December 10, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/10, I collected the Walden case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them next Thursday. We then went over the previously distributed Maine statutes about jurisdiction and venue. Finally, we went over the St. James case. we reviewed the two bases of federal court original jurisdiction, and then examine how the St. James court handled this diversity of citizenship question. The final exam will be on Thursday 12/17 from 10-11:15. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to request what you need by 9 pm on Wednesday 12/16.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/10, I distributed one handout, an unedited version of part III of Scalia's opinion in Heller. We went over that opinion, looking at the other parts of the Constitution that deal with power over the militia, the reasons that might be behind the 2nd Amendment that differ from Scalia's historical analysis, the areas that government still might regulate (the subject of the handout) and the level of scrutiny applied to decide if the regulation by the government is allowed. We talked about the correct naming of "constitutional carry" for concealed weapons. We also briefly looked at the different nature of the the two dissenting opinions. The final exam will be on Thursday 12/17 from 12:15-1:30. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to request what you need by 9 pm on Wednesday 12/16.

December 8, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from Maine statutes regarding jurisdiction and venue. We first decided that the final exam on Thursday 12/17 would start at 10:00, rather than the 9:30 start time in the University's official schedule (and the exam will go from 10:00 until 11:15).
After the class did evaluations, I went over some aspects of the Walden case brief, including reiterating the format that I'm looking for, and explaining what a Bivens action is. We then went through the Cheap Escape case, and put the case in the format of a case brief. I then talked about two cases which reached opposite conclusions regarding the correct definition of subject-matter jurisdiction, Landmark Realty v. Leasure (from the Maine Supreme Court) and Bowles v. Russell (from the U.S. Supreme Court). We began looking at the Maine jurisdiction statutes, and will pick up with the District Court jurisdiction, and venue, on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/10 is to finish work on your Walden case brief (due at the beginning of class), review today's handout, and read in the text from 136-140 (St. James Apartments).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/8, I clarified that the final exam will be Thursday 12/17 from 12:15 until 1:30 (75 minutes instead of 2 hours). After the class did evaluations, we picked back up with the WWH v. Cole abortion case. We started with the question of the non-grandfathering of the ASC standards. We discussed fundamental rights, strict scrutiny, and the undue burden standard. We talked about the conflicting positions regarding whether the Court could second-guess (as opposed to accept at face value) the Texas legislature's asserted interest in maternal health. We looked at the precedents marshalled by each side of that question. We then shifted from purpose to effect, and looked at the evidence both of the scope of the decline in abortion facilities, and the reason shown for that decline. We talked a little bit about which side had the better arguments, as well as the better chance for success. We talked about the process of getting 4 votes to grant cert. We started discussing the decision by the Supreme Court this week to deny cert in a case that upheld a ban on assault-style weapons, and we'll talk about voting to deny cert as a tactic when we go over the Second Amendment on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/10 is to read in the text pp.390-395 (Heller).

December 3, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/3, I distributed one handout, the Maine Long-Arm statute. We talked about the Walden case brief (due next Thursday) in terms of citation form, cause of action, and especially the argument of the Plaintiffs as to why Nevada should have jurisdiction. In that context, I read the class an excerpt from the Calder case that's discussed in Walden, and we also looked at the language of the Maine Long-Arm statute. We then went through the Swoboda case, and put it into the format of our case brief. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is to continue working on the Walden case brief, and to read in the text pp. 123-129 (subject matter jurisdiction).



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/3, we first finished off our discussion of Casey. We talked about the flow chart of Casey, the two prongs of "undue burden", and the line between making things a little more difficult versus making them a lot more difficult. We also matched up the concurrences and dissents to figure what became the law of the land with shifting majorities of the Court. We then compared the WWH v. Cole statement of the questions presented in the clinic's Petition versus the state's Opposition, as each side tried to position itself as the correct interpreter of Casey. We did a little vote counting, and speculated about the role of Justice Kennedy. We left off in the Cert. Petition with the question of how, according to the clinic, the ASC requirement left abortion clinics in a more restrictive regulatory world than ASCs themselves. That's the point at which we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Tuesday 12/8 is to review both the Cert. Petition and the Brief in Opposition, looking especially for the points at which the two sides clash with each other.

December 1, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/1, I distributed three handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below); the case you'll be briefing, Walden v. Fiore, and an excerpt from the recent Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges. (If you need a copy of the Walden case, email me.) We first went over the requirements of the assignment, including the addition of the loser's facts in an "even though..." segment. We discussed the concepts of subject-matter jurisdiction versus personal jurisdiction. We went over the Obergefell excerpt, which extended the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognition of the non-court judgment event of a marriage We then talked about the Finstuen case, putting it into the format of a case brief. I then discussed a later Court of Appeals decision from the 5th Circuit, Adar v. Smith, that found that Louisiana did not have to issue a new birth certificate to the same-sex adoptive parents. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to begin work on the case brief, and to read in the text pp. 129-135.

Assignment due Thursday December 10th, 2015.

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. _____ (2014).

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, with this addition: after giving the winner’s facts, give the loser’s facts with a phrase that starts “even though...”.

For example: “Under the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause, is a statement that is admissible under the hearsay rule as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, automatically admissible under the Confrontation Clause when such statements are by definition not made for the purpose of proving a fact later at trial, even though there is no longer any ongoing emergency?”.

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 12/10, 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, Tuesday 12/1, I distributed one handout, the Brief in Opposition to Cert. in the Texas abortion case. We went through the Casey decision in detail, going over the Blackmun, Stevens, and Joint opinions. We will finish with the Casey opinions that wanted to overrule Roe when we reconvene on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 12/3 is to review the Cert. Petition (previously distributed) and then to read the Brief in Opposition.

November 24, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/24, we first finished our discussion of Hubbard v. Greeson. We saw how the Indiana court changed its choice of law rules, and how that impacted Greeson's case. We then turned to how this issue is dealt with in federal courts, in Land v. Yamaha. We first talked about which cases can go into the federal trial courts (federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction). We talked about the Erie doctrine, and what law (including conflict of law rules) federal courts use in diversity cases. We went over Indiana's Statute of Repose, and contrasted it to a Statute of Limitations. We saw how allowing Indiana conflict of law rules to apply was a bad idea for Land, and how it was even worse to be in federal court than it would have been to be in the Indiana Supreme Court. Then I talked about a Maine case, Collins v. Trius, and how the Maine Supreme Court dealt with a choice of law question involving Canadian law. Finally. I gave an introduction to the concept of Full Faith and Credit. The assignment for Tuesday 12/1 is to finish Chapter 3 of the text (Finstuen v. Crutcher (through p. 122). Also on Tuesday 12/1, I plan to distribute the assignment for our second case brief, which will be due the last day of class (12/10). I hope that you have a happy Thanksgiving.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/24, I distributed one handout, an edited version of the cert petition (since granted) in the current Supreme Court Texas abortion case (Whole Women's Health v. Cole). If you weren't in class and want the petition, please email me. I went over the basics of the Texas law that's challenged in the case. We then finished our discussion of Roe v. Wade. We looked at the points of disagreement between Blackmun and Rehnquist. We examined the trimester scheme, and the point at which the state was found to have a compelling interest in both maternal health and the potential life of the fetus. We began our discussion of Casey, looking at how the 3 person joint opinion could become the law of the land. We will continue next Tuesday with the four opinions in the case, starting with the most pro-choice (Blackmun) and working our way to the most anti-choice (Scalia). The assignment for Tuesday 12/1 is to review Casey, and then read and prepare to discuss the cert petition distributed today. I hope that you have a happy Thanksgiving.

