs v. Norris).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/16, the class took a sample test, in preparation for the first exam, which will be on Thursday 10/23. We then completed our review of the Gant case, exploring how both the majority and dissent believed that they were being faithful to Belton. We began our discussion of Redding, getting to the right standard to use for searches in the school setting. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. Along the way we reviewed both the three standard questions regarding 4th Amendment violations (was there one; does the evidence get suppressed; can the victim successfully sue) as well as the levels of suspicion, from probable cause down to a suspicionless dragnet. The additional homework for Tuesday 10/21 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 497 of the text (Terry).
Thursday, October 9, 2014
October 9, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/9, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We first went over aspects of the Johnson case brief, and I corrected my statement from last Tuesday (I had mistakenly said that there was a 4th Amendment issue raised by Johnson in the Maine Supreme Court). We discussed the search conducted by the police, and the claims made by Johnson. I went over a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, that clarified the right under the U.S. Constitution (both 4th and 5th Amendments) for the police to demand that people identify themselves to the police. We then turned back to the textbook and the Katko case. We discussed the elements of the case brief, up to the Issues, which is where we'll pick up when we rejoin Katko. We also went over the secondary authority in the case versus the primary authority, and mandatory versus persuasive authority. There is no school next Tuesday 10/14. The assignment for Thursday 10/16 is to finish work on your Johnson case briefs, due at the beginning of class on Thursday, 10/16. In addition, review Katko, and read the Maine statutory handout. I also announced that the date for our first exam will be Thursday 10/23.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/9, I handed back the Navarette outlines, and we briefly discussed them. I also announced that the date for our first exam will be Thursday 10/23. We went over the two current Supreme Court cases about which I previously distributed handouts, Heien v. North Carolina and Rodriguez v. U.S.. As part of that discussion, we also discussed three levels of leeway given to the police: the existence of constitutional rights themselves; the use of the exclusionary rule; and the good faith immunity defense of police against suits alleging constitutional violations. We also talked about the idea of the "fruits of the poisonous tree". We then moved on to the Gant case from the text, getting up to Alito's dissent in the case, which is where we'll pick up when we next meet on Thursday 10/16. The assignment for Thursday 10/16 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 492 of the text (the Safford case) (there is no school next Tuesday 10/14).
In class today, Thursday 10/9, I distributed two handouts: my version of the Katko case brief, and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We first went over aspects of the Johnson case brief, and I corrected my statement from last Tuesday (I had mistakenly said that there was a 4th Amendment issue raised by Johnson in the Maine Supreme Court). We discussed the search conducted by the police, and the claims made by Johnson. I went over a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, that clarified the right under the U.S. Constitution (both 4th and 5th Amendments) for the police to demand that people identify themselves to the police. We then turned back to the textbook and the Katko case. We discussed the elements of the case brief, up to the Issues, which is where we'll pick up when we rejoin Katko. We also went over the secondary authority in the case versus the primary authority, and mandatory versus persuasive authority. There is no school next Tuesday 10/14. The assignment for Thursday 10/16 is to finish work on your Johnson case briefs, due at the beginning of class on Thursday, 10/16. In addition, review Katko, and read the Maine statutory handout. I also announced that the date for our first exam will be Thursday 10/23.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/9, I handed back the Navarette outlines, and we briefly discussed them. I also announced that the date for our first exam will be Thursday 10/23. We went over the two current Supreme Court cases about which I previously distributed handouts, Heien v. North Carolina and Rodriguez v. U.S.. As part of that discussion, we also discussed three levels of leeway given to the police: the existence of constitutional rights themselves; the use of the exclusionary rule; and the good faith immunity defense of police against suits alleging constitutional violations. We also talked about the idea of the "fruits of the poisonous tree". We then moved on to the Gant case from the text, getting up to Alito's dissent in the case, which is where we'll pick up when we next meet on Thursday 10/16. The assignment for Thursday 10/16 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 492 of the text (the Safford case) (there is no school next Tuesday 10/14).
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
October 7, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/7, I distributed three handouts: the case brief assignment (copied below), the Johnson case that you'll be briefing, and some hypotheticals giving variations from the Speelman decision. I went over the requirements of the assignment, and also gave a brief introduction to the issues raised in Johnson. We then went back through Speelman, finishing up the issues that the Court addressed and how they were resolved. We also went over the hypotheticals, which were basically a way of testing the scope of the holding that we wrote in the Speelman case brief. On Thursday, we will begin by going over any questions that you have about the Johnson assignment. We will then take up the Katko case, previously assigned. The assignmnet for Thursday 10/9 is to review Katko, and to begin work on the Johnson case brief assignment.
Assignment due Thursday October 16th, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v, Johnson, 2014 ME 83, _____ A.3d____.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything 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 Thursday 10/16, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.
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 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/7, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Navarette outline, and two articles about current U.S. Supreme Court cases. I collected your Navarette outlines and we went over them. I plan to grade them and return them on Thursday. In our discussion, we also went over the levels of persuasion, from beyond a reasonable doubt all the way down to suspicionless, and we went over mental states of actions, from intent all the way down to strict liability. The assignment for Thursday 10/9 is to read the two handouts about current Supreme Court cases, and to read in the textbook through the Gant case (pp. 480-488).
In class today, Tuesday 10/7, I distributed three handouts: the case brief assignment (copied below), the Johnson case that you'll be briefing, and some hypotheticals giving variations from the Speelman decision. I went over the requirements of the assignment, and also gave a brief introduction to the issues raised in Johnson. We then went back through Speelman, finishing up the issues that the Court addressed and how they were resolved. We also went over the hypotheticals, which were basically a way of testing the scope of the holding that we wrote in the Speelman case brief. On Thursday, we will begin by going over any questions that you have about the Johnson assignment. We will then take up the Katko case, previously assigned. The assignmnet for Thursday 10/9 is to review Katko, and to begin work on the Johnson case brief assignment.
Assignment due Thursday October 16th, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v, Johnson, 2014 ME 83, _____ A.3d____.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything 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 Thursday 10/16, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.
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 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 10/7, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Navarette outline, and two articles about current U.S. Supreme Court cases. I collected your Navarette outlines and we went over them. I plan to grade them and return them on Thursday. In our discussion, we also went over the levels of persuasion, from beyond a reasonable doubt all the way down to suspicionless, and we went over mental states of actions, from intent all the way down to strict liability. The assignment for Thursday 10/9 is to read the two handouts about current Supreme Court cases, and to read in the textbook through the Gant case (pp. 480-488).
Thursday, October 2, 2014
October 2, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/2, I distributed one handout, my version of the Speelman case brief. We first finished off our discussion of Glucksberg, going over the legitimate interests that Washington has in criminalizing assisted suicide, and also talking briefly about Justice Souter's concurring opinion. We then began our discussion of Speelman, getting to the part of the brief in which the Housing Authority claimed that the previous Washington Supreme Court case, State v. Nelson, mandated that their notice was good enough. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 10/7 is to do a case brief of the next case in the text, Katko v. Briney (through p. 43 of the text). Katko is again a practice case brief, but my plan is to give you the first graded case brief assignment on Tuesday 10/7, to be due Thursday 10/16.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/2,we went through the majority decision in Navarette, including some discussion of how it might fit into outline form. I also went into some more depth about Alabama v. White and Florida v. J.L., particularly the vote breakdown and dissenting view in White. The assignment for Tuesday 10/7 is to finish your Navarette outline, due at the beginning of class on Tuesday.
In class today, Thursday 10/2, I distributed one handout, my version of the Speelman case brief. We first finished off our discussion of Glucksberg, going over the legitimate interests that Washington has in criminalizing assisted suicide, and also talking briefly about Justice Souter's concurring opinion. We then began our discussion of Speelman, getting to the part of the brief in which the Housing Authority claimed that the previous Washington Supreme Court case, State v. Nelson, mandated that their notice was good enough. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 10/7 is to do a case brief of the next case in the text, Katko v. Briney (through p. 43 of the text). Katko is again a practice case brief, but my plan is to give you the first graded case brief assignment on Tuesday 10/7, to be due Thursday 10/16.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 10/2,we went through the majority decision in Navarette, including some discussion of how it might fit into outline form. I also went into some more depth about Alabama v. White and Florida v. J.L., particularly the vote breakdown and dissenting view in White. The assignment for Tuesday 10/7 is to finish your Navarette outline, due at the beginning of class on Tuesday.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
September 30, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/30, I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We went over that case and brief, getting as far as the rational reasons for a ban on assisted suicide (which is where we'll pick up on Thursday). Along the way, we went over the organization of the federal court system, the concept of low and high hurdles for the government, and the concept of following precedent versus distinguishing precedent. The assignment for Thursday 10/2 is to read and do a case brief of the Speelman case (through p. 38 of the text). This brief is not to hand in or be graded, but it is important practice before our first graded case brief.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/30, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We first went over the Gates case, discussing both the majority decision and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Navarette, talking about the "reasonable suspicion" standard at issue there, and also going through the line-up of the Justices. The assignment for Thursday 10/2 is to work on the Navarette outline, due Tuesday 10/7.
Assignment #1, due Tuesday October 7, 2014
The assignment is to do an outline of Navarette v. California (distributed to the class 9/23).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices and italicize those added elements. Outline both the majority and the dissenting opinions.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.
Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 Tuesday 10/7, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Tuesday 9/30, I distributed one handout, my version of the Glucksberg case brief. We went over that case and brief, getting as far as the rational reasons for a ban on assisted suicide (which is where we'll pick up on Thursday). Along the way, we went over the organization of the federal court system, the concept of low and high hurdles for the government, and the concept of following precedent versus distinguishing precedent. The assignment for Thursday 10/2 is to read and do a case brief of the Speelman case (through p. 38 of the text). This brief is not to hand in or be graded, but it is important practice before our first graded case brief.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/30, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We first went over the Gates case, discussing both the majority decision and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Navarette, talking about the "reasonable suspicion" standard at issue there, and also going through the line-up of the Justices. The assignment for Thursday 10/2 is to work on the Navarette outline, due Tuesday 10/7.
Assignment #1, due Tuesday October 7, 2014
The assignment is to do an outline of Navarette v. California (distributed to the class 9/23).
Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Your outlines will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Add elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by the Justices and italicize those added elements. Outline both the majority and the dissenting opinions.
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline 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.
Please make two copies of your outline, 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 assignment. 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 Tuesday 10/7, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
September 23, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
IN class today, Tuesday 9/23, I distributed one handout, the case brief template. We finished up Roberts' dissent in Miller, and also talked about the Thomas and Alito dissents. We discussed originalism as a mode of constitutional interpretation, and we also talked about the three major areas of institutional conflict with which the Supreme Court deals: separation of powers; federalism, and the rights of individuals. We went over the Maine sentencing statute and discussed the effect of Miller on Maine law. We also went over the proper citation form for Maine statutes. We began our discussion of Glucksberg and the case brief, getting as far as the cause of action. We will finish the cause of action and go on from there when I rejoin you next Tuesday 9/29. Working on a Glucksberg case brief, using the template as your guide, is your assignment for Tuesday 9/30. On Thursday 9/25, I won't be in class. but the class will watch part of the PBS series,"The Supreme Court", in an episode about the Rehnquist Revolution.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/23, I distributed two handouts: my version of the outline of the Jardines dissent, and the opinion of Navarette v. California. We went over the concurring and dissenting opinions in Jardines, putting the dissent in the outline format. On Thursday 9/25, I won't be in class. but the class will watch part of the PBS series,"The Supreme Court", in an episode about the A Nation of Liberties" (WWII to Nixon's election). The assignment for Tuesday 9/30 is to review the Gates case from the text (previously assigned); to read the Navarette opinion; and to begin your outline of both the Navarette majority opinion and the dissent.
