December 7, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/7, I collected the VL briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them next Thursday at Exam #2., along with my version of the case brief and the comment key to your papers. We then talked about the concept of jurisdiction over the person. We went over four means of obtaining jurisdiction over a person. We then went through the Swoboda case regarding the sufficiency of internet sales for personal jurisdiction. Finally I discussed the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case of Walden v. Fiore.
Exam #2 will be Thursday 12/14 from 12:15-1:30. The exam will be open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your specific requests by 8:00 pm on Wednesday 12/13.



POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/7, I distributed one handout, the list of questions presented and the summaries of the arguments in Gill v. Whitford. I first talked about how gerrymandering is done, with packing and cracking. I talked about previous Congressional attempts to vary the "manner" of elections. I went over the 1986 case of Davis v. Bandemer, and then in more detail the 2004 case of Vieth v. Jubelirer. Finally we got to today's assignment, the oral argument in the current Supreme Court case of Gill v. Whitford.
Exam #2 will be Thursday 12/14 from 2:45-4:00. The exam will be open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, email me with your specific requests by 8:00 pm on Wednesday 12/13.

December 5, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/5, after doing evaluations, we talked about the timing for Exam #2 on 12/14, which we decided would be from 12:15-1:30. We then talked about the VL case brief due Thursday, discussing which things are facts, and which are just conclusions. We then dove into the world of subject-matter jurisdiction. We differentiated the federal court view of subject-matter jurisdiction from that of Georgia and Maine. In the federal sphere, I talked about the case of Bowles v. Russell, and then we went over today's assigned case of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services. In Maine, I talked about the Law Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure.
The assignment for Thursday 12/7 is to finish your VL case brief, due at the beginning of Thursday's class, and to read in the text pp. 129-136, including Swoboda v. Hero Decks.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/5, after doing evaluations, we went over the US Term Limits v. Thorton, and then Baker v. Carr. On Thursday, I will talk about the 2004 case of Vieth v. Jubelirer, which discussed the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering cases. Then we will discuss the current gerrymandering case of Gill v. Whitford.
The assignment for Thursday 12/7 is to read and listen to the oral argument (10/3) in Gill. You can either access them from supremecourt.gov at oral arguments, or at oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1161.

November 30, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/30, I distributed three handouts: the recent Supreme Court case of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing, selected statutes regarding subject-matter jurisdiction, and selected statutes regarding adoption and recognition of same-sex marriage. We began class by discussing the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, subject-matter jurisdiction, and by going over some aspects of the VL case brief due 11/7. We then discussed the Finstuen case, and the Obergefell excerpt that I distributed last class.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/5 is to continue working on your VL case brief, and to read in the text pp. 123-126, and the Hamer handout. If you weren't in class today and you missed the Hamer handout, the opinion is available at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/30, we first discussed the timing of the exam during finals week. The exam will be for the first 75 minutes of the alloted slot, that is, from 2:45-4:00. We then finished up with Zivotofsky by going over the opinions in the case other than the majority, especially those of Thomas and Scalia. We discussed the various opinions in Hamdi. Finally, we went through Powell v. McCormack, and the power of Congress to keep elected members from taking their seats.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/5 is to review Thorton (previously assigned) and to read in the text pp. 94-101 (Baker v. Carr).

November 28, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/28, I distributed three handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below), the case you'll be briefing, V.L. v. E.L, and an excerpt from the Obergefell case. We first went over the requirements of the assignment. Then we went through the two textbook cases assigned for today, Hubbard and Land, and talked about the concept of conflict of laws, and good and bad lawyering. I also went over the concept that sunk the Lands, statutes of repose, versus statutes of limitation.
The assignment for Thursday 11/30 is to begin work on your case brief, and to read the Obergefell handout, and to read in the text through the end of Chapter III (Finstuen).

Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 7, 2017

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of V.L. v. E.L., 136 S. Ct. 1017 (2016) (also distributed to the class today).

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

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 12/7, 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. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet. The opinion itself is your only source for the case brief.

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 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/28, I handed back the PHH outlines. I distributed two handouts, my version of the PHH outline, and a page that had a key to my notes on your outlines as well the a selection of the statutes involved in the current struggle about the new head of the CFPB.
We talked about the CFPB struggle, and then discussed one of the two cases assigned for today, Zivotofsky. We will begin with the second case, Hamdi, on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 11/30 is to read in the text pp.125-139, including Powell v. McCormack, and Thorton.