November 19, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/19, I started by backtracking a bit. We had previously discussed dictum and the Butler case, and I pointed out that we've seen three different variations in dictum: Butler, Mobbley, and NFIB. We then finished up our discussion of retroactivity and the Dempsey case. We saw how the Montana Court looked at the old and the new federal models for retroactivity, and basically rejected them both, and came up with a rule all their own. I also discussed the Maine Supreme Court's view on retroactivity in Androkites v. White. We looked at the lack of precedent in the Strunk case, and how the best interests of the donor son were dealt with by both the majority and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Greeson. We looked at how Greeson's lawyer (possibly) saw this as a case in which there were choices about whether to sue in Indiana or Illinois (personal jurisdiction), a clear difference in tort law between Indiana and Illinois, and a well-established precedent in Indiana Choice of Laws rules that would result in the application of the favorable Illinois tort law. We got up to the point at which this all went terribly wrong, which is where we'll pick up on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/24 is to review Greeson, and, in addition, read in the text pp. 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/19, we first finished up our discussion of Snyder v. Phelps. We looked at the extension of First Amendment protection for speaker/defendants from plaintiffs who were public officials, to public figures, to limited purpose public figures, and finally to all matters of public concern. We also looked at the location of the protest, and how the evaluation of the tort as being viewpoint-based was made. We examined Alito's dissent, especially the question of public concern. We then moved to Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. We looked at the maps of abortion laws prior to Roe. We talked about litmus tests for Supreme Court nominations, and how the politics have changed since 1973. We examined Burger's maneuvers in assigning and scheduling the case. We looked at the right of privacy, and where its origin could be located in the text of the constitution. We talked about fundamental rights, strict scrutiny, and trimesters. On Tuesday we'll finish up our discussion of Roe. The additional assignment for Tuesday 11/24 is to read in the text through p. 433.

November 17, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/17, we first finished up our discussion of NFIB by looking at Ginsburg's dissenting opinion. I talked about and cited examples of the police power, supremacy, ex post facto laws, and statutory construction. We discussed State v. Butler, and then looked at how the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with that impeachment issue in Harris v. N.Y. We began our discussion of retroactive v. prospective application of court decisions by looking at the four U.S. Supreme Court cases about those rules, Linkletter and Griffith (on the criminal side) and Chevron and Harper (on the civil side). We will continue with the Montana Dempsey case on Thursday. The additional reading for Thursday 11/19 is to read in the text through p. 115 (Strunk and Greeson).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/17, I first passed back the Bible Believers papers, and made some comments. We then went to White's concurrence in R.A.V., in which he found the ordinance overbroad (and therefore unconstitutional) because it removed from Free Speech protection more than just fighting words. We puzzled out Scalia's R.A.V. handout, under which some content-based subsets are allowable (even though the one on R.A.V. itself was not allowable). I discussed the 2003 case of Virginia v. Black, in which the Supreme Court dealt with a state law that outlawed cross-burning with the intent to intimidate. We looked at the the majority and dissenting views within the Virginia Supreme Court, and then looked at the O'Connor and the Souter opinions in the case, and how they treated that Scalia handout. We then turned our attention to Snyder v. Phelps. We started by looking at the Maine statute that outlawed fighting words at funeral services. We talked about the idea of state action in suits of one individual versus another. We also went over the protection from suit by plaintiffs who were public officials and public figures. We will pick up on Thursday with the concept of limited purpose public figures, and the case of one University of Maine professor suing the Bangor Daily News for a letter written by another University of Maine professor. We will go over Snyder v. Phelps (previously assigned) next class. The additional assignment for Thursday 11/19 is to read in the text pp. 409-420.

November 12, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/12, I distributed one handout, the Maine constitutional provision having to do with the veto of bills by the Governor. I discussed a recent Maine Supreme Court Case, Opinion of the Justices of 8/6/2015, 2015 ME 107, that dealt with the adjournment of the Legislature and the "prevention" of the Governor's ability to veto a bill. We then went over the idea of a federal government of enumerated power, as opposed to state governments which possess the police power. We talked about the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, and how that interpretation has changed over time. We went over the complicated mechanism of Obamacare, and the assertion of power by Congress from different constitutional provisions in order to impose the individual mandate. We then got to Roberts' opinion in NFIB, in which Roberts went over the assertion of power under the interstate commerce clause. We will pick up next Tuesday with Ginsburg's opinion in NFIB. The assignment for Tuesday 11/17 is to review the remainder of NFIB and State v. Butler (previously assigned) and to read in addition Dempsey v. Allstate (through p. 110 of the text).

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/12, I collected the Bible Believers papers. I plan to grade them this weekend and return them next Tuesday. I distributed one handout, an excerpt from Scalia's R.A.V. opinion that the textbook did not give us, which was key to understanding the Court's 2003 opinions in Virginia v. Black. We discussed Bible Believers, including a discussion of whether the majority or the dissent had the better of the argument. The assignment for Tuesday 11/17 is to read in the text through p. 263 (Snyder v. Phelps), as well as to read (and try to understand) the Scalia R.A.V. handout.

November 10, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/10, I distributed one handout, an article from the Brennan Center about the role of money in state judicial elections. We went through the Caperton case. looking at the lineup of the Justices, the formulation of the proper constitutional test, and the application of that new test to the facts of the case. We also talked about Maine judicial elections, the perception of bias versus the probability of bias, and judicial versus legislative elections and roles. I then discussed this year's Supreme Court case of Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, which dealt with the First Amendment implications of forbidding judicial candidates from directly soliciting funds for their elections. We compared the line-up of the Justices, the role of perception of bias, and the role of the judicial versus legislative candidates. The assignment for Thursday 11/12 is to review NFIB v. Sebelius (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 106 of the text (Butler).



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/10, I distributed one handout, an article by Linda Greenhouse about the RFRA cases in which the Supreme Court just granted cert. We went over a few questions about the Bible Believers assignment (no repeat of questions needed; no explanation of the definition of strict scrutiny needed; short paragraph for each of the textbook cases in part three). We then went over both the Scalia and White opinions in R.A.V. As time permits on Thursday, I plan to clarify White's concurrence in R.A.V., and to also talk about the later case of Virginia v. Black. The assignment for Thursday 11/12 is to finish work on the Bible Believers assignment, due at the beginning of Thursday's class.

November 5, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/5, we began by putting the issue in Lawrence v. Texas into the format of our case brief. We then worked through the three issues dealt with in the Glassford home inspection case, also using the case brief format. I discussed two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding class actions and arbitration, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant. We also looked at the arbitration clause just presented to me by my credit card company. The assignment for Tuesday 11/10 is to review Caperton (previously assigned) and to read in the text through p. 96 (NFIB v. Sebelius).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 11/5, we began by reviewing Stevens' opinion in Hill. We looked specifically at his argument that there exists a right to be let alone, and discussed how that might play out in the context of the Bible Believers. We went through Scalia's dissent in Hill, and his third category of content-based restrictions (in addition to viewpoint-based and subject-matter based, type-of-speech based). We also looked at his analysis of narrow-tailoring. We also looked at how Kennedy's dissent differed from Scalia's. I then talked to the class about the 2014 Supreme Court case of McCullen v. Coakley. This fractured but unanimous decision overturned the Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone. We looked at the majority opinion by Roberts in terms of both content-neutrality and narrow tailoring. We looked at Scalia's concurrence, which refused to join Roberts in the narrow tailoring part, but criticized Roberts both for the fact of doing a content-neutrality analysis, and the substance of that analysis. I will finish McCullen next week with Alito's separate concurrence. The assignment for Tuesday 11/10 is to review R.A.V. (previously assigned) and to continue work on your Bible Believers paper, due Thursday 11/12.