IN class today, Tuesday 9/23, I distributed one handout, the case brief template. We finished up Roberts' dissent in Miller, and also talked about the Thomas and Alito dissents. We discussed originalism as a mode of constitutional interpretation, and we also talked about the three major areas of institutional conflict with which the Supreme Court deals: separation of powers; federalism, and the rights of individuals. We went over the Maine sentencing statute and discussed the effect of Miller on Maine law. We also went over the proper citation form for Maine statutes. We began our discussion of Glucksberg and the case brief, getting as far as the cause of action. We will finish the cause of action and go on from there when I rejoin you next Tuesday 9/29. Working on a Glucksberg case brief, using the template as your guide, is your assignment for Tuesday 9/30. On Thursday 9/25, I won't be in class. but the class will watch part of the PBS series,"The Supreme Court", in an episode about the Rehnquist Revolution.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/23, I distributed two handouts: my version of the outline of the Jardines dissent, and the opinion of Navarette v. California. We went over the concurring and dissenting opinions in Jardines, putting the dissent in the outline format. On Thursday 9/25, I won't be in class. but the class will watch part of the PBS series,"The Supreme Court", in an episode about the A Nation of Liberties" (WWII to Nixon's election). The assignment for Tuesday 9/30 is to review the Gates case from the text (previously assigned); to read the Navarette opinion; and to begin your outline of both the Navarette majority opinion and the dissent.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
September 18, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/18, we went through the Miller case and put it into outline form. We looked at the two lines of precedent cited by Justice Kagan and how they were applied to the facts of these two cases. We then looked at Breyer's concurrence, and Roberts' dissent We will begin on Tuesday with the second point of Roberts' dissent, the question of deference to the legislative branch, and then go through the other two dissenting opinions. We will also look at Maine's Sentencing Statute, previously distributed. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/23 is to read in the text through p. 34 (Gluckberg).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/18, I distributed two handouts: the Florida v. Jardines opinion, and my model outline and outline format for the majority opinion in Jardines. We talked about the issue in this 2013 case about the use of drug-sniffing dogs, and then went through the outline of the majority's opinion. We compared the votes of the Justices in Jardines versus Jones. We also discussed the Oliver case involving open fields. We then saw what arguments we could anticipate that the Jardines dissenters would make. The assignment for Tuesday 9/23 is to read the entire Jardines opinion handout. Be prepared to discuss (but you don't need to outline) the concurring opinion. Outline the dissenting opinion, following the format of the model outline I distributed today. This outline will not be handed in or graded, but it will be the practice in this format before I assign the outline that will be graded.
In class today, Thursday 9/18, we went through the Miller case and put it into outline form. We looked at the two lines of precedent cited by Justice Kagan and how they were applied to the facts of these two cases. We then looked at Breyer's concurrence, and Roberts' dissent We will begin on Tuesday with the second point of Roberts' dissent, the question of deference to the legislative branch, and then go through the other two dissenting opinions. We will also look at Maine's Sentencing Statute, previously distributed. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/23 is to read in the text through p. 34 (Gluckberg).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/18, I distributed two handouts: the Florida v. Jardines opinion, and my model outline and outline format for the majority opinion in Jardines. We talked about the issue in this 2013 case about the use of drug-sniffing dogs, and then went through the outline of the majority's opinion. We compared the votes of the Justices in Jardines versus Jones. We also discussed the Oliver case involving open fields. We then saw what arguments we could anticipate that the Jardines dissenters would make. The assignment for Tuesday 9/23 is to read the entire Jardines opinion handout. Be prepared to discuss (but you don't need to outline) the concurring opinion. Outline the dissenting opinion, following the format of the model outline I distributed today. This outline will not be handed in or graded, but it will be the practice in this format before I assign the outline that will be graded.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
September 16, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/16, I distributed one handout, selections from the Maine Sentencing Statute. We first went over the Introductory material in the text, talking specifically about procedural v. substantive legitimacy, legal v. equitable remedies, and common law v. enacted law. We then began our discussion of Miller v. Alabama. We went over the text of the 8th Amendment. We also went over proper citation form and order of the parties for U.S. Supreme Court decisions. We talked about three previous 8th Amendment cases, Atkins, Roper and Graham. We went over the difference between concurring in the judgment and concurring in the opinion, and the nine current members of the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll begin on Thursday with the majority opinions in Miller, and look also at the concurring and dissenting opinions in the case. The assignment for Thursday 9/18 is to review Miller, and also to read today's handout, the Maine Sentencing Statute.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/16, we first went over the three definitional questions posed in the 4th Amendment: "persons, houses papers, and effects"; "search or seizure", and "unreasonable". We reviewed their resolution in Katz. I discussed two previous cases dealing with tracking vehicles, U.S. v. Knotts and U.S. v. Karo. I ran through the nine current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. We then went through the three opinions in Jones, discussing the different approaches of the majority and concurrence, as well as Sotomayor's view. We also discussed the questions not addressed in Jones, in terms of reasonableness, warrants, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion. The assignment for Thursday 9/18 is to read through p. 480 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 9/16, I distributed one handout, selections from the Maine Sentencing Statute. We first went over the Introductory material in the text, talking specifically about procedural v. substantive legitimacy, legal v. equitable remedies, and common law v. enacted law. We then began our discussion of Miller v. Alabama. We went over the text of the 8th Amendment. We also went over proper citation form and order of the parties for U.S. Supreme Court decisions. We talked about three previous 8th Amendment cases, Atkins, Roper and Graham. We went over the difference between concurring in the judgment and concurring in the opinion, and the nine current members of the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll begin on Thursday with the majority opinions in Miller, and look also at the concurring and dissenting opinions in the case. The assignment for Thursday 9/18 is to review Miller, and also to read today's handout, the Maine Sentencing Statute.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/16, we first went over the three definitional questions posed in the 4th Amendment: "persons, houses papers, and effects"; "search or seizure", and "unreasonable". We reviewed their resolution in Katz. I discussed two previous cases dealing with tracking vehicles, U.S. v. Knotts and U.S. v. Karo. I ran through the nine current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. We then went through the three opinions in Jones, discussing the different approaches of the majority and concurrence, as well as Sotomayor's view. We also discussed the questions not addressed in Jones, in terms of reasonableness, warrants, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion. The assignment for Thursday 9/18 is to read through p. 480 of the text.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
September 11, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/11, we first went over the concept of authority. We looked at primary authority and secondary authority, and then divided primary authority into mandatory and persuasive authority. We also expanded out previous discussion of citation form to include the four ages of Maine citation form, as well as citations from other states. We also discussed the hierarchy of enacted law (constitutions and statutes, federal and state). We went through the Judy Harrison BDN article regarding Ormand Alley and discussed several ways in which statements in the article might be either incorrect or at least misleading. We went over the engagement ring case, O'Brien v. Hudock, focusing on the level of Court that decided the case, and the authority cited by the Court for its statements of law. The assignment for Tuesday 9/16 is to read in the text through p. 23.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/11, I first went over Alito's concurrence in the Riley case. We then discussed conflicts between the Maine Attorney General and Governor that can arise under under system of constitutional officers. We went through the Katz case, going over the previous tests of whether there was a "search" and Katz's revised question regarding that question, as well as whether a search was "unreasonable". We went over Harlan's concurrence, and discussed the difference between subjective and objective tests. Finally we went over Black's dissent. The assignment for Tuesday 9/16 is to read through p. 475 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 9/11, we first went over the concept of authority. We looked at primary authority and secondary authority, and then divided primary authority into mandatory and persuasive authority. We also expanded out previous discussion of citation form to include the four ages of Maine citation form, as well as citations from other states. We also discussed the hierarchy of enacted law (constitutions and statutes, federal and state). We went through the Judy Harrison BDN article regarding Ormand Alley and discussed several ways in which statements in the article might be either incorrect or at least misleading. We went over the engagement ring case, O'Brien v. Hudock, focusing on the level of Court that decided the case, and the authority cited by the Court for its statements of law. The assignment for Tuesday 9/16 is to read in the text through p. 23.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Thursday 9/11, I first went over Alito's concurrence in the Riley case. We then discussed conflicts between the Maine Attorney General and Governor that can arise under under system of constitutional officers. We went through the Katz case, going over the previous tests of whether there was a "search" and Katz's revised question regarding that question, as well as whether a search was "unreasonable". We went over Harlan's concurrence, and discussed the difference between subjective and objective tests. Finally we went over Black's dissent. The assignment for Tuesday 9/16 is to read through p. 475 of the text.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
September 9, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/9, we finished off our discussion of the Haworth case. We went through the remainder of the defendants' contentions, and how the Court dealt with each one. We also talked about mistakes by the trial judge, the Feigons' attorney and Haworth's attorney. Along the way, we discussed the legal meaning of "privilege" and "malice", the questions of who has the burden of proof (plaintiff or defendant), what that burden consists of (beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence), and the levels of mental culpability (intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence). On Thursday we will finally review the BDN article on Ormand Alley, and then go over O'Brien v. Hudock and the previously assigned pp. 1-15 of the text. We will also talk about the "Restatement"and types of authority. There is no additional assignment for Thursday 9/11 other than to review those materials, but you could, as time permits, read through p. 23 of the text.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/9, we finished our discussion of the Riley case. We went over the nature of the balancing test for reasonableness (limited to exceptions to the warrant requirement), alternative arguments by the governments that were short of a Robinson-type blanket exception, and then the overall rationale of the Court's reading of the 4th Amendment. We began looking at the textbook, and I reviewed the county District Attorney and state Attorney General positions. We will begin on Thursday with an illustration of our Maine system in which the Attorney General and Governor may hold different political perspectives. We will then go on Thursday to discuss Katz, previously assigned in the text. There is no additional assignment for Thursday 9/11 other than to review the text materials, but you could, as time permits, read through p. 475 of the text (Jones).
In class today, Tuesday 9/9, we finished off our discussion of the Haworth case. We went through the remainder of the defendants' contentions, and how the Court dealt with each one. We also talked about mistakes by the trial judge, the Feigons' attorney and Haworth's attorney. Along the way, we discussed the legal meaning of "privilege" and "malice", the questions of who has the burden of proof (plaintiff or defendant), what that burden consists of (beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence), and the levels of mental culpability (intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence). On Thursday we will finally review the BDN article on Ormand Alley, and then go over O'Brien v. Hudock and the previously assigned pp. 1-15 of the text. We will also talk about the "Restatement"and types of authority. There is no additional assignment for Thursday 9/11 other than to review those materials, but you could, as time permits, read through p. 23 of the text.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/9, we finished our discussion of the Riley case. We went over the nature of the balancing test for reasonableness (limited to exceptions to the warrant requirement), alternative arguments by the governments that were short of a Robinson-type blanket exception, and then the overall rationale of the Court's reading of the 4th Amendment. We began looking at the textbook, and I reviewed the county District Attorney and state Attorney General positions. We will begin on Thursday with an illustration of our Maine system in which the Attorney General and Governor may hold different political perspectives. We will then go on Thursday to discuss Katz, previously assigned in the text. There is no additional assignment for Thursday 9/11 other than to review the text materials, but you could, as time permits, read through p. 475 of the text (Jones).