November 21, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/21, we first went over the Butler case regarding dictum. I also talked about the three distinct types of dictum that we have encountered this semester. I discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. New York, in which the Court took the same position as the Butler court, and we went over the votes in Miranda and in Harris. We then went over the Dempsey case. I talked about the case of Johnson v. New Jersey, and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the retroactive application of the Miranda decision. We went through the Dempsey decision, and the 4 U.S. Supreme Court opinions regarding the general rules of retroactivity: Linkletter and Griffith, replaced by Chevron and Harper. Finally we went over Strunk v. Strunk, and how the Kentucky court dealt with the absence of precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/28 is to read in the text pp. 113-116 (including Hubbard v. Greeson) and pp. 144-146 (Land v. Yamaha)
Have a good Thanksgiving.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/21, we went over the PHH outline, and I plan to return the graded outlines next Tuesday, 11/28. We talked about the politics of independent agencies, and the history of why Congress may have wanted to set up an agency with so much independence. We also talked about Congressional oversight of the CFPB, as in the recent rejection of the CFPB rule regarding arbitration clauses. We then went through the cases assigned for today, Korematsu and Youngstown Sheet & Tube.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/28 is to read in text pp. 319-340 (Zivotofsky v. Kerry and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
Have a good Thanksgiving.

November 16. 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/16, we began our study of Chapter 3 of the text by going over the difference between the power of state governments (the police power) versus the power of the federal Congress (the enumerated powers of Article I). We talked about the 9th and 10th Amendments, the 9th saying that the listing of rights in the Bill of Rights was not exclusive, and the 10th saying that the listing of the powers of Congress is exclusive. We went through the opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius, discussing Roberts' textual argument, his argument regarding precedent, and his argument regarding the nature of the federal power. We also looked at the Ginsburg dissent, and the "joint Dissent" (which didn't dissent). We then talked about federal supremacy, and I went over the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case of Rowe v. N. H. Motor Transport.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/21 is read in the text pp. 100-113, including the Butler, Dempsey, and Strunk cases.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/16, we began by going over Clinton v. Jones. We discussed, among other questions, the significance of the opening sentence of that opinion, which talked about actions by Clinton before his term began. I also talked about two current cases against President Trump, by Plaintiffs Zervos and Nwanguma, and how the Supreme Court cases instruct how those civil cases should proceed. Then we went over the Grossman case. I also talked about the pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, and discussed two ways in which lawyers are trying to distinguish the holding in Grossman.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/21 is to finish your PHH outline, due at the beginning of class on Tuesday. In addition read in the text pp. 303-316 (Korematsu and Youngstown).

November 14, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/14, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (for lawyers). We first went over the Caperton case. I then discussed a 2016 Supreme Court recusal case, Williams v. Pennsylvania. Finally I talked about a 2011 Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers v. Warren, about the responsibility of lawyers to report misconduct by other lawyers.
The assignment for Thursday 11/16 is to read in the text pp. 89-100, including NFIB v. Sebelius.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/14, I first went over one aspect of Free Enterprise Fund that I had not covered last week, the three objections of the Fund to the appointment of the PCAOB under the inferior officers clause of Article II. We then went through U.S. v. Nixon and Nixon v. Fitzgerald, comparing and contrasting the outcome of the two cases.
The assignment for Thursday 11/16 is to read in the text pp. 251-260, including Clinton v. Jones and ex parte Grossman.

November 9. 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/9, I distributed one handout, an article about the recent Congressional decision to scuttle a rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That rule would have outlawed clauses in consumer agreements with banks which force the consumers into individual arbitration when there are disputes. We went through the Glassford v. BrickKicker case, and put it into the format of a case brief. I then talked about three recent U.S. Supreme Court cases involving mandatory arbitration clauses: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011); DirecTV v. Imburgia (2015); and Epic Systems v. Lewis (oral argument 10/2/2017).
The assignment for Tuesday 11/14 is to read the remainder of Chapter 2 of the text, including Caperton v. Massey Coal.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/9, I distributed two handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be outlining, the first part of the panel decision of the D.C. Circuit in PHH v. CFPB. We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then went back and finished looking at the dissenting opinions in Myers. We went through the case of Humphrey's Executor and saw how the Court there distinguished Myers. I then discussed the 5-4 2010 Supreme Court opinion of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Accounting Board, which distinguished Humphrey's Executor. We talked about both the treatment of the "for cause" removal protections of the Board, and the Appointment of the Board in the first place.

The assignment for Tuesday 11/14 is to begin work on your PHH outline, and to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 238-243 (U.S. v. Nixon) and 246-251 (Nixon v. Fitzgerald).

Assignment due Tuesday, November 21, 2017

The assignment is to do an outline of Judge Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in PHH v, CFPB (also distributed to the class today). The idea is both to show the organization of the opinion, as well as to translate the opinion into simple, clear English.

Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed, with the following clarification: Use Question only for the Roman numerals, and then Question and Answer for all the other elements. Both the questions and the answers should be complete sentences.