November 3, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, we first went over the Maine statute regarding Hindering Apprehension, and looked at what part of our law might cover Ms. Mobbley's behavior if she were charged in Maine. We then discussed Holland in terms of the existence of common law crimes, the idea of mandatory reporting of crimes, and Maine law regarding both. We then went over Lawrence v. Texas. We talked about the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the two constitutional attacks on the Texas law (and why Kennedy chose the attack that he did), the classification of the right involved, and the level of Supreme Court scrutiny. We looked at the range of laws reflecting societal views of same sex relationships, from criminalizing the relationship, to criminalizing the act, to outlawing discrimination, to marriage equality. We will finish Lawrence on Thursday by completing a case brief issue for the case, and going over what Kennedy said in that case about marriage equality. The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to read in the text through p. 82 (Glassford and Caperton).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) due 11/12, and the case involved in the assignment, Bible Believers v. Wayne County. We went over the requirements of the assignment. I also talked about two of the cases that constitute precedent for the 6th Circuit, Terminiello and Feiner. We then went through Stevens' opinion in Hill. We discussed the content-neutrality flow chart. We discussed some aspects of Scalia's dissent, but will start with his view of content-neutrality. The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to begin work on the assignment, and also to read through p. 258 of the text (R.A.V.).


Assignment due Thursday, November 12, 2015

One recurring question that we’ve looked at is how much leeway the government is allowed when it decides to restrict speech because of the possibility that the speaker is or might be threatened with a hostile reception from onlookers or listeners. This assignment asks you to look at how the 6th Circuit looked at this issue in the recent case of Bible Believers v. Wayne County (also distributed today).

The assignment has three parts:
1) Summarize the constitutional position of the 6th Circuit majority (Clay’s opinion) regarding these four questions:
a) the correct interpretation of Supreme Court precedent (Feiner v. New York; Terminiello v. Chicago; the Civil-rights era cases – Edwards, Cox, Gregory) in the case;
b) the correct level of scrutiny (strict scrutiny or not) and why;
c) the proper role of the police, both under constitutional theory and under the facts of this case; and
d) what’s wrong with the other opinion (Rogers) and the position of that side.

2) Summarize the constitutional position of the 6th Circuit dissent (Rogers’ opinion) regarding these four questions:
a) the correct interpretation of Supreme Court precedent precedent (Feiner v. New York; Terminiello v. Chicago; the Civil-rights era cases – Edwards, Cox, Gregory) in the case;
b) the correct level of scrutiny (strict scrutiny or not) and why;
c) the proper role of the police, both under constitutional theory and under the facts of this case; and
d) what’s wrong with the other opinion (Clay) and the position of that side.

3) Discuss what rules are mentioned in three textbook cases, Texas v. Johnson, Cohen v. California, and Hill v. Colorado regarding how much leeway the government is allowed when it decides to restrict speech because of the possibility that the speaker is or might be threatened with a hostile reception from onlookers or listeners. How might those rules apply to the situation in Bible Believers?

Label each part of the paper (e.g. (1)(a)). The paper should be about 3 pages long. No outside research is required. Just rely on what the two 6th Circuit judges
tell you about precedent.

Do not give an introduction to the case. Do not recite the facts. Go right to summarizing and discussing. Quote only in snippets (if at all).
Here’s an (inaccurate) sample of what I’m anticipating for a section:

(1)(a): Clay believes that previous Supreme Court cases establish that deliberately provocative speech to a hostile crowd is subject to reasonable restriction by the government. Feiner is on point and should be followed. In both Feiner and the present case, the speaker was deliberately provoking hostility (baiting the crowd), and was therefore creating a clear and present danger that violence would break out. Terminiello is distinguishable because that case involved thrown pickaxes, and this case involves plastic water bottles. The civil rights era cases are distinguishable because, in those cases, the speaker was not addressing his remarks to the hostile members of the crowd. In short, there is no Supreme Court precedent that concludes that a speaker has a right to bait the audience and receive constitutional protection.

If you want to read the entire 6th Circuit opinion, it is available at
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0258p-06.pdf

If you want to see video of the event, you can go to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_8MO7IIlCw

Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

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 11/12, 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. Don’t look at other student’s papers, and don’t show your paper to other students. 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 I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

October 29, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/29, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes that set the rules for, among other things, hindering apprehension. We first finished our discussion of Gregg, including the two dissenting opinions. We talked a little bit about the MLK Letter from the Birmingham Jail and the concept of uplifting or degrading human personality. We then went through the Mobbley case regarding duty to one's spouse v. duty to society. We began our look at the Maine statute by noting that Maine has no immunity for protecting one's spouse. The assignment for Tuesday 11/3 is to a)read today's statutory handout; b)read Holland (p.65), also with an eye to how Maine statutes deal with these questions; and c)read Lawrence v. Texas (through p. 72 of the text).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 10/29, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding disturbing the peace. We reviewed Chaplinsky, and compared the Maine statute with the N.H. statute at issue in Chaplinsky. We also talked about the difference between a facial challenge to a law, versus an as-applied challenge. I then talked about a Maine Supreme Court case, State v. John W., 418 A.2d 1097, which discussed free speech, yelling at police, and the Maine disturbing the peace statute. We moved on to Cohen, and went over both the majority opinion and Blackmun's dissent. In Hill, we got only as far as going over the concept of content-neutrality, and acting out exactly what was allowed or not within the 100 ft. radius. The assignment for Tuesday 11/3 is to review Hill (previously assigned), including how the various opinions disagreed with each other. I also told the class that my tentative plan is to give an assignment on Tuesday 11/3 that would be due Thursday 11/12.

October 27, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/27, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed a handout about the present-day views of Breyer and Kennedy on capital punishment and solitary confinement. We began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, getting up to the justification of retribution, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 10/29 is to read the handout, review Gregg, and in addition read through p. 64 of the text (Mobbley).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 10/27, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then discussed the Chaplinsky case, and the doctrines of unprotected speech and fighting words. We will begin on Thursday with the Cohen case. The additional assignment for Thursday 10/29 is to read in the text through p. 253 (Hill v. Colorado).

October 22, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/22, the class took exam #1. I plan to grade the exams this weekend, and hand them back and go over them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/27 is to read in the text pp. 52-59, and to read the article that I distributed today about the history of the Supreme Court opinion, Furman v. Georgia, that preceded the Gregg case.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 10/22, the class took exam #1. I plan to grade the exams this weekend, and hand them back and go over them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/27 is to read in the text pp. 238-244.

October 20, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/20, we went over Suggs v. Norris from the textbook. We then contrasted the Suggs discussion of contracts implied in law with the Maine approach, found in the case of Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47. We also looked at another example of how public policy can be used to refuse enforcement of an otherwise enforceable agreement or decree, in the international custody case of H.L.K. v. F.A.A. The assignment for Thursday 10/22 is to prepare for Thursday's exam. Use the blog to review what material we've covered in the textbook, what concepts we've covered, what handouts we've had, and what non-textbook cases we've discussed. If you find that you're missing any handouts, you must contact me by 9:00 pm on Wednesday night to let me know what you would like me to bring to class. Remember that if you are using a computer or other device for the textbook or for your notes, you must not use it to connect to the internet or to conduct any searches that you could not do with a hard copy.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 10/20, we first reviewed Brandenburg and how it left the law regarding the criminalization of speech. We then looked at O'Brien and Johnson, regarding conduct that is expressive. We looked at, among other concepts, the governmental interest involved. whether there was suppression of a viewpoint, narrow tailoring, and intermediate and high hurdles. The assignment for Thursday 10/22 is to prepare for Thursday's exam. Use the blog to review what material we've covered in the textbook, what concepts we've covered, what handouts we've had, and what non-textbook cases we've discussed. If you find that you're missing any handouts, you must contact me by 9:00 pm on Wednesday night to let me know what you would like me to bring to class. Remember that if you are using any computer or other device for the textbook or for your notes, you must not use it to connect to the internet or to conduct any searches that you could not do with a hard copy.