Thursday, September 4, 2014
September 4, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today. Thursday 9/4 I distributed one handout, the engagement ring case of O'Brien v. Hudock. After I took pictures of the class we launched into our study of Haworth v. Feigon. We started by going over Maine case citation form (at least as it was before 1997), and the Maine and U.S. Supreme Court practice in terms of listing the order of the parties in the case name. We went through the parties in the case, the cause of action, and the prior proceedings. We got through the first three of the appellants' contentions, and we will pick up on Tuesday with the fourth contention, conditional privilege--I(C). Along the way, we also went over the concepts of questions of fact versus questions of law, the difference between a holding in the case versus dictum, and the state of Maine Court organization. The plan for Tuesday is to finish up with the Feigons' contentions, and then look at the BDN article about Coach Alley. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/9 is to read the O'Brien case, and to read pp. 1-15 of the text.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, 9/4 we began our discussion of the Riley case. We started with a review of the Chimel and Robinson cases that were the primary precedent to which the Court looked. I went over the votes in those two cases, and we saw how the differing results in the two cases made sense to only one Justice. We then looked at Section III of the opinion, looking at the the relationship between the "unreasonable" standard in the first part of the 4th Amendment and the warrant requirement in the second section. We discussed the value of a warrant, the various exceptions to the warrant requirement, and how the state interests in allowing warrantless searches need to be tethered to the interests listed in Chimel. We saw how the Court dealt with the state's two interests. Along the way we went over the difference between dictum and the holding of a case; common law versus enacted law; and the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We will pick up on Tuesday with Section III(B) of the Riley opinion. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/9 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 459-471 of the text.
In class today. Thursday 9/4 I distributed one handout, the engagement ring case of O'Brien v. Hudock. After I took pictures of the class we launched into our study of Haworth v. Feigon. We started by going over Maine case citation form (at least as it was before 1997), and the Maine and U.S. Supreme Court practice in terms of listing the order of the parties in the case name. We went through the parties in the case, the cause of action, and the prior proceedings. We got through the first three of the appellants' contentions, and we will pick up on Tuesday with the fourth contention, conditional privilege--I(C). Along the way, we also went over the concepts of questions of fact versus questions of law, the difference between a holding in the case versus dictum, and the state of Maine Court organization. The plan for Tuesday is to finish up with the Feigons' contentions, and then look at the BDN article about Coach Alley. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/9 is to read the O'Brien case, and to read pp. 1-15 of the text.
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, 9/4 we began our discussion of the Riley case. We started with a review of the Chimel and Robinson cases that were the primary precedent to which the Court looked. I went over the votes in those two cases, and we saw how the differing results in the two cases made sense to only one Justice. We then looked at Section III of the opinion, looking at the the relationship between the "unreasonable" standard in the first part of the 4th Amendment and the warrant requirement in the second section. We discussed the value of a warrant, the various exceptions to the warrant requirement, and how the state interests in allowing warrantless searches need to be tethered to the interests listed in Chimel. We saw how the Court dealt with the state's two interests. Along the way we went over the difference between dictum and the holding of a case; common law versus enacted law; and the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We will pick up on Tuesday with Section III(B) of the Riley opinion. The additional assignment for Tuesday 9/9 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 459-471 of the text.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
September 2, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/2 I distributed four handouts: the syllabus, an article from the Bangor Daily News about the Ormand Alley controversy, the Maine Supreme Court decision of Haworth v. Feigon, and some questions for you to consider as you read the BDN article and the Haworth case. We went over the Syllabus, and then the basics of the Alley situation. We specifically discussed the difference between enacted law versus common law, the burden of proof, the concept of causes of action, and the difference between criminal law and civil law. The assignment for Thursday 9/4 is to read all of the handouts, using the questions page to guide your reading of the Haworth opinion (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/2 I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, the Riley v. California U.S. Supreme Court opinion, and the format for making an outline for the Riley opinion. We went over the Syllabus, and then began a discussion of "Criminal Due Process". We went through the text of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, and also discussed the extension of these federal protections as state protections as well (through the 14th amendment). I introduced the situation of the Riley and Wurie cases and gave a brief overview of the outline format that I'm looking for. The assignment for Thursday 9/4 is to read Riley and try your hand at outlining the case (not handed in or graded).
In class today, Tuesday 9/2 I distributed four handouts: the syllabus, an article from the Bangor Daily News about the Ormand Alley controversy, the Maine Supreme Court decision of Haworth v. Feigon, and some questions for you to consider as you read the BDN article and the Haworth case. We went over the Syllabus, and then the basics of the Alley situation. We specifically discussed the difference between enacted law versus common law, the burden of proof, the concept of causes of action, and the difference between criminal law and civil law. The assignment for Thursday 9/4 is to read all of the handouts, using the questions page to guide your reading of the Haworth opinion (not handed in or graded).
POS 484 CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
In class today, Tuesday 9/2 I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, the Riley v. California U.S. Supreme Court opinion, and the format for making an outline for the Riley opinion. We went over the Syllabus, and then began a discussion of "Criminal Due Process". We went through the text of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, and also discussed the extension of these federal protections as state protections as well (through the 14th amendment). I introduced the situation of the Riley and Wurie cases and gave a brief overview of the outline format that I'm looking for. The assignment for Thursday 9/4 is to read Riley and try your hand at outlining the case (not handed in or graded).
Friday, May 2, 2014
May 2. 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 5/2, I first reminded the class that the exam will be Wednesday from 9:00-10:00. If you are missing any handouts, you must email me with what you need by Tuesday evening. We then started discussing the concept of personal jurisdiction. We discussed domicile and service of process. We then went over Robey v. Hinners, going through both the preliminary question of whether the issue of personal jurisdiction could still be raised, and then the substantive question of whether Hinners' contact with Kentucky were sufficient to allow the Kentucky Court system to assert jurisdiction over Hinners. (By the way, Kentucky and Missouri do share a land border.) Along the way, we also discussed conflict of law rules, full faith and credit, statutes of limitation, and federal diversity jurisdiction. See you Wednesday at 9:00.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 5/2, I first reminded the class that the exam will be Wednesday from 10:30-11:30. If you are missing any handouts, you must email me with what you need by Tuesday evening. I collected the Drake papers, and I plan to return them on Wednesday. We then talked about how the case should come out (assuming that the Court grants cert, something that's on their agenda to try to decide again today). The class was almost unanimous that the N.J. law should be ruled unconstitutional, given Heller's language about the right to self-defense. See you Wednesday at 10:30.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 5/2, I went over the recent 4th Amendment case of Navarette v. California, which allowed the use of an anonymous tip as providing reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. I also briefly discussed this week's opinion in EPA v. Homer City, which endorsed the power of the EPA to come up with a formula regarding emissions that travel from state to state, even in the absence of Congressional language that would allow such a formula. I hope that you have a good summer, and will continue to follow the exploits of the Court.
In class today, Friday 5/2, I first reminded the class that the exam will be Wednesday from 9:00-10:00. If you are missing any handouts, you must email me with what you need by Tuesday evening. We then started discussing the concept of personal jurisdiction. We discussed domicile and service of process. We then went over Robey v. Hinners, going through both the preliminary question of whether the issue of personal jurisdiction could still be raised, and then the substantive question of whether Hinners' contact with Kentucky were sufficient to allow the Kentucky Court system to assert jurisdiction over Hinners. (By the way, Kentucky and Missouri do share a land border.) Along the way, we also discussed conflict of law rules, full faith and credit, statutes of limitation, and federal diversity jurisdiction. See you Wednesday at 9:00.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 5/2, I first reminded the class that the exam will be Wednesday from 10:30-11:30. If you are missing any handouts, you must email me with what you need by Tuesday evening. I collected the Drake papers, and I plan to return them on Wednesday. We then talked about how the case should come out (assuming that the Court grants cert, something that's on their agenda to try to decide again today). The class was almost unanimous that the N.J. law should be ruled unconstitutional, given Heller's language about the right to self-defense. See you Wednesday at 10:30.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 5/2, I went over the recent 4th Amendment case of Navarette v. California, which allowed the use of an anonymous tip as providing reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. I also briefly discussed this week's opinion in EPA v. Homer City, which endorsed the power of the EPA to come up with a formula regarding emissions that travel from state to state, even in the absence of Congressional language that would allow such a formula. I hope that you have a good summer, and will continue to follow the exploits of the Court.
Monday, April 28, 2014
April 28, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/28, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding adoption, and gender-neutrality. I first emphasized one point from the case that we did last week (Land), the fact that the state Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court stand in different shoes regarding the ability to change or clarify the state's conflict of law rules. We then looked at the text of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and how that clause has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. We went over Finstuen v. Crutcher and the Maine adoption statute that I handed out. I also discussed a 5th Circuit case, Adar v. Smith, that allowed Louisiana to not issue a new birth certificate in circumstances very similar to those in the Oklahoma case. There is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/2 is to read in the text pp. 128-134 Robey v. Hiners. In addition, the class agreed that our exam #2 (Wednesday 5/7) will be from 9:00-9:50, and not starting at 8:00 as listed on the finals schedule.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/28, we finished up our discussion of the Drake Reply Brief. I also clarified that the paper can take the form of either a side-by-side chart, or just a clash-by-clash narrative. I also reminded the class that our exam #2 will be on Wednesday 5/7 (finals week) but will not be a comprehensive final. The exam will not be two hours, but rather a class period (or up to an hour if needed). There is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/2 is to finish up your Drake papers, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/28, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I then went over two cases which will be argued tomorrow, Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie. Both cases involve the right of police to search the contents of a cell phone incident to an arrest. There is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/2 is to show up for our last class.
In class today, Monday 4/28, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding adoption, and gender-neutrality. I first emphasized one point from the case that we did last week (Land), the fact that the state Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court stand in different shoes regarding the ability to change or clarify the state's conflict of law rules. We then looked at the text of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and how that clause has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. We went over Finstuen v. Crutcher and the Maine adoption statute that I handed out. I also discussed a 5th Circuit case, Adar v. Smith, that allowed Louisiana to not issue a new birth certificate in circumstances very similar to those in the Oklahoma case. There is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/2 is to read in the text pp. 128-134 Robey v. Hiners. In addition, the class agreed that our exam #2 (Wednesday 5/7) will be from 9:00-9:50, and not starting at 8:00 as listed on the finals schedule.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/28, we finished up our discussion of the Drake Reply Brief. I also clarified that the paper can take the form of either a side-by-side chart, or just a clash-by-clash narrative. I also reminded the class that our exam #2 will be on Wednesday 5/7 (finals week) but will not be a comprehensive final. The exam will not be two hours, but rather a class period (or up to an hour if needed). There is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/2 is to finish up your Drake papers, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/28, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I then went over two cases which will be argued tomorrow, Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie. Both cases involve the right of police to search the contents of a cell phone incident to an arrest. There is no class on Wednesday (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/2 is to show up for our last class.
Friday, April 25, 2014
April 25, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today Friday 4/25, I distributed one handout, the federal statutes governing jurisdiction in the federal court system. We talked about the Land case being brought in Indiana, and how, under the Erie doctrine, both state and federal courts in Indiana would be using the Indiana conflict of law rules. We discussed the Indiana Statute of Repose, and contrasted that to the usual Statute of Limitations. We then went over the Court of Appeals process in following the rule created in Hubbard v.Greeson. Finally, we discussed this case in terms of good or bad lawyering. On Monday I want to begin with one further aspect of this decision, the question of which court has the power to clarify or change the decision in Hubbard. The assignment for Monday 4/28 is to finish Chapter III of text, Finstuen v. Crutcher (pp. 115-118).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday 4/25, I first reminded the class that the revised due date for the Drake assignment is May 2nd. We finished our review of the New Jersey BIO, going over the section in which they argued that there's no split in the circuits, specifically no clash with the 9th Circuit's Peruta decision. We then turned to the Drake Reply Brief. We're going through as we would in making an outline, trying to discern the point of each paragraph and how that point fits into the larger argument. We will pick up with that paragraph by paragraph analysis at ¶8. The assignment for Monday 4/28 is to continue work on your Drake paper, and to review the Reply Brief, trying to get the sense of the argument in each paragraph.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today Friday 4/25, the class took the exam. I will hand the exam back on Monday, and then we'll go on to some more current cases in the Court. The assignment for Monday 4/28 is to show up for class.