The structure should go like this:
Roman numeral; Capital Letter; Numbers; Lower Case Letter.
For example:
I. (Question)
A. (Question and Answer)
1. (Question and Answer)
2. (Question and Answer)
a. (Question and Answer)
b. (Question and Answer)
B. (Question and Answer)
II. (Question)

If there’s a (1), there should be a (2). If you’ve only got one thing to say, just say it without the further division.

Here’s my suggestion for the best way to proceed: First, figure out what the thought is for each paragraph. Second, group the paragraphs together in terms of what question they are addressing. Last, put the actual questions in, with the roman numerals questions as the final thing. In other words, work from smallest to largest.

How do you know how the opinion is structured? Ask yourself what questions the Judge is asking, and how he is answering them. For example, paragraph 20 starts the discussion of a new question, a different question from what Kavanaugh had been addressing in paragraph 19.

The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your outline. The outline will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.

Please make two copies of your outline, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Tuesday 11/21, 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. Do not do any outside research. Just work from the handout itself. Do not troll the internet. 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.

November 7, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/7, we finished our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas. We reviewed the characterization of the right asserted, and then discussed the history, precedent, and conclusion of the Court. After looking at flow chart of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review, we saw how the Court surprisingly did not analyze the case as a fundamental rights case. We also talked about Obergefell v. Hodges as a follow-up to this case. We began our discussion of business ethics by talking about the recent decision of Congress to reject the vote of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which had outlawed the use by banks of mandatory individual arbitration clauses for the resolution of disputes.
The assignment for Thursday 11/9 is to review Glassford v. BrickKicker (previously assigned) and to do a case brief of that case (not handed in or graded).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/7, I distributed one handout, my version of the outline of Myers v. U.S. We went through that case, at least the majority opinion, and also went through the process of outlining the majority opinion.. We will begin with the two dissenting opinions in Myers on Thursday. Also, I announced to the class my intention to give Assignment #2 on Thursday, an outline of a Court opinion, with a projected due date of 11/21.
The assignment for Thursday 11/9 is to review the dissenting opinions in Myers, and to read and prepare to discuss through p.237 of the text, including Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. and the short discussion of Wiener v. U.S. on p. 237

November 2, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/2, we went over the Holland case about common law crimes and misprision of a felony. We talked about both the decision of the Florida Supreme Court that they had the discretion to not adopt the English common law crime of misprision (despite the Florida statute adopting the English common law), and then the policy discussion by that Court to choose whether or not to make misprision a crime. We then examined last week's statutory handout about the Maine legislature's view of common law crimes, and the duty to report in two specific instances. We also looked at the federal misprision statute and examined what two specific actions trigger that law. We then turned to Lawrence v. Texas. I talked about the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick and the two theories involved in Lawrence, equal protection and due process. We looked at the way that Kennedy criticized how the Bowers court characterized the right asserted. We left off at how Kennedy dealt with the history and tradition of laws aimed at sodomy, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Throughout our discussion today, we looked at the role of morality in making judgments about how people should be encouraged and/or required to act.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/7 is to review the rest of Lawrence and to read in addition through p. 77 of the text (including Glassford v. BrickKicker).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/2, I distributed one handout, my version of the NLRB v. Canning outline. We finished our discussion and outlining of NLRB v. Canning, both the majority opinion and the Scalia concurrence. We discussed dictum in the opinions. In relation to the next subject in the text, the power of removal, I began talking about the current controversy regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created in the wake of the 2008 recession) and the desire by the President to remove the head of that agency.
The assignment for Tuesday 11/7 is to outline the majority opinion in Myers (previously assigned- not handed in or graded) and to be ready to discuss the dissenting opinions as well.

October 26, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/28, I distributed one handout, state and federal statutes involving hindering apprehension, common law crimes, and the duty to report crimes. We finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, and discussed the article about the back-room compromise in Furman. We then discussed State v. Mobbley, both the majority and the dissenting opinion. We looked at the Maine statute about hindering apprehension, and we analyzed with what crime Ms. Mobbley might be charged in Maine.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/31 is to read today's handout, and to read in the text pp. 65 - 72 (including Holland and Lawrence).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/28, we finished our discussion of Morrison v. Olson. We then started our discussion of NLRB v. Canning, including how to do an outline of that case. We got as far as Breyer's discussion of the purpose of the Recess Appointment Clause, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/31 is continue work on your NLRB outline, which I really want you to write up and have ready for discussion. In addition, read in the text pp. 228-234, and to do outlines (not handed in or graded) of the majority opinion in Myers (p.229).