October 15, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/15, I handed back the graded Kimball case briefs. I also handed out the Kimball Comment Key, and my version of the Kimball case brief. After briefly talking about the case briefs, I gave the class a sample test in preparation for the first exam on Thursday 10/22. We went over the kinds of questions to expect, as well as how to prepare for the exam. Use this blog to make sure that you have all of the handouts, and to review the concepts and cases that we've discussed. We then went over the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises, and imagined how a criminal prosecution in Maine against the Brineys might have gone. We began our discussion of Suggs v. Norris. The assignment for Tuesday 10/20 is to review Suggs v. Norris (previously assigned) and to begin your review for Exam #1 to be given Thursday 10/22.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 10/15, I gave the class a sample test in preparation for the first exam on Thursday 10/22. We went over the kinds of questions to expect, as well as how to prepare for the exam. Use this blog to make sure that you have all of the handouts, and to review the concepts and cases that we've discussed. We then reviewed both the majority and the dissent of Gitlow in terms of the clear and present danger test, words as incitement, and incorporation. We talked about the intervening cases discussed in the text, and then went over all of the opinions in Dennis. Finally, we saw how Brandenburg resolved the years of controversy. The assignment for Tuesday 10/20 is to read in the text through p. 238 (including O'Brien and Johnson) and to begin your review for Exam #1 to be given Thursday 10/22.

October 8 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/8, I collected the Kimball case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to grade them this weekend, and return them when we next meet on Thursday 10/15. I also told the class of my plan to have our first exam on Thursday 10/22. After finishing our discussion of Kimball, we dove back into the Katko case, looking specifically at the types of authority relied on by the Iowa Supreme Court. We looked at primary authority versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following versus distinguishing authority. When we resume next Thursday, we will go over overruling versus disagreeing with authority, as well as looking at the view of the dissenting Justice in Katko. Then we'll look at the Maine criminal statute previously distributed to the class that sets the rules for defense of premises. The additional assignment for Thursday 10/15 is to read and prepare to discuss through the end of Chapter 1 of the text (including Suggs v. Norris).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 10/8, we discussed Schenck, Abrams and Gitlow. We looked at some recurrent themes that ran through the cases: the outlawing of words versus of actions; the substantive evil sought to be avoided by the law; how likely it is that the substantive evil would be brought about by the words; how imminently the evil would happen; whether the circumstances involve times of war; and whether the objection by the defendant is an evidentiary objection or a legal one. We searched (mainly in vain) for consistency in terms of the Court opinions overall, as well as simply within the opinions of Holmes. The assignment for Thursday 10/15 is to read in the text through p. 225 (including Dennis and Brandenburg). I also announced that my plan is to give the class Exam #1 on Thursday 10/22.

October 6, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/6, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko v. Briney case brief. We spent most of the class going over aspects of the Kimball case brief, due Thursday. We went over proper citation form for Maine Supreme Court decisions after 1996, including Kimball. We talked about the difference between evidence offered for impeachment, versus evidence offered for the truth of the statement (substantive evidence). We talked about review de novo by the appellate court, versus review for clear error or for abuse of discretion. We also went over the difference between an objective versus a subjective standard for judging circumstances. We went over the issues in Kimball, both their number and their substance. We reviewed the format for the issues, and talked about what "facts" are. After this discussion, we finished up our review of the Katko (spring gun) case brief (though not of the case itself). The assignment for Thursday 10/8 is to finish up work on your Kimball case brief, due at the beginning of class. (If you cannot be in class, remember to email your case brief to me by the beginning of class, and make sure that you get a confirmation from me.) On Thursday we will also go over the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises, and the kinds of authority cited in Katko.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 10/6, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Hobby Lobby outline; a comment key to the numbered comments that I made on some outlines; and the 1918 Sedition Act. I handed back the Hobby Lobby outlines, and we discussed them a little. We returned briefly to Kim Davis and reviewed the part of the Preliminary Injunction that discussed her claim under the Kentucky RFRA, especially the existence of a substantial burden. We then began our discussion of free speech. We discussed the scope of the free speech protection regarding prior restraints versus punishment after the fact, and saw what Holmes in Schenck had to say about that. We looked at the special circumstance of war, and how it affects free speech protections. We went over three theories of why free speech guarantees are justified in the first place. We looked at the language of the Sedition Act under which Schenck was convicted. Finally, we looked at how close to success the incitement must be in order to remove it from the protections of the First Amendment. On Thursday, we will finish our discussion of Schenck. The assignment for Thursday 10/8 is to review Schenck and Abrams, previously assigned) and to read in addition Gitlow (through p. 212).

October 1. 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/1, I distributed 3 handouts: assignment #1 (reproduced below) due 10/8; the Kimball opinion that you'll be briefing; and the Maine criminal statute regarding defense of premises.

We began class with a discussion of Kimball, which involves both the Maine Rules of Evidence about hearsay, and the 6th Amendment's confrontation clause. We then went over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had distributed on Tuesday. Finally, we started working our way through the Katko case brief. We got through the appellant's contentions, so we'll start with the issues when we pick up on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/6 is to review Katko and your case brief of the case; read the Maine statutory handout regarding defense of premises, and think about Briney's liability under Maine law; and begin work on your Kimball case brief.

Assignment due Thursday October 8th, 2015

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Kimball, 2015 ME 67, 117 A.3d 585.
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 10/8, 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 weren't in class, you can access the Kimball case by going to the Maine Supreme Court opinion website-
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
and then scroll down to and select May 2015 Opinions, State v. Kimball, 2015 ME 67.



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 10/1, I collected the Hobby Lobby outlines, and we went over those outlines, including both the issues decided by Alito, and those not decided. We also discussed Ginsburg's dissent. At the end of class, I also finished up the Boerne outline regarding Congressional power to impose RFRA on the states. I plan to grade the Hobby Lobby outlines this weekend, and to return them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 10/6 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 197-205 of the text.

September 29, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/29, I distributed three handouts: Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and statues regarding juries; my version of the Speelman case brief; and a set of hypotheticals concerning the Speelman case. We first looked at the Maine Rules of Court and the Maine statutes regarding size and unanimity on Maine civil juries. We then went through the case brief of the Speelman case. Along the way, we looked at the concept of mandatory versus persuasive authority, as well as reviewing the concepts of following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. Finally, we speculated about defenses that might be used for Speelman now that she's going to get that hearing that she wanted. The assignment for Thursday 10/1 is to read and prepare to discuss the Speelman hypotheticals, and to read and prepare for yourselves a case brief of Katko v. Briney (up to p. 43 of the text). In addition, I let the class know that the plan is to distribute the first assigned case brief on Thursday 10/1, to be due on Thursday 10/8.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/29, I distributed two handouts, an article about a recent case that rejected the accommodation for religious non-profits cited in Hobby Lobby, and the form used (or maybe not) to request that accommodation. I first reminded the class of the Hobby Lobby outline due Thursday 10/1. I changed one instruction that I had given last Thursday: if you break your A down into 1 and 2, the A is just a question, and not an answer. I clarified that I thought that all of the As, Bs, and Cs did need to be broken down into 1s, 2s, and 3s, etc. I gave the class the guidance that my version of the outline was a little over three pages, and at that was heavily indented. I stressed that the answers were more of a sentence than a paragraph. We then talked about the role of amici in Alito's opinion. We discussed the concept of complicity, and contrasted the no-limits concept of complicity with the tort law concept of proximate causation. I discussed the case of Wheaton College v. Burwell, about the form used to claim exemption from the contraceptive mandate, and the recent 8th Circuit opinion that shut down even the alternative notification that by-passed that form. We did not get to finish the Boerne outline, so we will add that to the plan for Thursday of going over the assigned Hobby Lobby outline. The assignment for Thursday 10/1 is to finish work on your Hobby Lobby outlines, due at the beginning of class on Thursday.