In class today Friday 4/25, I distributed one handout, the federal statutes governing jurisdiction in the federal court system. We talked about the Land case being brought in Indiana, and how, under the Erie doctrine, both state and federal courts in Indiana would be using the Indiana conflict of law rules. We discussed the Indiana Statute of Repose, and contrasted that to the usual Statute of Limitations. We then went over the Court of Appeals process in following the rule created in Hubbard v.Greeson. Finally, we discussed this case in terms of good or bad lawyering. On Monday I want to begin with one further aspect of this decision, the question of which court has the power to clarify or change the decision in Hubbard. The assignment for Monday 4/28 is to finish Chapter III of text, Finstuen v. Crutcher (pp. 115-118).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday 4/25, I first reminded the class that the revised due date for the Drake assignment is May 2nd. We finished our review of the New Jersey BIO, going over the section in which they argued that there's no split in the circuits, specifically no clash with the 9th Circuit's Peruta decision. We then turned to the Drake Reply Brief. We're going through as we would in making an outline, trying to discern the point of each paragraph and how that point fits into the larger argument. We will pick up with that paragraph by paragraph analysis at ¶8. The assignment for Monday 4/28 is to continue work on your Drake paper, and to review the Reply Brief, trying to get the sense of the argument in each paragraph.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today Friday 4/25, the class took the exam. I will hand the exam back on Monday, and then we'll go on to some more current cases in the Court. The assignment for Monday 4/28 is to show up for class.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
April 23, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/23, I first finished the discussion of Collins v. Trius. We then went over Hubbard v. Greeson. We covered all elements of the case brief for that case, and along the way we talked about the relationship of common law to statutes, the challenges faced by Greeson's lawyer in deciding which states' law would be better for Greeson's case, and then where to bring suit in order to get the better law to apply. We also talked about wrongful death statutes, treatment of precedent, and the two-step process created by the Court. The assignment for Friday 4/25 is to read in the text pp. 145-147. The assigned case, Land v. Yamaha, takes the conflict of law rule created in Hubbard, and applies it in the setting of a federal court. We'll talk about federal court jurisdiction, and what law a federal court applies.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/23, we had the treat of having Shenna Bellows, former Executive Director of the ACLU of Maine, address the class. She discussed many topics, including some history of the ACLU, the Patriot Act, NSA metadata collection, anonymous speech, abortion clinic access, campaign finance, and Fourth Amendment cell phone data searches. (She covered more in one class than I do in one semester.) Now that we've glimpsed the forest, we'll return to the trees: the assignment for Friday 4/25 is continue your work on the Drake assignment (due May 2nd) and to review the previously assigned BIO and Reply Brief.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/23, I first clarified a question about Friday's exam: the exam will cover not only the current cases that I listed on Wednesday, but also the precedent relied on by the Court or the parties regarding the proper disposition of the current case. So, for example, the case of Schuette v. BAMN, discussed again today, incorporates the previous Hunter, Seattle, and Romer cases that we discussed in conjunction with Schuette. We spent the class going over the four opinions in yesterday's decision in Schuette, in which no majority emerged. We'll have the exam on Friday, go over the exam and then additional cases on Monday and the Friday of next week (no classes on Wednesday because of Maine Day).
In class today, Wednesday 4/23, I first finished the discussion of Collins v. Trius. We then went over Hubbard v. Greeson. We covered all elements of the case brief for that case, and along the way we talked about the relationship of common law to statutes, the challenges faced by Greeson's lawyer in deciding which states' law would be better for Greeson's case, and then where to bring suit in order to get the better law to apply. We also talked about wrongful death statutes, treatment of precedent, and the two-step process created by the Court. The assignment for Friday 4/25 is to read in the text pp. 145-147. The assigned case, Land v. Yamaha, takes the conflict of law rule created in Hubbard, and applies it in the setting of a federal court. We'll talk about federal court jurisdiction, and what law a federal court applies.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/23, we had the treat of having Shenna Bellows, former Executive Director of the ACLU of Maine, address the class. She discussed many topics, including some history of the ACLU, the Patriot Act, NSA metadata collection, anonymous speech, abortion clinic access, campaign finance, and Fourth Amendment cell phone data searches. (She covered more in one class than I do in one semester.) Now that we've glimpsed the forest, we'll return to the trees: the assignment for Friday 4/25 is continue your work on the Drake assignment (due May 2nd) and to review the previously assigned BIO and Reply Brief.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/23, I first clarified a question about Friday's exam: the exam will cover not only the current cases that I listed on Wednesday, but also the precedent relied on by the Court or the parties regarding the proper disposition of the current case. So, for example, the case of Schuette v. BAMN, discussed again today, incorporates the previous Hunter, Seattle, and Romer cases that we discussed in conjunction with Schuette. We spent the class going over the four opinions in yesterday's decision in Schuette, in which no majority emerged. We'll have the exam on Friday, go over the exam and then additional cases on Monday and the Friday of next week (no classes on Wednesday because of Maine Day).
Monday, April 21, 2014
April 21, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/21, I distributed two handouts, the Jeremiah T. comment key, and five Jeremiah T. hypotheticals, as well as returning the class's Jeremiah T. case briefs. We went over the case brief, and the five hypotheticals. Along the way I also discussed another guardianship case, Guardianship of David C., that addressed questions of whether the reason for the creation of the guardianship (consent or otherwise) matters in terms of burden of proof, and how the two burdens of proof (the statutory one and the constitutional one) coexist. We will pick up with conflict of laws on Wednesday with the finish of Collins v. Trius. The assignment for Wednesday 4/23 is to review Hubbard v. Greeson (previously assigned) and to ask yourself how good a job the lawyer for widow Greeson did in making the litigation choices in the case.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/21, I first made some changes to Assignment #2: first, the due date for the assignment is changed from Monday 4/28 to Friday 5/2; second, the page length for the paper is increased to 6 pages. I distributed one handout, a news report of the militia standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, which has apparently ended with the federal government backing down. We talked about the role of citizen's militias in the Heller decision, and whether things would have looked the same in New Jersey. We went back to the New Jersey BIO, discussing the evidence offered to demonstrate a reasonable fit, as well as appeals to history, consensus, and common sense. We began the final section of the BIO, which argues that there really is no clash between the 9th Circuit decision in Peruta and the 3rd Circuit decision here. That's where we'll pick up on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/25 is to review that final section of the BIO, and the Drake Reply Brief, and to continue work on the assignment. On Wednesday 4/23, Shenna Bellows will talk to our class about Civil Liberties. Please come to class on time.
POS359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/21, I first went over the cases and materials that will be covered on Friday's exam. I then finished our discussion of the U.A.R.G. v. EPA case, emphasizing the questions that Justice Kennedy posed to both sides in the oral argument. I reached back to the case we started a long time ago, but never finished, Schuette v. BAMN. This case addressed the constitutionality of an amendment to the Michigan constitution that outlawed any affirmative action in the state. We went over three prior Supreme Court cases with similar setups (the majority putting a political goal beyond the reach of a minority). The assignment for Wednesday 4/23 is to show up for class.
In class today, Monday 4/21, I distributed two handouts, the Jeremiah T. comment key, and five Jeremiah T. hypotheticals, as well as returning the class's Jeremiah T. case briefs. We went over the case brief, and the five hypotheticals. Along the way I also discussed another guardianship case, Guardianship of David C., that addressed questions of whether the reason for the creation of the guardianship (consent or otherwise) matters in terms of burden of proof, and how the two burdens of proof (the statutory one and the constitutional one) coexist. We will pick up with conflict of laws on Wednesday with the finish of Collins v. Trius. The assignment for Wednesday 4/23 is to review Hubbard v. Greeson (previously assigned) and to ask yourself how good a job the lawyer for widow Greeson did in making the litigation choices in the case.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/21, I first made some changes to Assignment #2: first, the due date for the assignment is changed from Monday 4/28 to Friday 5/2; second, the page length for the paper is increased to 6 pages. I distributed one handout, a news report of the militia standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management, which has apparently ended with the federal government backing down. We talked about the role of citizen's militias in the Heller decision, and whether things would have looked the same in New Jersey. We went back to the New Jersey BIO, discussing the evidence offered to demonstrate a reasonable fit, as well as appeals to history, consensus, and common sense. We began the final section of the BIO, which argues that there really is no clash between the 9th Circuit decision in Peruta and the 3rd Circuit decision here. That's where we'll pick up on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/25 is to review that final section of the BIO, and the Drake Reply Brief, and to continue work on the assignment. On Wednesday 4/23, Shenna Bellows will talk to our class about Civil Liberties. Please come to class on time.
POS359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/21, I first went over the cases and materials that will be covered on Friday's exam. I then finished our discussion of the U.A.R.G. v. EPA case, emphasizing the questions that Justice Kennedy posed to both sides in the oral argument. I reached back to the case we started a long time ago, but never finished, Schuette v. BAMN. This case addressed the constitutionality of an amendment to the Michigan constitution that outlawed any affirmative action in the state. We went over three prior Supreme Court cases with similar setups (the majority putting a political goal beyond the reach of a minority). The assignment for Wednesday 4/23 is to show up for class.
Friday, April 18, 2014
April 18, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today Friday, 4/18, I distributed one handout, my version of the Jeremiah T. brief. I collected the case briefs, and plan to return them on Monday. We went over them, getting basically through the main issues in the case. We have a few stray issues to clean up, including the holdings themselves, the disposition, the use of the 13 factors, the relationship between best interest and fundamental right to parent, and the "other" constitutional question. We will start with those on Monday, and then go back to Conflict of Laws and finish the Collins v. Trius bus accident case. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to read through p. 114 of the text, Hubbard v. Greeson.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday, 4/18, I distributed two handouts: the Drake Reply Brief, and Assignment #2, reproduced below. We went over the assignment, which is due Monday 4/28 (not Friday 4/25, as previously planned). I also announced that we'll have a guest speaker on Wednesday 4/23, Shenna Bellows, who was until recently the leader of the ACLU of Maine. She arguably knows more about Civil Liberties in Maine than anyone else, and she's a great speaker. We then continued going over the N.J. Brief in Opposition to the cert petition. We talked about the characterization of the "longstanding" presumption (is it an "exception"?); about the actual history of the N.J. laws since 1905; about the definition of "longstanding" and its relationship to founding-era originalism; and the deference due to legislative judgments about the fit between "justifiable need" restrictions and public safety. We'll pick up at that point on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to review the rest of the Jerejian BIO, to read the Drake Reply Brief, and to begin work on the assignment.
Assignment #2 Due Monday, April 28th.
For this assignment, I’m asking you for two sections (numbered I and II).
First, I would like you to make a Jerejian v. Drake chart of the Drake cert petition briefs. Using your own words, identify each position in which there’s a clash between the Jerejian Brief In Opposition, and the Drake’s Reply Brief. (Drake’s Reply Brief has a more complete outline structure than Jerejian’s BIO, though, so use that Reply Brief outline structure as your organizing outline.)
You need to go into the details of each position. It’s not sufficient to just include the ultimate conclusary positions: (“Jerejian: the N.J. “justifiable need” standard has a reasonable fit with the state’s interest in public safety. Drake: No it doesn’t.”). You need to include the trench fighting of the sub-parts of each contention. You should be listing such propositions as the characterization of the severity of the N.J. permitting regime; the characterization of the Third Circuit’s assumption of the Second Amendment’s application out side the home; the role of evidence in the determination of fit; etc. Each segment should briefly state the proposition, and its basic justification.
Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for:
Jerejian:
1. There’s no need for N.J. to produce evidence that the justifiable need standard promotes public safety, because common sense itself is sufficient to demonstrate the connection between fewer guns and more safety.
Drake:
1. There is need for N.J. to produce this evidence, because when a constitutional right is being infringed, common sense is insufficient; specific evidence must be submitted. Anything less does not satisfy intermediate scrutiny.