October 24, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/24, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts: an article about how capital punishment itself was almost declared unconstitutional, and a listing of Supreme Court capital punishment cases. We began our discussion of Gregg, getting to Stewart's view of the justification for capital punishment.
The assignment for Thursday 10/26 is to read today's handouts and to read in the text pp. 58-64 (including Mobbley).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/24, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, my version of an outline of the Morrison v. Olson opinion. We began our discussion of Morrison, getting to the first of the the four reasons given for finding that Morrison was an "inferior" officer.
The assignment for Thursday 10/26 is to review the remainder of Morrison, and then to do an outline of NLRB v. Canning, using today's handout as an example of the question and answer format that I'm looking for (not handed in or graded).

October 19, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/19, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the exam and go over it on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/24 is to review Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned.

POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/19, the class took Exam #1. I plan to return the exam and go over it on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/24 is to read in the text from p. 211 (Presidential Signing Statements) thru p.228 (including Morrison v. Olson and NLRB v.Canning).

October 17, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/17, I distributed one handout, the comment key for my comments on the Dyer case brief. I handed back the Dyer case briefs, and we reviewed some common problems. We then went back to the Maine justification for the use of force statute, and discussed whether Dyer might have been justified in the use of deadly force. We went over Suggs v. Norris. I discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Paffhausen v. Balano, that clarified in Maine the difference between quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. We did not get to discuss Gregg v. Georgia, and so the exam Thursday will not include Gregg.
On Thursday 10/19, the class will take Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/17, we finished our discussion of in re Neagle. We then discussed the Steel Seizure case (p.204) and the Zivotofsky cae (p. 205) in terms of Congressional limits on the executive Branch. We moved on to discuss Clinton v. City of New York, both the majority and the 2 dissents. That's how far the exam will cover.
On Thursday 10/19, the class will take Exam #1, open-book and open-note. Remember that if you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.

October 12, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the Dyer case brief. I collected the class' Dyer case briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them next Tuesday.
I announced that the first exam will be a week from today, Thursday 10/19. The class took a brief sample test in preparation for that exam. The best way to prepare for the exam is to use the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com) to review the materials and the concepts that we've covered thus far. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
We went through the Maine statute on the use of force up to the use of deadly force (17-A MRS § 104 (3)). We will pick up with the question of whether deadly force against Dixon would have been justified on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/17, is to review the Maine statute, and also review Suggs v. Norris and Gregg v. Georgia, previously assigned, as well as to begin preparation for the exam.
.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/12, I distributed one handout, some notes regarding the Assignment #1 papers. I returned those papers, and we went over some aspects of the cases.
I announced that the first exam will be a week from today, Thursday 10/19. The class took a brief sample test in preparation for that exam. The best way to prepare for the exam is to use the blog (goldmanmaine.blogspot.com) to review the materials and the concepts that we've covered thus far. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by Wednesday 10/18 at 8:00 pm with your requests.
We finished looking at the 3 dissenting opinions in Arizona, and then began our discussion of Neagle (p. 200)
The assignment for Tuesday 10/17, is to review Neagle and Clinton v. New York (through p. 211 of the text) all previously assigned, as well as to begin preparation for the exam.

October 5, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW

In class today, Thursday 10/5, we first discussed some aspects of the Dyer case brief, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/12. Remember that you may not discuss the case with others, even if they were not in class today. We then discussed the types of authority cited in the Katko case: primary versus secondary authority, mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following, distinguishing, and extending authority.
There is no class Tuesday 10/10 (Fall Break). The assignment for Thursday 10/12 is to finish your case briefs and to read in the text through p. 59 (including Gregg v. Georgia).

POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 10/5, we first went over Assignment #1. We then finished our discussion of Crosby, and we got through the majority opinion in Arizona. We will pick up with the Arizona dissents next Thursday.
There is no class Tuesday 10/10 (Fall Break). The assignment for Thursday 10/12 is to read in the text pp. 196-211.

October 3, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/3, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below); the case you'll be briefing; my version of the Katko case brief; and the Maine statute regarding use of force in defense of premises. We talked about the requirements of the assignment. I went over the Supreme Court case of Jones v. Flowers, and then we discussed Katko v. Briney. I also went over the four mental states involved in both civil and criminal law: intent; knowledge; recklessness; and negligence.
The assignment for Thursday 10/5 is to read all of today's handouts, to begin work on the Dyer case brief, and to read in the text through the end of Chapter 1 (Suggs v. Norris).

Assignment due at 2:00 Thursday, October 12, 2017

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Dyer, 2001 ME 62, 769 A.2d 873, also distributed to the class today. If you weren't in class, you can access the case at
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2563685327105664517&q=2001+ME+62&hl=en&as_sdt=4,193

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

For example: “Under the 4th Amendment, was the pursuit of a suspect from a public road onto the curtilage of his home a “hot” or fresh pursuit when the officer followed the suspect on the road, and from the road into the curtilage of the house, immediately and fairly continuously (even though the officer did not leave his car to follow the suspect for at least seven seconds)?”.