September 24, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/24, we first finished our look at the case brief for Glucksberg, including Souter's concurring opinion. We then looked at the excerpt from Obergefell that I distributed last class, including both Kennedy's majority opinion and Roberts' dissent. We looked at Brittany Maynard's question of why anyone should have the right to make the choice (of living or dying) for her. And finally we looked at the Maine statutes regarding suicide and even murder. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 38. Prepare for yourselves (not handed in or graded) a case brief of the Speelman case.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/24, I distributed 4 handouts: my version of the Boerne outline; RFRA and RLUIPA; Alito's opinion in Hobby Lobby, and Assignment #1 (reproduced below), which is due Thursday 10/1. After going over Assignment #1 and the background to Hobby Lobby,we then finished our discussion of Smith. We briefly talked about the Santeria case and targeting, and then began our discussion of Boerne. We got as far in Boerne as the explicit discussion of whether Congress has the power to enact RFRA as against the states (Roman numeral III in my version of the outline) which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 9/29 is to begin work on the Hobby Lobby outline.

Assignment due Thursday, October 1, 2015

The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (also distributed to the class today).

Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinion (before Roman Numeral I). Starting with Roman Numeral I, use the same elements that Alito already has used: i.e. I (A) and (B); IV (A), (B), and (C); V (A), (B), and (C). Add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by Alito (e.g. I (A) (1) (2) and (3)).

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 10/1, 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. Don’t look at other student’s outlines, and don’t show your outline to anyone. 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 I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.

September 22, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed four handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief; an article by Brittany Maynard; an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges; and the Maine statutes regarding assisted suicide. We went through the Glucksberg case brief, getting as far as the argument by the doctors that precedent dictates the result here. We'll continue and finish the case brief on Thursday. Along the way in our discussion, we covered: the citation form and order of the parties in the U.S. Supreme Court; the organization of the federal court system; the treatment of precedent as following, distinguishing, and overruling; the methodology used in order to determine whether a liberty interest is "fundamental"; the consequent division into low hurdles and high hurdles depending on the designation as fundamental or not; and the common levels of persuasion used in court proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, and preponderance of the evidence). The assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to review Glucksberg, and read and prepare to discuss the four handouts.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/22, I distributed one handout, my version of the Smith outline. We first covered the textbook cases from the 1980s, Thomas, Lee, Bob Jones and Goldman. We then went through Smith, and how to outline Smith. We covered Scalia's majority opinion, and O'Connor's concurrence. We'll begin with Blackmun's dissent on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/24 is to read through p. 128, and prepare for yourself (not handed in or graded) an outline of Kennedy's opinion in Boerne v. Flores.

September 17, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/17, we first went over the concurring and dissenting opinions in Miller. We talked about the difference between concurring in the opinion versus concurring only in the judgment. We discussed the important difference between a majority opinion versus a plurality opinion . In looking at Breyer's concurrence, we went over the four mental states involved in criminal responsibility: intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. In looking at Roberts' dissent, we looked at three persistent institutional conflicts: the rights of an individual versus the power of the state; the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and the judicial power; and the federal power versus the power of the states. We went over the Maine sentencing statute, including proper citation form. We went over the fates of the two juveniles, Miller and Jackson. And finally we discussed the upcoming case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which raises the question of the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. The assignment for Tuesday 9/22 is to read in the text through p. 34. In Washington v. Glucksberg, try your hand at putting together a case brief of Rehnquist's opinion. Follow the format of the case brief template and my sample brief in Miller. The assignment will not be handed in, but I do want you to write it out, ready for discussion on Tuesday.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/17, I distributed two handouts: my version of an outline for Sherbert v. Verner, and an article about the Kim Davis case in light of the Smith Supreme Court case. We finished our review of Sherbert, including the concurring and dissenting opinions. Along the way, we went over the treatment of precedent, including the options of following, distinguishing, or overruling prior cases. We also discussed the difference between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. We then went through the outline of Wisconsin v. Yoder, including again the concurring and dissenting opinions. We also talked about what the concepts of liberal and conservative seem to have meant in terms of the religion cases. The assignment for Tuesday 9/22 is to review Smith (previously assigned) and to prepare for yourself (although not handed in or graded) an outline of Scalia's opinion in Smith.

September 15, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, I distributed 3 handouts: the case brief template, a sample brief of Miller v. Alabama, and a selection from the Maine sentencing statutes. We went over the language of the 8th Amendment, and various possible meanings of the words cruel and unusual. We also talked about the Bill of Rights as a protection against majority rule. We looked at four previous U.S. Supreme Courts cases regarding juvenile sentencing: Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stanford v. Kentucky, Roper v. Simmons, and Graham v. Florida. I went over the nine Justices of the Court, and their ideological affiliation. I went through the Brief Template and my sample Miller brief. The assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to review all three handouts from today, and to review the concurring and dissenting opinions in Miller. On Thursday we will go over those additional Miller opinions, look at the Maine sentencing statute, and I'll also go over the fate of Miller and Jackson and the question of retroactive v. prospective application of the Miller ruling.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/15, we began by looking at the process by which the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, and how it came to extent the protections of the 14th Amendment to the provisions of the Bill of Rights (which, as originally interpreted, only constrained the federal government, not the state governments). We talked about Reynolds {p.97} and Pierce {p.98} and then we went through the Cantwell case, using the outline format of questions and answers that I had used in the Kim Davis case. We covered Gobitas (p.101), Prince (p. 102) and Braunfeld (p. 103). We then began Sherbert, getting as far as the question of whether there was a burden on Sherbert's religious exercise. We will pick up on Thursday with the consideration of the state's interest. The additional assignment for Thursday 9/17 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss (in the question and answer format) through p. 122 of the text.

September 10, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/10, we first finished our discussion of the Sanders case. I then talked about the additional voting case of H.O. Pierce v. Getchell. We then went to the introductory materials in the text. I started by talking about equitable v. legal remedies, and we saw how this division is still reflected in the grant of general equitable powers to the Maine Superior Court, but not the Maine District Courts. We talked about the concept of the power to enforce laws, and the appeal (and limits) of natural law. We looked in the text at Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail, as well as the statements by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas about the relationship between morality and law. The assignment for Tuesday 9/15 is to read in the text pp. 16-23. When reading Miller, try to formulate the issues that the Court confronts in the format laid out by the Sanders Issues handout.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/10, I distributed one handout, Judge Bunning's Order Releasing Kim Davis from custody. We first finished our examination of the Davis Preliminary Injunction Order, looking at the remainder of the harms that Davis alleged would befall her if the Preliminary Injunction were to issue. We went over the article on religious accommodation under Title VII and RFRA, including the additional reason that the federal court reading of the state RFRA will not be binding on the state. Finally, we went over Judge Bunning's Order Releasing Davis, and how the signature problem was finessed. The assignment for Tuesday 9/15 is to review pp. 89-100 of the text (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 107. As you read the cases, try to prepare them in the question and answer format used on my Tuesday Davis handout.

September 8, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed one handout, about the framing of "issues" in Sanders v. Getchell. We continued through Sanders, framing the issues as explained in today's handout. We got through the issue of whether Sanders was in fact a resident of Waterville, and will pick up with unreasonableness of Getchell's negative view of that question on Thursday. We talked about the difference between enacted law and common law, and also the difference between an objective versus a subjective test of reasonableness. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to review today's handout, and the remainder of Sanders, and then to read and prepare to discuss pp. 1-15 of the text.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/8, I distributed two handouts, my version of an outline of Miller v. Davis, and an article about accommodation of employees' religious claims. We continued through the Davis case, getting through the question of whether the governor's directive was targeted at Kim Davis' religion, as opposed to a neutral rule of general applicability. That's the point at which we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 9/10 is to review today's handouts, and the remainder of Miller v. Davis, and then to read and prepare to discuss pp. 89-101 of the text.