Second, give (and explain) your own opinion about who should win this case (assume for this section that the Supreme Court will grant the cert petition). You have to take Heller as a given. Does the N.J. law infringe on rights explained in Heller, or does that law exist fine within Heller’s rules? The explanation of your conclusion is the point of the assignment.
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather 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 3 to 5 pages.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. 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 Monday 4/28, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Don’t look at other student’s outlines, and don’t show your outline to anyone. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today Friday, 4/18, we talked about U.A.R.G. v. EPA. This case raises the question of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. We first talked about the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and the problem of climate change. We went over the 2007 Mass. v. EPA case and the 2009 EPA regulation of light trucks for their greenhouse gas emissions. We saw how that triggered EPA regulation of stationary sources as well. We looked at the structure of the Clean Air Act, and how the various titles of the Act interact. We talked about PSD, BACT, NAAQS, and NSPS. We left off by talking about some part of the oral argument in the case. I want to continue on Monday with a look specifically at Kennedy's participation in the oral argument. From there we'll go on the other cases before the Court. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to show up for class.
In class today Friday, 4/18, I distributed one handout, my version of the Jeremiah T. brief. I collected the case briefs, and plan to return them on Monday. We went over them, getting basically through the main issues in the case. We have a few stray issues to clean up, including the holdings themselves, the disposition, the use of the 13 factors, the relationship between best interest and fundamental right to parent, and the "other" constitutional question. We will start with those on Monday, and then go back to Conflict of Laws and finish the Collins v. Trius bus accident case. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to read through p. 114 of the text, Hubbard v. Greeson.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today Friday, 4/18, I distributed two handouts: the Drake Reply Brief, and Assignment #2, reproduced below. We went over the assignment, which is due Monday 4/28 (not Friday 4/25, as previously planned). I also announced that we'll have a guest speaker on Wednesday 4/23, Shenna Bellows, who was until recently the leader of the ACLU of Maine. She arguably knows more about Civil Liberties in Maine than anyone else, and she's a great speaker. We then continued going over the N.J. Brief in Opposition to the cert petition. We talked about the characterization of the "longstanding" presumption (is it an "exception"?); about the actual history of the N.J. laws since 1905; about the definition of "longstanding" and its relationship to founding-era originalism; and the deference due to legislative judgments about the fit between "justifiable need" restrictions and public safety. We'll pick up at that point on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to review the rest of the Jerejian BIO, to read the Drake Reply Brief, and to begin work on the assignment.
Assignment #2 Due Monday, April 28th.
For this assignment, I’m asking you for two sections (numbered I and II).
First, I would like you to make a Jerejian v. Drake chart of the Drake cert petition briefs. Using your own words, identify each position in which there’s a clash between the Jerejian Brief In Opposition, and the Drake’s Reply Brief. (Drake’s Reply Brief has a more complete outline structure than Jerejian’s BIO, though, so use that Reply Brief outline structure as your organizing outline.)
You need to go into the details of each position. It’s not sufficient to just include the ultimate conclusary positions: (“Jerejian: the N.J. “justifiable need” standard has a reasonable fit with the state’s interest in public safety. Drake: No it doesn’t.”). You need to include the trench fighting of the sub-parts of each contention. You should be listing such propositions as the characterization of the severity of the N.J. permitting regime; the characterization of the Third Circuit’s assumption of the Second Amendment’s application out side the home; the role of evidence in the determination of fit; etc. Each segment should briefly state the proposition, and its basic justification.
Here’s an (inaccurate) example of what I’m looking for:
Jerejian:
1. There’s no need for N.J. to produce evidence that the justifiable need standard promotes public safety, because common sense itself is sufficient to demonstrate the connection between fewer guns and more safety.
Drake:
1. There is need for N.J. to produce this evidence, because when a constitutional right is being infringed, common sense is insufficient; specific evidence must be submitted. Anything less does not satisfy intermediate scrutiny.
Second, give (and explain) your own opinion about who should win this case (assume for this section that the Supreme Court will grant the cert petition). You have to take Heller as a given. Does the N.J. law infringe on rights explained in Heller, or does that law exist fine within Heller’s rules? The explanation of your conclusion is the point of the assignment.
Your papers will not be graded on which view of the issues you take, but rather 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 3 to 5 pages.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. 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 Monday 4/28, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment 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.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Don’t look at other student’s outlines, and don’t show your outline to anyone. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today Friday, 4/18, we talked about U.A.R.G. v. EPA. This case raises the question of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. We first talked about the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and the problem of climate change. We went over the 2007 Mass. v. EPA case and the 2009 EPA regulation of light trucks for their greenhouse gas emissions. We saw how that triggered EPA regulation of stationary sources as well. We looked at the structure of the Clean Air Act, and how the various titles of the Act interact. We talked about PSD, BACT, NAAQS, and NSPS. We left off by talking about some part of the oral argument in the case. I want to continue on Monday with a look specifically at Kennedy's participation in the oral argument. From there we'll go on the other cases before the Court. The assignment for Monday 4/21 is to show up for class.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
April 16, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/16, we first finished up the Strunk case. We went over the levels of courts in Kentucky, and which of those have the theoretical power to order this organ transplant. We constructed the legal issue in the case, with special emphasis on the key facts that led the majority to conclude that the transplant was allowed under the facts of this case. We went over the dissenting opinion, and how the dissenting judges did not seem to disagree that the transplant could be ordered under appropriate circumstances. Then I started our discussion about conflict of law rules. We talked about the general theory of when courts of one state might apply the substantive law of another state. I then began a discussion of the Maine Supreme Court case of Collins v. Trius, the Canadian bus full of shoppers that had an accident in Maine. We went over which states might have power to hear the case, and the differences in substantive law between Maine and Canada in terms of pain and suffering damages. We talked about Maine's adoption of the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, and we will pick up with the factors that Maine adopted in deciding which state has the more significant contacts with a motor vehicle accident. The assignment for Friday 4/18 is to finish up your Jeremiah T.brief, previously assigned. If you have finished work on the case brief, you can read in the text through p. 114, Hubbard.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/16, I distributed one handout, an account of the alleged KKK shooter in Kansas. We talked about the constitutional protections for him, both in terms of free speech, and in terms of gun possession. We then returned to the Drake Brief in Opposition (BIO). We reviewed the District Court's holdings, and then compared them with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals holdings. We looked also at the Third Circuit dissent. We started into the argument of the BIO, concentrating on its quotation of Scalia's Heller limitations section. The assignment for Friday 4/18 is to finish the BIO. Also on Friday, I plan to distribute the next written assignment.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/16, I first confirmed that our test will be Friday 4/25. We finished going over the McCutcheon decision. We discussed qui-pro-quo corruption, as well as other forms of things that money can buy. On Friday, I'll talk about something other than McCutcheon. The assignment for Friday 4/18 is to show up for class.
In class today, Wednesday 4/16, we first finished up the Strunk case. We went over the levels of courts in Kentucky, and which of those have the theoretical power to order this organ transplant. We constructed the legal issue in the case, with special emphasis on the key facts that led the majority to conclude that the transplant was allowed under the facts of this case. We went over the dissenting opinion, and how the dissenting judges did not seem to disagree that the transplant could be ordered under appropriate circumstances. Then I started our discussion about conflict of law rules. We talked about the general theory of when courts of one state might apply the substantive law of another state. I then began a discussion of the Maine Supreme Court case of Collins v. Trius, the Canadian bus full of shoppers that had an accident in Maine. We went over which states might have power to hear the case, and the differences in substantive law between Maine and Canada in terms of pain and suffering damages. We talked about Maine's adoption of the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, and we will pick up with the factors that Maine adopted in deciding which state has the more significant contacts with a motor vehicle accident. The assignment for Friday 4/18 is to finish up your Jeremiah T.brief, previously assigned. If you have finished work on the case brief, you can read in the text through p. 114, Hubbard.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/16, I distributed one handout, an account of the alleged KKK shooter in Kansas. We talked about the constitutional protections for him, both in terms of free speech, and in terms of gun possession. We then returned to the Drake Brief in Opposition (BIO). We reviewed the District Court's holdings, and then compared them with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals holdings. We looked also at the Third Circuit dissent. We started into the argument of the BIO, concentrating on its quotation of Scalia's Heller limitations section. The assignment for Friday 4/18 is to finish the BIO. Also on Friday, I plan to distribute the next written assignment.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/16, I first confirmed that our test will be Friday 4/25. We finished going over the McCutcheon decision. We discussed qui-pro-quo corruption, as well as other forms of things that money can buy. On Friday, I'll talk about something other than McCutcheon. The assignment for Friday 4/18 is to show up for class.
Monday, April 14, 2014
April 14, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/14, we first went over some aspects of the Jeremiah T. case and assignment. We discussed the set-up (beginning) part of the case brief (through prior proceedings), which also laid out the kind of questions that need to be included in the substantive part of the brief (contentions, issues, facts, holding). We also talked about the issues that the Court did not resolve. We then started our discussion of Strunk v. Strunk, getting through the cause of action. We will pick up at that point on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 4/16 is to continue working on your Jeremiah T. brief, and to review Strunk.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/14, I distributed one handout, Maine laws regarding open carry (when carried in a "threatening manner") and concealed handguns, and we then discussed those statutes and contrasted them with New Jersey law. We then went back to the Drake case, going through the District Court's decision. We will pick up with paragraph 6 of the Statement on Wednesday (the Third Circuit opinion). The assignment for Wednesday 4/16 to to review both the remainder of the "Statement" of the case and Part I of the argument.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/14, I first returned the Free Exercise papers. I then picked up with the campaign finance story starting with the infusion of soft money after the Buckley v. Valeo decision. We talked about the 2002 BRCA (McCain-Feingold) law. We went over 2003 McConnell v. FEC, 2006 Alito's appointment to the Court, 2007 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 2008 Davis v. FEC, 2010 Citizen's United v. FEC, 2011 McComish v. Bennett, and 2012 Western Tradition . Montana. We will pick up with the story of the McCutcheon decision on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 4/14 is to show up for class.
In class today, Monday 4/14, we first went over some aspects of the Jeremiah T. case and assignment. We discussed the set-up (beginning) part of the case brief (through prior proceedings), which also laid out the kind of questions that need to be included in the substantive part of the brief (contentions, issues, facts, holding). We also talked about the issues that the Court did not resolve. We then started our discussion of Strunk v. Strunk, getting through the cause of action. We will pick up at that point on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 4/16 is to continue working on your Jeremiah T. brief, and to review Strunk.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/14, I distributed one handout, Maine laws regarding open carry (when carried in a "threatening manner") and concealed handguns, and we then discussed those statutes and contrasted them with New Jersey law. We then went back to the Drake case, going through the District Court's decision. We will pick up with paragraph 6 of the Statement on Wednesday (the Third Circuit opinion). The assignment for Wednesday 4/16 to to review both the remainder of the "Statement" of the case and Part I of the argument.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/14, I first returned the Free Exercise papers. I then picked up with the campaign finance story starting with the infusion of soft money after the Buckley v. Valeo decision. We talked about the 2002 BRCA (McCain-Feingold) law. We went over 2003 McConnell v. FEC, 2006 Alito's appointment to the Court, 2007 FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 2008 Davis v. FEC, 2010 Citizen's United v. FEC, 2011 McComish v. Bennett, and 2012 Western Tradition . Montana. We will pick up with the story of the McCutcheon decision on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 4/14 is to show up for class.