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 already have appeared exactly in your Issue and get copied into your 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 on Thursday 10/12.

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 10/12, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.

Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me. Do no outside research. You already have all the materials that you need.

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 the paper is not submitted.



POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 10/3, we first went over some questions about Assignment #1, due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/5. We then went over the Holland preemption case, and Crosby as far as the second of the obstacles to accomplishment of the federal goals. We put Crosby in an outline format.
The assignment for Thursday 10/5 is to complete work on your Christie papers, due at the beginning of class on Thursday. Also read the Arizona case in the text, through p. 414.

September 28, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/28, I distributed one handout, my version of the Speelman case brief. We first went over a case that we had briefly mentioned on Tuesday, Pavan v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court ruled on a follow-up to Obergefell about equal treatment for same-sex couples regarding birth certificates. This was another illustration of the Court's power to not only decide what the law is, but also to decide what it was that had been decided in previous cases. We went over the Speelman case and case brief, and then the Speelman hypotheticals. Along the way we discussed mandatory versus persuasive authority, and following versus distinguishing precedent.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/3 is to read in the text through p. 43, and to write out for yourself (not handed in or graded) a case brief of Katko v. Briney.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/28, we started with the text of the taxing clause of Article I §8. I talked about a case (from the text, p. 553) that I had not assigned, Stewart Machine v. Davis, and its interpretation of the use of Congressional spending as it relates to coercion of the states. We then went through South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius, and saw how the test for coercion got created in Dole, and applied in NFIB.
The assignment for Tuesday 10/3 is to continue working on Assignment #1 (due Thursday 10/5) and to read in the text pp. 399-407 (preemption) and to read the constitution itself, at least up to the Bill of Rights.

September 26, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, some hypothetical situations that ask you to think about some variations in the facts of Speelman. We finished our discussion of Glucksberg by going over the flow chart of "careful description", history and tradition, and high or low hurdles. We looked at Souter's concurrence in terms of the individual versus the government, the deference given by the judiciary to the legislative branch, and the relationship between the federal and state governments. We went through the Glucksberg case brief. We talked about the Maynard article and its assertion of the rights of the individual. We then went over the Obergefell excerpt, both the majority and the dissent. We then began our discussion of Speelman, going through the set-up portion of the case brief. We will pick up on Thursday with the remainder of the Speelman case brief.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to write out a case brief of Speelman (not handed in or graded), and to read and prepare to discuss the Speelman hypotheticals distributed today.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/26, I distributed one handout, Assignment #1, which is reproduced below. We went over the requirements of that assignment. We finished our discussion of the two Christie Supreme Court briefs by contrasting their views on whether the federal prohibition on state action was the equivalent of a federal command for the state to enact legislation. We also discussed the Reno v. Condon statement that said that it was allowable under certain circumstances for the federal government to actually command the state to enact legislation. We then discussed Chicago v. Sessions, in which the court upheld the federal law by sticking to the letter of the precedent, but also added that the logic of the precedent could lead to a different result.
The assignment for Thursday 9/28 is to begin work on your Christie paper, and to read in the text pp. 557-568 (South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius), about the limits on the federal spending power.


Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 5, 2017

Congratulations! President Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly created position analyzes up-coming Supreme Court cases to tell the President how they should come out in accordance with existing precedent. This is all in the service of improving the legal quality of the President’s tweets.

Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the Christie v. NCAA Supreme Court case. (To tweet about sports betting might help the President heal his relationship with the sports establishment.)

The President wants a very particular format:
I) a paragraph for each of the five sources below consisting of 1) a few sentences describing the holding of the case, and then a 2) a few sentences explaining how that holding would (or wouldn’t) apply to PASPA.

II) a short section analyzing, based on precedent, whether PASPA is an unconstitutional commandeering of the New Jersey state government in the 2014 Law. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the federal statute, and then come to a conclusion. If you wish, you can add a proposed tweet to the end of your analysis.

As precedent, use the following cases from the textbook: New York v. U.S. (p.374); Printz v. U.S. (p.381); and the following handouts: Reno v. Condon; the 3rd Circuit opinion in Christie II; and the District Court decision in Chicago v. Sessions. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what you do with what’s in the textbook and the handouts. For the five cases in your discussion, don’t give background, story of the case, or vote of the Court. Just get right to the holding. Be as specific as possible. Make your language as clear and simple as possible. Remember your audience.