September 3, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/3, we began by going over the current Maine statute regarding voter registration. We went over current proper statutory citation form, and also the current organization of the Maine court system. We discussed the lack of an explicit cause of action in the Sanders opinion, and got to the initial question that is addressed by the Court: what does the word "unreasonable" in the statute mean exactly? That's where we'll pick up next week. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to reread Sanders. Going paragraph by paragraph, figure out, in simple words, what question is being addressed in each paragraph, and how the Court answers the question.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 9/3, we first went over the current status of Kim Davis (in contempt, apparently). We went over the parties, and why the plaintiffs' attorney may have wanted to include opposite sex couples as well as same-sex couples. We discussed the Cause of Action asserted by the Plaintiffs. We went over the requirements for a preliminary injunction, looking along the way at both the organization of the federal court system and the citation form for Court of Appeals decisions. We then went through the flow chart of what the court had to decide: having decided that the right to marry is a fundamental right, what is the consequence of that designation for the rest of the questions that the court must address. The assignment for Tuesday 9/8 is to re-read Miller v. Davis, focussing on the exact questions that the court addresses, and then the court's answers to those specific questions.

September 1, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/1, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus, the Maine Supreme Court case of Sanders v. Getchell, a list of questions to prepare to discuss as you read Sanders, and an excerpt from the Maine statutes regarding voting, student voting, and liability of officials for mistakes in enforcing the law. We went over the Syllabus, and then started discussing the Sanders case. Along the way, we talked about the vocabulary of Plaintiff and Defendant, Cause of Action, and Common Law. We also went over the order in which parties are listed in both the State of Maine Court system, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read and re-read the Sanders case, prepare to discuss the questions about the case, and read the Maine statutes handout.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 9/1, I distributed 3 handouts: the syllabus, the U.S. District Court opinion in the case of Miller v. Davis, and an AP article about the latest developments in that case. We went over the Syllabus, and then started discussing the issues of civil liberties. We talked about how the U.S. definition of those liberties diverges from that of most of the Western democracies. We then talked about Davis' claim for "asylum for the conscience". We read the text of the First Amendment, and discussed a recent book by Burt Neubourne, Madison's Magic, which proposes an interpretation of order of rights listed in that Amendment, as a blueprint for creation of a democratic society. Neubourne sees the First Amendment as a progression that starts with the individual formation of a conscience, and moves toward democratic mass action. We talked about the background of the Miller v. Davis opinion, what a preliminary injunction is, and the structure of the federal court system. The assignment for Thursday 9/3 is to read and prepare to discuss the Miller v. Davis case, as well as the AP story updating the case.

April 30, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/30, I first reminded the class that Exam #2 will be Thursday 5/7 beginning at 8:45. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 9:00 pm on Wednesday 5/6. The discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction continued from Tuesday with the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell. I then compared that approach with the approach taken by the Maine Supreme Court in the Landmark Realty case that we talked about on Tuesday. We also went over the consequences of having something labeled as subject matter jurisdiction, in terms of waiver, excuse, and sua sponte raising of the issue. We then switched to personal jurisdiction. I went over four usual ways in which the forum state acquires jurisdiction over a defendant: service of process within the state, domicile, consent, and the doing of certain acts with the state. We looked at the long-arm statute in the text, and then talked about how the U.S. Constitution limits the ability of states to haul out-of-staters into the forum's courts. We contrasted the idea of personal jurisdiction versus subject-matter jurisdiction in terms of waiver, etc. and in terms of constitutional uniformity. We also differentiated the concept of personal jurisdiction from the concept of choice of law rules. We went over the Swoboda case. Finally, I talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Walden v. Fiore, and we went over general jurisdiction versus specific jurisdiction. See you Thursday 5/7.



POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/30, I first reminded the class that Exam #2 will be Tuesday 5/5 beginning at 10:30. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your requests by 9:00 pm on Monday 5/4. I collected the Zivotofsky papers, and plan to return them on Tuesday. We talked about Kennedy's vote in the case, and then about how you thought that the case should come out. After that, I talked about part 2 of the oral argument in the same sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges. Part 2 asked whether the 14th Amendment required a state to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. We first talked about DOMA and what it has to say about state to state recognition. We talked about the Full Faith and Credit clause, and how it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court. And we talked about how the issue, as framed by the Court, seemed to skirt both of these sources of law. We looked at the differences between recognition versus licensing, in terms of which was a greater intrusion onto state sovereignty. And we looked at some unusual sources of hostile questioning, both from the liberal and from the conservatives.
See you Tuesday 5/5.

April 28, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, the first thing we decided was that we have have our exam (on Thursday 5/7) not starting at 8:00 as originally scheduled, but rather starting at 8:45. I distributed one handout, the Schroeder Comment Key. I handed back the Schroeder case briefs, and we briefly talked about them. I then talked a little about today's U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same sex marriage cases. I talked about how the Supreme Court will consider non-recognition of other state's same-sex marriages, and how that relates to the Full Faith and Credit issue that we studied in Finstuen. We then went on the Chapter IV of the text. I talked about Maine's court organization (unique in the country), and the concepts of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (and compared the latter with the concept of conflict of laws). We went over the Cheap Escape case, and, after we translated the case to English, went over how good lawyering could lead to surprisingly good results for a deadbeat debtor. We also discussed the difference between the concept of venue versus the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. I then went over a Maine Supreme Court case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, which clarified what we mean in Maine by "subject matter jurisdiction", and why it matters so much whether that label attaches or not. I plan to begin on Thursday with a U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the same issue for the federal courts. We will then go on to our final subject, personal jurisdiction. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to review Swoboda, previously assigned.

POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/28, we first went over the schedule for our exam next week. It will be on Tuesday 5/5 from 10:30 until 11:45 (not until 12:30). I then talked about two recent Supreme Court constitutional law cases. In one, Oneok v. LearJet, the Court issued an opinion last week about the question of whether federal regulation of the natural gas market preempted state anti-trust regulation of that same market. In the other, the Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, which raised the question of whether federal regulation of the raisin market amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The assignment for Thursday 4/30 is to finish your Zivotofsky papers, previously assigned, which are due at the beginning of class.

April 23, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/23, I distributed one handout, my version of the Schroeder case brief. We went over that case brief, concluding with the question of what options Schroeder might still have for the pursuing the case. I plan to grade the case briefs this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. After finishing Schroeder, we went over the handout from last time, the Maine statute regarding adoption, and we saw how Maine dealt with the language that limited adoptions here to husband and wife. I will start on Tuesday with the 2011 5th Circuit case about same-sex adoption, as well as the Obergefell Supreme Court case that will be argued on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to read in the text through p. 135 (Cheap Escape and Swoboda).



POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/23, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2, (reproduced below), and and Article about Congressional decision-making in foreign policy. We went over the requirements of the assignment, and also talked briefly about broad policy-making questions in Congressional assertion of foreign-policy decisions. We then dove back into the Zivotofsy oral argument, getting to p. 41. We will pick up at that point on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/28 is to begin work on the Zivotofsky paper, due Thursday 4/30.

Assignment due Thursday, April 30, 2015

This assignment has two parts.

I. As we have gone through the Zivotofsky oral argument, it seems probable that Justice Kennedy will be casting a key vote in the case. So, the first part of this assignment will focus on Kennedy’s participation in that oral argument.

Here is an index to the oral argument for Kennedy: (the format is page:line) (I’ve edited out references to Kennedy that don’t reflect his questions):
Kennedy 3:20 5:6 18:9 19:4 22:17,21 28:16,23 36:5 42:20 43:9 44:15
(also note 43:21--this is Roberts, so don’t analyze it, but I think it’s helpful in understanding Kennedy).