Friday, April 11, 2014
April 11, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/11, I distributed two handouts: the second briefing assignment (copied below) and the case you'll be briefing, Guardianship of Jeremiah T. If you weren't in class for the handout of the case, you can also access it by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion site, going to 2009 opinions, and going to case #74. We then discussed the assignment, and the background of the issues. I also mentioned the difference between a guardian and a guardian ad litem. We then went through the Butler case. We talked about the difference between using a statement in the case in chief versus using that statement for impeachment. We discussed the retroactive application of the 1966 Miranda decision, and then looked at language from the Miranda opinion itself that seemed to dictate a result in this case. We looked at how the majority and dissent differed in their views about whether the dictum from Miranda should be followed. Finally I talked about Harris v. N.Y. the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that settled this issue for the whole country. The assignment for Monday 4/14 is to review Strunk (previously assigned) and to begin work on the Jeremiah T. case brief. At the least, read the case for Monday.
Assignment due Friday April 18, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, 976 A.2d 955.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything 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 4/18, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else. Do not look at anyone else’s work.
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, Friday 4/11,we started with the final two paragraphs of the Scalia handout, exploring why the individual right isn't limited to muskets, and the problems of how you fight off the tyranny of the federal government tanks and planes with weapons that aren't dangerous or unusual. We then talked about the two dissents in the case, one of which was basically water under the bridge (is there an individual right) and the other was the opening salvo in the upcoming Second Amendment battles (what's the level of scrutiny). We turned to the Drake Petition in Opposition, and went through New Jersey's set of cards, handgun possession permits, and handgun carry permits. We will pick up at that point on Monday. The additional assignment for Monday 4/14 is to read through Part I of the Argument in the Drake Brief in Opposition, through p. 7.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 4/11, I collected the Free Exercise papers, and we went over your thoughts about how these questions should be resolved. On Monday, 4/14, I plan to return the papers. Then on Monday we will continue our discussion about the McCutcheon decision, picking up with the post-Buckley era of Supreme Court decisions and the legislative response.
In class today, Friday 4/11, I distributed two handouts: the second briefing assignment (copied below) and the case you'll be briefing, Guardianship of Jeremiah T. If you weren't in class for the handout of the case, you can also access it by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion site, going to 2009 opinions, and going to case #74. We then discussed the assignment, and the background of the issues. I also mentioned the difference between a guardian and a guardian ad litem. We then went through the Butler case. We talked about the difference between using a statement in the case in chief versus using that statement for impeachment. We discussed the retroactive application of the 1966 Miranda decision, and then looked at language from the Miranda opinion itself that seemed to dictate a result in this case. We looked at how the majority and dissent differed in their views about whether the dictum from Miranda should be followed. Finally I talked about Harris v. N.Y. the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that settled this issue for the whole country. The assignment for Monday 4/14 is to review Strunk (previously assigned) and to begin work on the Jeremiah T. case brief. At the least, read the case for Monday.
Assignment due Friday April 18, 2014
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, 976 A.2d 955.
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything 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 4/18, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else. Do not look at anyone else’s work.
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, Friday 4/11,we started with the final two paragraphs of the Scalia handout, exploring why the individual right isn't limited to muskets, and the problems of how you fight off the tyranny of the federal government tanks and planes with weapons that aren't dangerous or unusual. We then talked about the two dissents in the case, one of which was basically water under the bridge (is there an individual right) and the other was the opening salvo in the upcoming Second Amendment battles (what's the level of scrutiny). We turned to the Drake Petition in Opposition, and went through New Jersey's set of cards, handgun possession permits, and handgun carry permits. We will pick up at that point on Monday. The additional assignment for Monday 4/14 is to read through Part I of the Argument in the Drake Brief in Opposition, through p. 7.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 4/11, I collected the Free Exercise papers, and we went over your thoughts about how these questions should be resolved. On Monday, 4/14, I plan to return the papers. Then on Monday we will continue our discussion about the McCutcheon decision, picking up with the post-Buckley era of Supreme Court decisions and the legislative response.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
April 9, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/9, we began by going over the Gonzales v. Raich dissent. We went back to Part V of the Stevens opinion, in which he sent the substantive due process claim and the medical necessity defense back to the Court of Appeals. We discussed Raich v. Gonzales, the Court of Appeals decision on remand that dealt with those two issues. We also talked about how, given the Court's upholding of Congressional interstate commerce power, there still are openly operating marijuana dispensaries. We the went over the 2012 Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether Congress' power over interstate commerce allowed it to impose the individual mandate to be covered by health insurance. We looked at the different views on the Court about this, and we also discussed it in terms of holdings and dictum. We talked about federal supremacy, and about ex post facto prohibitions. We will begin with the Butler case (p.103) on Friday. The additional assignment for Friday 4/11 is to read in the text pp. 108-112 (Strunk) (skipping over Dempsey, p. 106, as it's too hard to follow).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/9, I distributed three handouts: the questions presented in the Drake cert petition, an op-ed piece about the Drake case, and New Jersey's Brief in Opposition to the Cert Petition. I first mentioned my plan to assign the second paper on 4/18, to be due 4/25 (tentative). We talked about the policies involved in gun control in light of today's school stabbings in Pennsylvania. We discussed the Drake Cert Petition, including the process of granting cert, the New Jersey law at issue, and picking a good plaintiff. We looked at Scalia's statement in Heller about prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons, and discussed what that statement might mean. The assignment for Friday 4/11 is to read the handouts regarding questions presented, the op-ed piece, and pp. 1-4 (at least) of the Opposition to the Cert Petition.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/9, I first clarified that, for the six specific prohibitions that are a part of the Free Exercise assignment, all those laws (including the one against kosher and halal butchering) are written as laws of general applicability. They do not name and single out any specific religious practice as being prohibited. I then started talking about the background to the recent McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court decision. I went over the 1907 Tillman Act and how some corporations welcomed it. We talked about the first disclosure laws. We went over the 1971 FECA, and then Watergate in 1972, and the 1974 amendments. We finished with the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo. That case differentiated contribution limits (constitutional,and subject to intermediate scrutiny) from spending limits (subject to strict scrutiny, and unconstitutional). We will continue on from there on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/11 is to finish up work on your Free Exercise paper, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
In class today, Wednesday 4/9, we began by going over the Gonzales v. Raich dissent. We went back to Part V of the Stevens opinion, in which he sent the substantive due process claim and the medical necessity defense back to the Court of Appeals. We discussed Raich v. Gonzales, the Court of Appeals decision on remand that dealt with those two issues. We also talked about how, given the Court's upholding of Congressional interstate commerce power, there still are openly operating marijuana dispensaries. We the went over the 2012 Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether Congress' power over interstate commerce allowed it to impose the individual mandate to be covered by health insurance. We looked at the different views on the Court about this, and we also discussed it in terms of holdings and dictum. We talked about federal supremacy, and about ex post facto prohibitions. We will begin with the Butler case (p.103) on Friday. The additional assignment for Friday 4/11 is to read in the text pp. 108-112 (Strunk) (skipping over Dempsey, p. 106, as it's too hard to follow).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/9, I distributed three handouts: the questions presented in the Drake cert petition, an op-ed piece about the Drake case, and New Jersey's Brief in Opposition to the Cert Petition. I first mentioned my plan to assign the second paper on 4/18, to be due 4/25 (tentative). We talked about the policies involved in gun control in light of today's school stabbings in Pennsylvania. We discussed the Drake Cert Petition, including the process of granting cert, the New Jersey law at issue, and picking a good plaintiff. We looked at Scalia's statement in Heller about prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons, and discussed what that statement might mean. The assignment for Friday 4/11 is to read the handouts regarding questions presented, the op-ed piece, and pp. 1-4 (at least) of the Opposition to the Cert Petition.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/9, I first clarified that, for the six specific prohibitions that are a part of the Free Exercise assignment, all those laws (including the one against kosher and halal butchering) are written as laws of general applicability. They do not name and single out any specific religious practice as being prohibited. I then started talking about the background to the recent McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court decision. I went over the 1907 Tillman Act and how some corporations welcomed it. We talked about the first disclosure laws. We went over the 1971 FECA, and then Watergate in 1972, and the 1974 amendments. We finished with the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo. That case differentiated contribution limits (constitutional,and subject to intermediate scrutiny) from spending limits (subject to strict scrutiny, and unconstitutional). We will continue on from there on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/11 is to finish up work on your Free Exercise paper, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
Monday, April 7, 2014
April 7, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/7, I first went over my plan to distribute case brief assignment #2 this Friday, 4/11, to be due Friday 4/18. We then launched back into Gonzales v. Raich. We talked about the 9th and 10th Amendments, the Wickard, Lopez, and Morrison decisions, the Supreme Court's limited role overseeing Congressional determinations in this area, the Supremacy clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. On Wednesday we'll discuss the status of state medical and recreational marijuana laws, and also go over further developments in both the Raich case and the interstate commerce power. The assignment for Wednesday 4/9 is to read in the text through p. 105 (Butler).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/7, I distributed one handout, an expansion of what the textbook gave us of Scalia's limits on the 2nd Amendment individual protections. I first drew Venn diagrams of how Scalia fit the militia language together with individual rights (contrasting citizen's militias with organized militias). We then looked at the limitations that Scalia found in the individual right. We will finish Scalia's opinion, and go into Stevens' and Breyer's dissents, on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 4/9 is to review once more D.C. v. Heller.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/7, we first went over a few questions concerning the Free Exercise assignment due this Friday. We then finished up our discussion of Hobby Lobby. We talked about the least restrictive alternative requirement, both where it comes from and whether government could alternatively just pay for the objected-to contraceptives with its own money. Then we talked both about how the case will come out, and how it should come out. The assignment for Wednesday 4/9 is to continue working on the Free Exercise paper, due Friday.
In class today, Monday 4/7, I first went over my plan to distribute case brief assignment #2 this Friday, 4/11, to be due Friday 4/18. We then launched back into Gonzales v. Raich. We talked about the 9th and 10th Amendments, the Wickard, Lopez, and Morrison decisions, the Supreme Court's limited role overseeing Congressional determinations in this area, the Supremacy clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. On Wednesday we'll discuss the status of state medical and recreational marijuana laws, and also go over further developments in both the Raich case and the interstate commerce power. The assignment for Wednesday 4/9 is to read in the text through p. 105 (Butler).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/7, I distributed one handout, an expansion of what the textbook gave us of Scalia's limits on the 2nd Amendment individual protections. I first drew Venn diagrams of how Scalia fit the militia language together with individual rights (contrasting citizen's militias with organized militias). We then looked at the limitations that Scalia found in the individual right. We will finish Scalia's opinion, and go into Stevens' and Breyer's dissents, on Wednesday. The assignment for Wednesday 4/9 is to review once more D.C. v. Heller.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 4/7, we first went over a few questions concerning the Free Exercise assignment due this Friday. We then finished up our discussion of Hobby Lobby. We talked about the least restrictive alternative requirement, both where it comes from and whether government could alternatively just pay for the objected-to contraceptives with its own money. Then we talked both about how the case will come out, and how it should come out. The assignment for Wednesday 4/9 is to continue working on the Free Exercise paper, due Friday.