Here’s an example for the format for the paragraphs for the five cases:
In Garcia, the Court held that it is constitutional for Congress to tell the states that they have to pay their own state workers according to federal standards. That sounds like Congress telling the states how to run their own government, so why was it ok? New York distinguished Garcia on the basis that there, Congress had simply subjected the states - as employers - to the same employer standards as private employers were subjected to. In PASPA, both government and private persons are prohibited from "sponsoring, operating, advertising, or promoting" sports betting, so that might seem to be just like Garcia in that it subjected the states to the same rules as private parties. But the operative activity that is forbidden to only a state is to "authorize by law" sports betting. Only a state can "authorize by law", and so Garcia is distinguishable because PASPA does not subject a state to the same legislation applicable to private parties.

If you wish, you can criticize the lower court decisions (Christie II and Chicago) as being unfaithful to the Supreme Court cases, but you can’t criticize the Supreme Court cases themselves—they are a given. You can take the position that those Supreme Court case are distinguishable.

The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your analysis. 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. I would expect the paper to be in the neighborhood of three pages long.

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.

The assignment is due at the beginning of class on Thursday 10/5. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the class. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the paper. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. 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. Do not troll the internet for other people’s analysis. The idea is to think it out for yourself. 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.

September 19, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/19, I distributed 3 handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief, an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges about fundamental rights, and an article by Brittany Maynard about her right to death with dignity. We went over the history of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the concept of rights of the individual which the Court protects against intrusions by our elected representatives. We discussed federal court organization, including panel and en banc opinions by the Courts of Appeal. We looked at the flow chart that follows from the designation of an individual right as eith fundamental or not. We then did the Venn diagrams for the relationship between what goal the government wants to achieve versus the means adopted to reach that goal ("narrowly tailored" versus "rationally related"). We got as far in the Glucksberg case brief as discussing the concepts of the Issues raised by the opinion, but will pick up with how to put that in the format of the case brief.
On Thursday 9/21 the class will watch an episode from the PBS series, The Supreme Court (attendance will be taken). The assignment for next Tuesday 9/26 is to read the 3 handouts, review the Glucksberg case and case brief, and the read in the text through p. 38 (Speelman).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/19, I distributed one handout, an edited version of a decision from last Friday about sanctuary cities and commandeering, Chicago v. Sessions. We finished our discussion of Christie II by going over three factors looked at by the majority (prohibition v. affirmative action; expenditure of resources; and non-coercive choice). The dissent added another factor, whether the federal government was telling the states how the states must conduct their own state affairs, versus telling the states how to regulate the citizens of the state. We looked at Reno v. Condon, which did seem to point to that factor raised by the Christie II dissent.
On Thursday 9/21 the class will watch an episode from the PBS series, The Supreme Court (attendance will be taken). The assignment for next Tuesday 9/26 is to review the previous handouts, and to read today's handout of Chicago v. Sessions.

September 14, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/14, I distributed two handouts: a list of the Supreme Court Justices (as well as useful websites) and the Maine statutes regarding sentencing. We went over those handouts, including the proper citation form for Maine statutes. We went over the remaining opinions in Miller, including Breyer's, Roberts', and Thomas' opinions. We went over the difference between concurring in the judgment versus concurring in the opinion. I then talked about the case of Montgomery v. Louisiana and the retroactive application of the rule in Miller. We discussed Montgomery's differentiation between new constitutional procedural rules versus new constitutional substantive rules, and why Miller fell on the substantive side.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/19 is to read through p. 34 of the text, including Washington v. Glucksberg. Write out a case brief of the majority opinion in Glucksberg, (not handed in or graded).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/14, I distributed one handout, the Supreme Court opinion in Reno v. Condon. We finished our discussion of Printz by going over the second part of Thomas' concurrence, and the two dissenting opinions. We then went through the Third Circuit opinion in this case, getting to ¶17, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday. Along the way, we discussed the concepts of the holding of a case versus dictum, and mandatory authority through the federal court system.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/19 is to read today's handout, as well as the two previously distributed SCOTUS briefs.

September 12, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/12, I distributed one handout, my version of the Miller case brief. I went over one more aspect of the text's introductory materials, the difference between legal and equitable remedies, and how that's still reflected in Maine's court system. We then began our discussion of Miller. I went over 4 cases that preceded Miller regarding juvenile sentencing: Thompson, Sanford, Roper, and Graham. We made our way through the majority opinion in Miller in the format of the case brief. We also looked at the 5-4 split in the Miller opinion, and talked about ideological vetting on the present-day Court. On Thursday 9/14 we will look at the other opinions in Miller, and I'll also talk about the Montgomery case regarding retroactive application of the Miller opinion.
The assignment for Thursday 9/14 is to review the other opinions in Miller, previously assigned


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/12, I distributed two handouts, both of them briefs in the current Supreme Court case of Christie v. NCAA: the amicus brief of the U.S. opposing the hearing of the case in the first place, and the merits brief of Christie. We went back and tried to figure out exactly the rule that came from N.Y. v. U.S.. We went through Scalia's opinion in Printz in detail, paying particular attention to his characterization of the N.Y. case holding, and also to the structure of his opinion. We got through the first part of Thomas' concurrence, and will pick up with the remainder of that opinion on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 9/14 is to review the remainder of Printz, and to review the 3rd Circuit opinion previously distributed. If you're sick of reviewing those, go ahead and read today's two handouts.