Here’s what I want: for each of Kennedy’s 10 questions or comments above, explain what the point was that Kennedy was trying to make (in plain, clear simple English), and then what this might indicate about which side he thinks should win, and why.

Here’s an example of the format that I’m looking for, based on a Ginsburg question:

At 6:6, Ginsburg was telling Lewin that Lewin had taken her entire argument out of the law’s context, because the entirety of the law made clear that Congress was asserting that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This indicates that Ginsburg sees the law as asserting the U.S. position on the borders of Israel, and not simply as an exercise of Congressional authority over passports. Presumably she thinks the President, and not Congress, has power over the U.S. position on the borders that the U.S. recognizes. This indicates that she thinks Kerry should win.

So what I’m looking for is 10 paragraphs of roughly that length.

II.
The second part of the paper asks how you think the case should come out (not a prediction, but your own analysis). Analyze this not as a foreign policy question (is it good policy for Congress to pass such a law, or the President to resist it), but as a matter of constitutional power: 1) is this law a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority over passports and their use as identification and 2) if the law is best viewed as an assertion by Congress that it can recognize borders over Presidential objections, does Congress have the power, under the constitution, to make such a law? Do the cases from the text shed any light on the question? Is the language of Curtiss-Wright helpful, or is it mere dictum?

I foresee this section of the paper taking about one page.

The assignment will be graded on the content and analysis contained in your paper. 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.

Please make two copies of your paper, 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 4/30, 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.

April 21, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, I distributed one handout, Maine statutes regarding adoptions. We spent the class period discussing the Schroeder case brief. We went over the legal questions addressed by the Court, and the facts that separated the winners from the losers regarding those issues.
We went over the concept of winner's facts and loser's facts, and I added the element of the loser's facts (in the format of "...even though...") to what would make the brief useful. Here's a format example: Under the rules of our class, do you get an "A" for your brief when you follow the format and provide as "facts" that which the Court points to as the line between winners and losers (even though you can come up with more useful formulations than just the conclusions the Court sticks us with). The idea is that the holding say not only that which is sufficient to make a winner, but that it also include that which is insufficient to do so.
We went through the various legal questions posed in the flow chart of the case, stressing the need to have defined limited legal questions so that you end up with holdings that actually help you tell the winners from the losers.
The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to complete the Schroeder case brief, due at the beginning of class. Make two copies of your case brief. If you cannot be in class, make sure to email your case brief to me before the beginning of class, and make sure that you get my confirmation.

POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/21, I first announced the plan for the second assignment. I'll distribute that assignment on Thursday (4/23) and it will be due on the last day of class (4/30). If there's a decision in the Zivotofsky case tomorrow (Wednesday) then the assignment will involve the decision; if there's no decision tomorrow. the the assignment will involve the briefs and the oral argument.
In terms of the oral argument, we continued our journey through it, reading the tea leaves about the implications of the Justices' questions for how they might then vote. We got through p. 27 of the argument, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 4/23 is to review the remainder of the Zivotofsky oral argument.

April 16, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/16, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Schroeder v. Rynel, 1998 ME 259. (If you weren't in class today, you can get the case by going to
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/opinions_1998.html
and scrolling down to case 259).
We finished our discussion of Land v. Yamaha, going over the difference between a statute of repose v. a statute of limitations, and federal court power over the conflict of laws rules v. state court power. I then discussed a Maine case regarding our conflict of laws rule, Collins v. Trius. I went over the background of our case to brief, specifically the reasons to incorporate in Delaware, the contract that Schroeder had with his employer Rynel, and the difference between a breach of contract cause of action and this statutory cause of action. We began our discussion of the Finstuen case, going over the difference in Full Faith and Credit analysis between laws v. court judgments, and the significance of birth certificates and adoption decrees. On Tuesday we will go over questions about the Schroeder case brief, and also finish up Finstuen. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to begin work on the Schroeder brief, and to review Finstuen.


Assignment #2 due Thursday April 23, 2015

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Schroeder v. Rynel, 998 ME 259, 720 A.2d 1164.

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 4/23, 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 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we went over the transcript of the Zivotofsky oral argument. We basically looked at the questions by the Justices, and tried, by the tenor of the question, to put each participating Justice in the pro- or anti- Zivotofsky camp. We got as far as p.15, where Alito joined in. We will pick up at that point next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to read the rest of the oral argument transcript (with audio is best), trying to get the point of each question and locating where that question puts the Justice in the vote tally.

April 14, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed one handout, articles about retroactive application (Miller and Wisconsin Chief Justice status). We then went over Hubbard v. Greeson. We covered the different substantive laws of Indiana and Illinois, the different choice of law rules for the two states, and the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court to change its choice of rules right before our eyes. We also discussed the two-step process chosen by the Indiana Supreme Court as its new choice of law rule. We then began our discussion of Land v. Yamaha. We went over federal trial court jurisdiction (federal question and diversity), federal court organization, and federal court citation format. We went over the Erie doctrine. We got as far in the Land case brief as the plaintiff's cause of action, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to finish reading Chapter III of the text (Finstuen v. Crutcher).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed one handout, the transcript of the oral argument in Zivotofsky. We went through the two assigned briefs in the case. Among the questions we discussed were: why doesn't Kerry's brief use the word "unconstitutional"; what was Bush's signing statement, and what is its relationship to the flow chart of the constitution; what were the two major points of Petitioner's position, and how did Kerry respond. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read through p. 24 of the oral argument (and I suggested listening as well, at supremecourt.gov; oral arguments; argument audio; argument session November 3-12)

April 9, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/9, we first discussed ex post fact laws and sex offender registry laws. We moved on to the Butler case, and the status of dictum. I talked about the outcome of the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case, Harris v. U.S., and then we looked at the lineup of Justices that were on both the Miranda and the Harris courts. We moved on to retroactive application of court decisions. I made a little chart of how the U.S. Supreme Court has viewed questions of retroactive v. prospective application for the federal courts, and we examined how the Dempsey Court decided the issue under Montana law. I'm not having the class read the Strunk case (p. 110) and so I gave a short explanation of the issue and the resolution in that case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 113-116 (choice of law and Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Erie doctrine and Land).

POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/9, I distributed two handouts: the Petitioner's Brief and the Respondent's Brief in the Zivotofsky Supreme Court case. Before discussing the Curtiss-Wright opinion, we first looked at the non-delegation cases that Curtiss-Wright was relying on, Panama Oil and Schechter Poultry (p. 261). We went over the distribution of foreign affairs powers in the text of the constitution itself. We explored the Curtiss-Wright opinion (both parts in the text). The assignment for Tuesday 4/14 is to read the two Zivotofsky briefs.

April 7, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I first gave short history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. I then went into the policies behind the ACA. We went through Roberts' opinion in detail, and more briefly, through Ginsburg's dissent and the "joint dissent". The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read through p.110 of the text (including both Butler and Dempsey).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/7, I first talked about the concept of "privilege", and the lack of textual sources for the concept of executive privilege. We went through U.S. v. Nixon. We then talked about Mississippi v. Johnson and when the judiciary can force the executive to either do or refrain from doing its job. We compared the approaches of the U.S. v. Nixon Court with that of the Mississippi v. Johnson Court. We're going to move on to the power of the legislative and executive branches regarding foreign policy. The assignment for Thursday 4/9 is to read in the text pp. 171-175 and 252-256.

April 2, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we first went over the Caperton case. We discussed the background of the case, the standard that Justice Benjamin believed governed his conduct, the standard established by the Supreme Court majority, the application of that standard, and the view of the dissenting Justices. I then talked about a case involving ethical standards for lawyers, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, and the obligation to turn in untrustworthy lawyers. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read in the textbook through p. 98 (all of the NFIB v. Sebelius opinions).

POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/2, we first reviewed the majority decision in Morrison v. Olson, and then contrasted it with the Scalia dissent. We went over Myers v. U.S., both the majority and dissenting opinions, and discussed why Congress's plan for Senate oversight in removal was found to be unconstitutional. Finally, we saw how the Court in Humphrey's Executor distinguished Myers. The assignment for Tuesday 4/7 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 236 of the text.

March 31, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/31, we first went over the Maine law regarding mandated reporting of child abuse. We then discussed the case of Glassford v. BrickKicker. Following that, I talked about two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that involved arbitration clauses that barred class actions: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and American Express v. Italian Colors. The assignment for Thursday 4/2 is to read and prepare to discuss through the end of Chapter 2 of the text (including Caperton v. Massey Coal.


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/31, I began with a case study of what happens when a chief executive decides that the law he is charged with faithfully executing is, in fact, unconstitutional. We looked at how that situation played out on one day in 2013, in the two cases of U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. We went through the line-item veto case, Clinton v. N.Y. In terms of the Appointment power, I began with a history of the Saturday Night Massacre, and why Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. We then went through the majority decision in Morrison v. Olson, in which AAG Olson challenged the constitutionality of that Act. We left off at Scalia's dissent, which is where we'll pick up on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 42 is to read through p. 227 of the text.

March 26, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes regarding common law crimes, hindering apprehension, and mandated reporting. We talked about the concept of unjust laws, and then went through the Mobbley case. We looked at the Maine statute regarding hindering apprehension. We talked about the concept of common law crimes, and misprision of a felony. We looked at Maine's statute regarding common law crimes, and then at the Massachusetts law that does criminalize the failure to report certain crimes in certain circumstances. We will begin next Tuesday by looking at the Maine statute regarding mandated reporting of child abuse or neglect. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/31 is to read in the text through p.77.


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/26, I first reviewed the various opinions in Bush v. Gore. We then talked about "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the standard for removal from office. We went over the two different views of the powers of the executive, and the discussed the various issues in In re Neagle. We looked at Youngstown Steel, and the relationship between Congress and Executive powers. We started our discussion of the executive's obligation to enforce the law. I began the discussion of the defense of DOMA, and we will pick up next Tuesday with how Obama's decision not to defend DOMA played out differently from Schwarzenegger's decision in California not to defend the California law barring same-sex marriage. The additional assignment for Tuesday 3/31 is to read in the text through p.217.

March 24, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/24, I handed back the Bragg case briefs, as well as three handouts: the Key to the Bragg Comments; my version of the Bragg case brief; and an article going over the 1972 case that almost got rid of the death penalty in the U.S. altogether. We went over some aspects of the case brief, and then finished both Suggs v. Norris and Gregg v. Georgia. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read in the text pp. 59-66 (including Mobbley and Holland).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/24 we began our discussion of the executive power. Before we got there, though, I went over a current Supreme Court case that challenges the right of the people to have reapportionment of Congressional seats done by an independent commission (Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission). We also talked about the meaning of "natural-born citizen" as a qualification for President. Then we went to Bush v. Gore, talking about what a chad is, and how it might hang or dimple, and what the per curiam opinion identified as the constitutional problem with the Florida Supreme Court's instructions. We also looked at how the dissenting Justices differed from the majority, as well as among themselves. Finally, we talked about the electoral college system, in terms of the electors themselves, the allocation of electoral votes among the states, the lack of constitutional protection for the right to vote for president, and the winner-take-all rules of most (but not all) states. The assignment for Thursday 3/26 is to read andprepare to discuss through p. 205 of the text.

March 19, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/19, I collected the Bragg case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return those case briefs next Tuesday. Along the way, we went over the concept of dictum. We then started our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, getting through the cause of action. We will finish Suggs next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to review Suggs (again) and additionally to read through p.59 of the text (Gregg v. Georgia).


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today. Thursday 3/19, I first went over two areas of law in which the coercion theory of federalism might soon appear, the Clean Air Act and Federal Emergency Management Agency rules. We then returned to an area that shows far less solicitousness of the power of the states, preemption. We went over the fate of the four parts of the Arizona law in Arizona v. U.S., and how each part faired under the Supreme Court majority. We also went through the other three opinions in the case. We discussed the previously distributed article on the Maine law that permitted the importation of foreign prescription drugs. I then went over three recent Supreme Court case regarding preemption of state law claims against pharmaceutical companies, Wyeth v. Levine, Pliva v. Mensing, and Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett. With those cases, we end our concentration on federal/state relations. Our next subject is the power of the executive, and the assignment for Tuesday 3/24 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 183- 194 of the text.

March 17, 2015the

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/17, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. We then went over some questions about and aspects of the Bragg case brief. The assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to finish the Bragg case briefs, due at the beginning of Thursday's class. If you cannot be in class Thursday, you can email your case brief to me. I will confirm the receipt of the case brief (no confirmation means no receipt). Also on Thursday, we'll go over Suggs v.Norris, previously assigned.

POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/17, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. For the remainder of the class I discussed how the oral argument in the ACA subsidy case, King v. Burwell, indicated that the fate of the ACA subsidies for individual policies may well hinge on the concept of coercion. The assignment for Thursday 3/19 is to review the previous assignment, Arizona v. U.S. (p. 385) and the handout about federal preemption of Maine's law allowing the importation of drugs from foreign pharmacies.

February 26, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/26 the class took exam #1. I'll return it, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday 3/17. Remember that your Bragg case brief will be due Thursday 3/19. The reading assignment for Tuesday 3/17 is to review Suggs v. Norris (p.44), previously assigned. Have a good and safe Spring Break.


POS 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 2/26 the class took exam #1. I'll return it, and we'll go over it, on Tuesday 3/17. The reading assignment for Tuesday 3/17 is to read in the text Arizona v. U.S. (pp. 385-390), as well as today's handout of the Maine prescription drug law being struck down. Have a good and safe Spring Break.

February 24, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/24, I distributed three handouts: my version of the Katko v. Briney case brief, Assignment #1 (reproduced below, and due on the Thursday after break) and the Bragg case that you'll be briefing. I first gave some background to the issues in Bragg. We then finished up Katko, talking about the making of common law, the sources used by the Iowa Supreme Court in deciding what Iowa common law should be, jury instructions, and the consequences of a lawyer messing up. We then went through the Maine statutes regarding use of force (handed out last Thursday). (We did not get to Suggs v. Norris, and so that case will not be included in Thursday's test.) On Thursday 2/26 we'll have our first exam, open-book and open-note. It will cover all the material we've covered through today. If you're missing any handouts (check the blog to see if you've got them all) then you need to notify me by 9:00pm Wednesday night as to which ones you are missing and want me to bring for you. If you're taking the exam using a computer, remember that I want you to sit in the front of the class, with your back toward me, and that you can't use your computer to connect to the internet or do any word search, or do anything that you couldn't do with hard copy book or notes.

Assignment due Thursday March 19, 2015

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102, 48 A.3d 769.

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 3/19, 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 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 2/24, I handed back the NFIB outlines, as well as handing out my version of the outline. We went over the outlines. We then talked about Missouri v. Holland, and Crosby v. NFTC. For Crosby, we followed Souter's outline and structure, and then filled in that structure with the ways in which the Court found the Massachusetts law to be preempted. We also looked at why Massachusetts' arguments were rejected. Finally, we looked at the Scalia and Thomas concurrence.
On Thursday 2/26 we'll have our first exam, open-book and open-note. It will cover all the material we've covered through today. If you're missing any handouts (check the blog to see if you've got them all) then you need to notify me by 9:00pm Wednesday night as to which ones you are missing and want me to bring for you. If you're taking the exam using a computer, remember that I want you to sit in the front of the class, with your back toward me, and that you can't use your computer to connect to the internet or do any word search, or do anything that you couldn't do with hard copy book or notes.