Friday, April 4, 2014
April 4, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/4, we began by going over Wednesday's Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC regarding limits on campaign contributions to politicians. We then finished our discussion of the Caperton case regarding campaign contributions to Judges. I went over the views of the dissenting Justices in Caperton. I then discussed a case that involved legal ethics for lawyers, Board of Overseers v. Warren, in which the Maine Supreme Court dealt with a lawyer's ethical obligation to report another lawyer who is a thief. We moved to Chapter 3 of the text, and began our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich by going over the parties, the claims, and the defenses raised in the case, as well as the constitutional limits on Congressional power. We will continue with Gonzales v. Raich on Monday, picking up with the question of how this California born and bred marijuana might be part of interstate commerce. The assignment for Monday 4/7 is to brief the case (for yourselves).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/4, we began with a look at the interplay between legislative advocacy like that of the NRA, and constitutional challenges like D.C. v. Heller. We talked about events like Shay's rebellion that may have influenced the Constitutional grant of federal power over militias. We went over the handout distributed on Wednesday that argued that the reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure that Congress did not use its Constitutional power over the arming of the militias to disarm those militias, since those militias were necessary to the security of a slave state. We then looked at the Miller case, first in terms of why the case was a tax case about sawed-off shotguns, and then its view about what rights and what arms are protected under the Second Amendment. We waded into D.C. v. Heller, following Scalia's flow chart of starting with the middle of the sentence (the operative clause), and looking at how Scalia disagreed with Miller on both the nature of the right protected (individual v. collective) and the kind of arms covered (military v. non-military). We will pick up with Scalia's #3 (p. 393) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/4 is to review D.C. v. Heller, focusing on who needs protection against whom.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 4/4, I distribute one handout, Assignment #3, reproduced below and due Friday 4/11. We went over the assignment. I went over a RLUIPA case, Cutter v. Wilkinson, that held that accommodating to religious exercise did not constitute an Establishment of religion. We then returned to Hobby Lobby, going over the government's claims of what constituted a compelling interest, and Hobby Lobby's response to those claim, both in the briefing and the oral argument. We have yet to look at the least restrictive alternative argument, which is something that we'll continue with on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/7 is to begin work on Assignment #3, below:
Good news! You did so well in your last assignment as the 10th Justice that you’ve been given new, unprecedented powers. You’re the Decider in Matters of Constitutional Interpretation. The only thing that binds you is the Constitution itself: no RFRA, no precedent, no founding fathers; it’s just you and the words and principles of the Constitution.
The particular portion of the Constitution that we’re concerned with here says that “Government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion” (there’s also a “No Establishment of Religion” clause, but that’s not one you’re called upon to explicate here).
Your assignment is to lay out a coherent method of analyzing free exercise questions. It should be an analysis that makes some realistic sense, in terms of a fostering a society that makes us grateful to be Americans with this particular Constitutional protection.
So, for example, are the words of the Constitution to be taken literally? If so, are you ready to live in a world with child sacrifice. because there’s a religion that wants to practice that. Would you be grateful to be an American (really) with a Constitutional protection of child sacrifice?
Here are six specific examples of governmental requirements to which various religions have objected or might object, and which your analysis will need to deal with:
forbidding the practices of 1) child sacrifice, 2) bigamy, 3) kosher and halal butchering, 4) hallucinogenic drug use, and mandating 5) employer’s health insurance coverage that includes the use of M.D.s (which the religion sees as sinful), and 6) employer’s health insurance coverage for employees that includes contraceptive methods (that the religion sees as murder) Unlike the real Hobby Lobby case, assume that there in our little world no choice to pay a tax in lieu of providing health insurance coverage.
In all cases, government (reflecting the consensus of our society, through the democratic process) has either said that people must do certain things (pay Social security taxes, provide the health insurance coverage) or refrain from doing things (child sacrifice, etc). You need to deal with these six specific examples, but you are encouraged to include more examples if they give a fuller picture of your analysis of the Free Exercise Clause. To the extent that you need clarification of any religious practice or governmental restriction, just state what assumptions you are making about the practice or restriction.
Here are three other questions that you need to include in your analysis:
1) The Constitution says that government can’t “prohibit” free exercise. Does it make a difference if government is “prohibiting” something, versus “mandating” something? Does a “prohibition” need to be an absolute prohibition, or is it enough that there’s a “burden” on religious practice? Does a “burden" need to be “substantial”? Would the religious objector get to declare, without oversight, whether there was a burden, and if it was substantial?
2) Is there to be a general test by which restrictions are judged? It could be some like: Does government need to have a “compelling” interest in the restriction? ...an “important” (if not “compelling”) interest? Is it enough justification if government just has a neutral law of general applicability (i.e., not a rule targeted against a particular religious practice)? Does it make a difference if there are alternatives methods of achieving the governmental interest? Or should there be some other general rule? Or no general rule at all?
3) Does it make a difference if third parties (who have not given their consent) are affected by the religious practice (e.g. the child who is being sacrificed, the employee who’s not getting coverage)?
And here are two questions that you do not need to address (unless you wish to):
1) Does anyone get to look over the shoulder of the religious objector to determine the “sincerity” of the objector’s views? And does anyone do that regarding the degree of “complicity” that the objector is sincerely willing to undertake?
2) Is a for-profit corporation covered by the Constitution’s Free Exercise clause?
You should assume that your analysis makes the loser (religion or government) unhappy, and you should explain specifically why the loser’s view doesn’t carry the day.
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 Friday, April 11. 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 evaluate the issues, 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.
In class today, Friday 4/4, we began by going over Wednesday's Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC regarding limits on campaign contributions to politicians. We then finished our discussion of the Caperton case regarding campaign contributions to Judges. I went over the views of the dissenting Justices in Caperton. I then discussed a case that involved legal ethics for lawyers, Board of Overseers v. Warren, in which the Maine Supreme Court dealt with a lawyer's ethical obligation to report another lawyer who is a thief. We moved to Chapter 3 of the text, and began our discussion of Gonzales v. Raich by going over the parties, the claims, and the defenses raised in the case, as well as the constitutional limits on Congressional power. We will continue with Gonzales v. Raich on Monday, picking up with the question of how this California born and bred marijuana might be part of interstate commerce. The assignment for Monday 4/7 is to brief the case (for yourselves).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/4, we began with a look at the interplay between legislative advocacy like that of the NRA, and constitutional challenges like D.C. v. Heller. We talked about events like Shay's rebellion that may have influenced the Constitutional grant of federal power over militias. We went over the handout distributed on Wednesday that argued that the reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure that Congress did not use its Constitutional power over the arming of the militias to disarm those militias, since those militias were necessary to the security of a slave state. We then looked at the Miller case, first in terms of why the case was a tax case about sawed-off shotguns, and then its view about what rights and what arms are protected under the Second Amendment. We waded into D.C. v. Heller, following Scalia's flow chart of starting with the middle of the sentence (the operative clause), and looking at how Scalia disagreed with Miller on both the nature of the right protected (individual v. collective) and the kind of arms covered (military v. non-military). We will pick up with Scalia's #3 (p. 393) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/4 is to review D.C. v. Heller, focusing on who needs protection against whom.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 4/4, I distribute one handout, Assignment #3, reproduced below and due Friday 4/11. We went over the assignment. I went over a RLUIPA case, Cutter v. Wilkinson, that held that accommodating to religious exercise did not constitute an Establishment of religion. We then returned to Hobby Lobby, going over the government's claims of what constituted a compelling interest, and Hobby Lobby's response to those claim, both in the briefing and the oral argument. We have yet to look at the least restrictive alternative argument, which is something that we'll continue with on Monday. The assignment for Monday 4/7 is to begin work on Assignment #3, below:
Good news! You did so well in your last assignment as the 10th Justice that you’ve been given new, unprecedented powers. You’re the Decider in Matters of Constitutional Interpretation. The only thing that binds you is the Constitution itself: no RFRA, no precedent, no founding fathers; it’s just you and the words and principles of the Constitution.
The particular portion of the Constitution that we’re concerned with here says that “Government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion” (there’s also a “No Establishment of Religion” clause, but that’s not one you’re called upon to explicate here).
Your assignment is to lay out a coherent method of analyzing free exercise questions. It should be an analysis that makes some realistic sense, in terms of a fostering a society that makes us grateful to be Americans with this particular Constitutional protection.
So, for example, are the words of the Constitution to be taken literally? If so, are you ready to live in a world with child sacrifice. because there’s a religion that wants to practice that. Would you be grateful to be an American (really) with a Constitutional protection of child sacrifice?
Here are six specific examples of governmental requirements to which various religions have objected or might object, and which your analysis will need to deal with:
forbidding the practices of 1) child sacrifice, 2) bigamy, 3) kosher and halal butchering, 4) hallucinogenic drug use, and mandating 5) employer’s health insurance coverage that includes the use of M.D.s (which the religion sees as sinful), and 6) employer’s health insurance coverage for employees that includes contraceptive methods (that the religion sees as murder) Unlike the real Hobby Lobby case, assume that there in our little world no choice to pay a tax in lieu of providing health insurance coverage.
In all cases, government (reflecting the consensus of our society, through the democratic process) has either said that people must do certain things (pay Social security taxes, provide the health insurance coverage) or refrain from doing things (child sacrifice, etc). You need to deal with these six specific examples, but you are encouraged to include more examples if they give a fuller picture of your analysis of the Free Exercise Clause. To the extent that you need clarification of any religious practice or governmental restriction, just state what assumptions you are making about the practice or restriction.
Here are three other questions that you need to include in your analysis:
1) The Constitution says that government can’t “prohibit” free exercise. Does it make a difference if government is “prohibiting” something, versus “mandating” something? Does a “prohibition” need to be an absolute prohibition, or is it enough that there’s a “burden” on religious practice? Does a “burden" need to be “substantial”? Would the religious objector get to declare, without oversight, whether there was a burden, and if it was substantial?
2) Is there to be a general test by which restrictions are judged? It could be some like: Does government need to have a “compelling” interest in the restriction? ...an “important” (if not “compelling”) interest? Is it enough justification if government just has a neutral law of general applicability (i.e., not a rule targeted against a particular religious practice)? Does it make a difference if there are alternatives methods of achieving the governmental interest? Or should there be some other general rule? Or no general rule at all?
3) Does it make a difference if third parties (who have not given their consent) are affected by the religious practice (e.g. the child who is being sacrificed, the employee who’s not getting coverage)?
And here are two questions that you do not need to address (unless you wish to):
1) Does anyone get to look over the shoulder of the religious objector to determine the “sincerity” of the objector’s views? And does anyone do that regarding the degree of “complicity” that the objector is sincerely willing to undertake?
2) Is a for-profit corporation covered by the Constitution’s Free Exercise clause?
You should assume that your analysis makes the loser (religion or government) unhappy, and you should explain specifically why the loser’s view doesn’t carry the day.
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 Friday, April 11. 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 evaluate the issues, 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.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
April 2, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/2, we went over the Caperton case. We began by looking at the reasons for and against judicial elections, and the Maine and federal rules regarding judicial appointments and elections. We looked also at the world of campaign finance. We then went over the precedent examined by the Court, and then the rule announced by the majority and how the new rule applied to the facts of this case. On Friday I want to begin by discussing the dissenting opinion, and the aftermath of the case. The assignment for Friday 4/4 is to read in the text through p. 97 (Gonzales v. Raich).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/2, I distributed one handout, an article about the original purpose of the Second Amendment. I first talked a little about today's decision in the First Amendment campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC. We then went back to Snyder v.Phelps, looking at the definition and application of "public concern", the relationship of public concern with targeting of an individual, and the viewpoint-based nature of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We then went over Alito's dissent, seeing how he disagreed with the majority at each step of the analysis. We also discussed the nature and purpose of punitive damages and the limits that the constitution puts on punitive damage awards. The assignment for Friday 4/4 is to read the handout, read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (powers of Congress) and the Second Amendment, and to review D.C. v. Heller, (pp. 387-396) previously assigned.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/2, I first talked a little about today's decision in the First Amendment campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC, which we will return to in more detail after we finish up with Hobby Lobby. I also announced that I plan to assign the 3rd paper on Friday 4/4, with a due date of Friday 4/11. We then went through the Hobby Lobby oral argument regarding substantial burden. We looked at the two basic arguments by the government (indirect burden, choice to pay tax) the Hobby Lobby response, and the questions from the Court. I also went over some precedent that was discussed: U.S. v. Lee (social security taxes); Bowen v. Roy (social security numbers); and Braunfeld v. Brown (Sunday closing). The assignment for Friday 4/4 is to again review the Hobby Lobby oral argument, this time looking for the argument as it concerns "compelling interest" and "least restrictive alternative".