September 7, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/7, we finished our discussion of Blier by going over the case brief format for all of the segments of the brief. I talked about two additional aspects of Blier: the deference given by appellate courts to the findings of fact made by trial courts, and the use of authority by a court to demonstrate that's it's not just making up stuff. We went over some concepts from the assigned textbook reading, the most important of which was the concept of "common law" as law made by judges in the absence of enacted law. The additional concept that I wanted to discuss from the introductory sect was equitable versus legal remedies.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/12 is to read through p. 21 of the text. Write up a case brief of Miller (majority opinion) following the format of the case brief template and the Blier case (not handed in or graded).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 9/7, I distributed one handout, the en banc opinion of the Third Circuit in the Christie v. NCAA case. I went over some introductory material to the case, as well as going over the organization of the federal court system, and panel and en banc decisions of the courts of appeal. We then finished our discussion of New York v. U.S., trying to identify the exact line at which federal action becomes unconstitutional commandeering. We will pick up with the Printz case on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/12 is to review Printz (previously assigned) and read today's handout.

September 5, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/5, I distributed one handout, my version of the Blier case brief. We continued our journey through the Blier opinion by pinpointing the issues decided by the Maine Supreme Court, as well as the resolution of those issues. We identified the exact parts of the trial court suppression order that were reversed by the Law Court. We also put those issues into the format of the case brief template that I had distributed last week. Along the way today we also went over the concepts of objective versus subjective beliefs, and dictum in a court opinion versus the holding of the court.
The assignment for Thursday 9/7 is to review today's handout of my version of the Blier case brief, and to read in the text pp. 1-14.



POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 9/5, we finished our discussion of Garcia (majority and 2 dissents) and began discussing N.Y. v. U.S. We counted votes in New York, seeing whether there were any changed votes, where the new Justices (new post Garcia) landed, and where Kennedy stood(since he's the only Justice still on the Court). In O'Connor's majority opinion in N.Y., we got as far as how her discussion about how the federal authority had expanded, but how the states retained a core of sovereignty that can't be reduced by Congress (left-hand side of p. 377).
The assignment for Thursday 9/7 is to review New York and Printz, all previously assigned.

August 31, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 8/31, I distributed one handout, a template for the case brief that I'll be having you produce. We went over the Blier case in detail. We talked about how the Maine Supreme Court appears to have switched the focus from what the trial court and the parties had looked at; the text of the 4th Amendment, and the use of suppression of evidence as a remedy for violations of the that Amendment; the level of suspicion needed for an arrest (probable cause) versus an investigatory (traffic) stop (reasonable, articulable suspicion); all you'd ever want to know about wig-wag lights; and the right of the state to appeal from unfavorable trial court rulings. Along the way, we talked about the organization of the Maine court system (including the Unified Criminal Docket), appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, and three basic levels of suspicion under the 4th Amendment: probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and a hunch. We left off working on the task of figuring out exactly what question(s) the Maine Supreme Court was trying to answer, which is where we'll pick up next Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/5 is to review Blier (we've still got lots to cover) and to try your hand at creating a case brief for the Blier case, using the template (not handed in or graded).


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 8/31, we first talked about some aspects of the Articles of Confederation, including how the states each had one vote, that states paid the salaries of their own representatives, restrictions on emoluments, and how the federal government got its money. We saw how the Constitution gave the federal government both the power and the structure to succeed, but how the tension between federal and state sovereignty persisted. We then turned to the textbook and went over the Darby case (p. 367), National League of Cities (P. 368), and we began our discussion of Garcia. In Garcia we counted votes to see what had changed sine National League of Cities, and we looked at how the arguments made the parties were not the arguments that the Court ruled on. We discussed how the test created in National League of Cities was rejected, and we left off with the question of what constitutional principles would replace the National League of Cities test. Along the way, we discussed three possibilities regarding the treatment of prior Court opinions (precedent): overruling; following; and distinguishing.
The assignment for Tuesday 9/5 is to review the pages previously assigned (through p. 381), and to read in addition the Printz case (through p. 387).