In class today, Wednesday 4/2, we went over the Caperton case. We began by looking at the reasons for and against judicial elections, and the Maine and federal rules regarding judicial appointments and elections. We looked also at the world of campaign finance. We then went over the precedent examined by the Court, and then the rule announced by the majority and how the new rule applied to the facts of this case. On Friday I want to begin by discussing the dissenting opinion, and the aftermath of the case. The assignment for Friday 4/4 is to read in the text through p. 97 (Gonzales v. Raich).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/2, I distributed one handout, an article about the original purpose of the Second Amendment. I first talked a little about today's decision in the First Amendment campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC. We then went back to Snyder v.Phelps, looking at the definition and application of "public concern", the relationship of public concern with targeting of an individual, and the viewpoint-based nature of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We then went over Alito's dissent, seeing how he disagreed with the majority at each step of the analysis. We also discussed the nature and purpose of punitive damages and the limits that the constitution puts on punitive damage awards. The assignment for Friday 4/4 is to read the handout, read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (powers of Congress) and the Second Amendment, and to review D.C. v. Heller, (pp. 387-396) previously assigned.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 4/2, I first talked a little about today's decision in the First Amendment campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC, which we will return to in more detail after we finish up with Hobby Lobby. I also announced that I plan to assign the 3rd paper on Friday 4/4, with a due date of Friday 4/11. We then went through the Hobby Lobby oral argument regarding substantial burden. We looked at the two basic arguments by the government (indirect burden, choice to pay tax) the Hobby Lobby response, and the questions from the Court. I also went over some precedent that was discussed: U.S. v. Lee (social security taxes); Bowen v. Roy (social security numbers); and Braunfeld v. Brown (Sunday closing). The assignment for Friday 4/4 is to again review the Hobby Lobby oral argument, this time looking for the argument as it concerns "compelling interest" and "least restrictive alternative".
Monday, March 31, 2014
March 31, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/31, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding ski resort liability and a release used by some of Maine's ski resorts. We went through the Reardon case, and then looked at three Maine cases about the public policy of enforcing releases: Doyle v. Bowdoin College, Emery Waterhouse v. Lea, and Hardly v. St. Clair. We then looked at the operation of the Maine statutes regarding liability for both horse riding stables and ski resorts. The assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 80 of the text, Caperton v. Massey Coal.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/31, I handed back the Black outlines, and I also distributed my own version of the outline. I first drew Venn diagrams of possibilities of exactly how O'Connor saw this case: as all cross burnings being threats (and therefore within Scalia's exceptions), or as some cross burnings not being threats (as Souter had said) but with those ideological cross-burnings being not covered by the statute. We then turned our attention to Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the history of the Supreme Court extension of free speech protection to state common law torts like defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We talked about N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, and the reach of First Amendment protection to matters of public concern. We will continue with Snyder v. Phelps on Wednesday. Also today, the class voted on our future direction in terms of civil liberties studies. The class voted to move on to Second Amendment issues; therefore, the assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to read Chapter 9 of the text (pp. 387 - 396).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 3/31, I began with a brief synopsis of the recent Supreme Court argument regarding patent protection for certain computer software. We then returned to Hobby Lobby. We concentrated on the first threshhold issue in the case, whether for-profit corporations can exercise religion. We looked at how Ginsburg used the unanimity of the RFRA vote to suggest that Congress couldn't have intended to include for-profits. We also discussed how the issue of who decides the religious conviction of a corporation got discussed, as well as whether a court can question the sincerity of the religious conviction of a corporation. We also looked at Roberts' suggestion to limit this case to closely-held corporations. Behind most of the questioning was the question of how often for-profits might end up using the religious objection to claim exemption from many laws. The assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to go through the oral argument again and find how the question of whether the contraceptive coverage represents a "substantial burden" was discussed.
In class today, Monday 3/31, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding ski resort liability and a release used by some of Maine's ski resorts. We went through the Reardon case, and then looked at three Maine cases about the public policy of enforcing releases: Doyle v. Bowdoin College, Emery Waterhouse v. Lea, and Hardly v. St. Clair. We then looked at the operation of the Maine statutes regarding liability for both horse riding stables and ski resorts. The assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 80 of the text, Caperton v. Massey Coal.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/31, I handed back the Black outlines, and I also distributed my own version of the outline. I first drew Venn diagrams of possibilities of exactly how O'Connor saw this case: as all cross burnings being threats (and therefore within Scalia's exceptions), or as some cross burnings not being threats (as Souter had said) but with those ideological cross-burnings being not covered by the statute. We then turned our attention to Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the history of the Supreme Court extension of free speech protection to state common law torts like defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We talked about N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, and the reach of First Amendment protection to matters of public concern. We will continue with Snyder v. Phelps on Wednesday. Also today, the class voted on our future direction in terms of civil liberties studies. The class voted to move on to Second Amendment issues; therefore, the assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to read Chapter 9 of the text (pp. 387 - 396).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Monday 3/31, I began with a brief synopsis of the recent Supreme Court argument regarding patent protection for certain computer software. We then returned to Hobby Lobby. We concentrated on the first threshhold issue in the case, whether for-profit corporations can exercise religion. We looked at how Ginsburg used the unanimity of the RFRA vote to suggest that Congress couldn't have intended to include for-profits. We also discussed how the issue of who decides the religious conviction of a corporation got discussed, as well as whether a court can question the sincerity of the religious conviction of a corporation. We also looked at Roberts' suggestion to limit this case to closely-held corporations. Behind most of the questioning was the question of how often for-profits might end up using the religious objection to claim exemption from many laws. The assignment for Wednesday 4/2 is to go through the oral argument again and find how the question of whether the contraceptive coverage represents a "substantial burden" was discussed.
Friday, March 28, 2014
March 28, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/28, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We went over O'Connor's concurring opinion, and Kennedy's allusion to same-sex marriage. We then talked about the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We discussed how the guarantee of equal protection of the laws came to be applied as a restriction against the federal (not just state) government, despite the absence of language in the constitution to that effect. We talked about the part of DOMA that still is good law. We then began our discussion of Reardon by looking at the three types of law involved in the case, common-law torts, contracts, and statutory limitations on liability. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to review Reardon and do a case brief of the case (for yourself, not to hand in).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/28, I collected the Virginia v. Black outlines, and we went over them. I hope to return them on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 to to read Snyder v. Phelps, through p. 263.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 3/28, we first talked about how not only the sincerity of religious beliefs themselves are not subject to review, but also the sincerity of acceptable level of complicity with others' sins is not subject to review. We went over some free exercise history, going over the cases of Wisconsin v. Yoder (Amish not sending their kids to school) U.S. v. Lee (Amish not paying social security taxes) and Thomas v. Review Board (Jehovah's Witness not building tanks). We started going through four basic clashes between the government and Hobby Lobby. We talked about the views of whether a for-profit corporation is a person that can "exercise religion" (looking also at four different types of corporations); we also outlined the arguments on whether (assuming that this corporation can exercise religion) this contraceptive mandate is a substantial burden. We will continue with the other two major issues (compelling interest and least restrictive alternative) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to read and listen to the oral argument in this case.
In class today, Friday 3/28, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We went over O'Connor's concurring opinion, and Kennedy's allusion to same-sex marriage. We then talked about the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We discussed how the guarantee of equal protection of the laws came to be applied as a restriction against the federal (not just state) government, despite the absence of language in the constitution to that effect. We talked about the part of DOMA that still is good law. We then began our discussion of Reardon by looking at the three types of law involved in the case, common-law torts, contracts, and statutory limitations on liability. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to review Reardon and do a case brief of the case (for yourself, not to hand in).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/28, I collected the Virginia v. Black outlines, and we went over them. I hope to return them on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 to to read Snyder v. Phelps, through p. 263.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Friday 3/28, we first talked about how not only the sincerity of religious beliefs themselves are not subject to review, but also the sincerity of acceptable level of complicity with others' sins is not subject to review. We went over some free exercise history, going over the cases of Wisconsin v. Yoder (Amish not sending their kids to school) U.S. v. Lee (Amish not paying social security taxes) and Thomas v. Review Board (Jehovah's Witness not building tanks). We started going through four basic clashes between the government and Hobby Lobby. We talked about the views of whether a for-profit corporation is a person that can "exercise religion" (looking also at four different types of corporations); we also outlined the arguments on whether (assuming that this corporation can exercise religion) this contraceptive mandate is a substantial burden. We will continue with the other two major issues (compelling interest and least restrictive alternative) on Monday. The assignment for Monday 3/31 is to read and listen to the oral argument in this case.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
March 26, 2014
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about treatment of precedent, the two constitutional issues that the Court could have tackled and how they chose which one to tackle, the flow chart of questions, strict scrutiny v. rational basis review, and the role of morality in legislation. The only piece of Lawrence that we didn't get to discuss was the question of gay marriage, which is something I'll start with on Friday. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read through p. 75 of the text (Reardon).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over both the O'Connor and Souter opinions in Virginia v. Black. We talked about the flow chart that R.A.V. created, and how this law fits into that flow chart. We discussed the points on which O'Connor and Souter agreed, as well as the point at which they disagreed. We also talked about the level of detail needed in the outline, and the overall length. I shared with the class that my outline for both opinions was 2 pages. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to finish up work on your outlines, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, I distributed one handout, a cartoon of what might happen if your employer's religion determines what kind of health insurance you get. We discussed whether a religious objection to doctors and standard Western medicine would necessarily fare the same as Hobby Lobby's objection to contraception. Along the way I went over the history of how we got to an employer based health insurance market, the ACA innovation of government telling employers what must be covered in the insurance plans, the biology of different methods of contraception, the role of both Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services in making the current contraceptive coverage rules, and why Hobby Lobby made a good plaintiff for the case. We talked about the acceptance of the employer's invocation of a sincerely held religious belief, and left off with the parallel question of the acceptance of the employer's invocation of how much of a burden the government is placing on the religious belief (complicity). We will begin on Friday with that question, and with the 1982 case of U.S. v. Lee. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read the Respondent's brief in Hobby Lobby.
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about treatment of precedent, the two constitutional issues that the Court could have tackled and how they chose which one to tackle, the flow chart of questions, strict scrutiny v. rational basis review, and the role of morality in legislation. The only piece of Lawrence that we didn't get to discuss was the question of gay marriage, which is something I'll start with on Friday. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read through p. 75 of the text (Reardon).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, we went over both the O'Connor and Souter opinions in Virginia v. Black. We talked about the flow chart that R.A.V. created, and how this law fits into that flow chart. We discussed the points on which O'Connor and Souter agreed, as well as the point at which they disagreed. We also talked about the level of detail needed in the outline, and the overall length. I shared with the class that my outline for both opinions was 2 pages. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to finish up work on your outlines, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Wednesday 3/26, I distributed one handout, a cartoon of what might happen if your employer's religion determines what kind of health insurance you get. We discussed whether a religious objection to doctors and standard Western medicine would necessarily fare the same as Hobby Lobby's objection to contraception. Along the way I went over the history of how we got to an employer based health insurance market, the ACA innovation of government telling employers what must be covered in the insurance plans, the biology of different methods of contraception, the role of both Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services in making the current contraceptive coverage rules, and why Hobby Lobby made a good plaintiff for the case. We talked about the acceptance of the employer's invocation of a sincerely held religious belief, and left off with the parallel question of the acceptance of the employer's invocation of how much of a burden the government is placing on the religious belief (complicity). We will begin on Friday with that question, and with the 1982 case of U.S. v. Lee. The assignment for Friday 3/28 is to read the Respondent's brief in Hobby Lobby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)