August 29, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 8/29, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, the recent Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Blier, and a set of questions to guide your reading of the Blier case. We went over the requirements of the syllabus in detail, as those requirements are basically the contract for the taking of the class. We began our discussion of the Blier opinion, going through the 1st paragraph. Along the way, we discussed the order of the parties (plaintiff/defendant; appellant/appellee) in both the Maine state court system and in the U.S. Supreme Court. We went over the citation form for Maine Supreme Court cases, as well as the citation form for Maine statutes. We also discussed three levels of persuasion used in different court cases: beyond a reasonable doubt (used the criminal cases); clear and convincing evidence (used in the context of non-criminal deprivations of constitutional and other fundamental rights); and preponderance of the evidence (used in ordinary civil cases). The assignment for Thursday, August 31 is to read and re-read the Blier opinion, guided by the handout of questions.


POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Tuesday 8/29, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, a list of the current Supreme Court Justices, and the text of the Articles of Confederation. We went over the requirements of the syllabus in detail, as those requirements are basically the contract for the taking of the class. We talked about how the focus of this class is on two institutional conflicts inherent in the Constitution: the power of the federal government versus the power of the states, and the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. We went over the current 9 Justices of the Supreme Court. I introduced the current Supreme Court case of Christie v. NCAA, in which New Jersey is challenging the power of the federal government to forbid the states from authorizing sports betting. We looked at the 9th and 10th Amendments (the 9th stating how to read the first eight Amendments, and the 10th saying that states retain the rights not given to the federal government). We compared and contrasted these two Amendments with Article II of the Articles of Confederation. The assignment for Thursday, August 31 is to finish reading the Articles of Confederation, and then to read in the text pp. 367-381, including the cases of Garcia v. San Antonio and New York v. U.S.

May 5, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 5/5, I first talked about two Supreme Court cases about personal jurisdiction, McIntyre v. Nicastro (British manufacturer) and Walden v. Fiore (Georgia police). We turned back to subject matter jurisdiction. We reviewed the bases of federal court jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Finally, we went over the diversity case of St. James v. Coinmach.
Exam #2 will be Monday 5/8 from 8:45 - 10:00, open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to email me by 8:00pm on Sunday with your specific requests.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 5/5, I distributed one handout, a set of short articles about Trump's executive order regarding enforcement of the Johnson amendment. We then had our debate about three views of how Locke v. Davey should impact the current Trinity Lutheran case: follow Locke, distinguish Locke, or overrule Locke.
Exam #2 will be Monday 5/8 from 1:30 - 2:45, open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to email me by 8:00pm on Sunday with your specific requests.

May 1, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 5/1, I handed back the Gaeth case briefs, as well as the Comment Key to my comments. We then discussed timing for Exam #2. Without objection, the timing for that exam will be 8:45-10:00 (not starting at 8:00, but rather starting at 8:45). We went back to subject matter jurisdiction, and discussed the case handed out last time, V.L. v. E.L. That case decided the meaning of the federal constitutional requirement of full faith and credit in the context of the Georgia view of subject matter jurisdiction. We moved then to personal jurisdiction. I outlined my view (as opposed to the textbook's view) of the methods by which a state asserts jurisdiction over a person: domicile of the defendant; service of process within the state; consent; and minimum contacts. We then went over the internet personal jurisdiction case of Swoboda v. Parody. On Friday I plan to start with a recent SCOTUS case regarding personal jurisdiction.
We have no class on Wednesday 5/3 (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/5 is to read in the text through p. 141 (including St. James v. Coinmatch).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 5/1, we discussed timing for Exam #2. The timing for that exam on Monday 5/8 will be 1:30-2:45. I talked about an opinion of the Eighth Circuit last week, U.S. v. Anderson, in which that court ruled against a religious objector to the federal laws against the distribution of heroin. We reviewed the relationship between the Smith case, RFRA, and Boerne v. Flores. We reviewed the facts of Locke v. Davey, and discussed the concept of "play in the joints" (when state action in favor of religion is allowed under the Establishment Clause, but the state is not required under the Free Exercise Clause to extend a benefit to religion.
We have no class on Wednesday 5/3 (Maine Day). The assignment for Friday 5/5 is to review Locke v. Davey and the briefs in Trinity Lutheran. The plan for Friday's class is that students can choose one of three positions to defend regarding Trinity Lutheran: Locke should be followed; Locke should be distinguished; or Locke should be overruled. We'll try to have a debate in class revolving around those three positions.

April 28, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/28, I collected the Gaeth case briefs, and hope to return them on Monday. I distributed 2 handouts: my version of the Gaeth case brief, and the U.S. Supreme Court case of V.L. v. E.L. We first went over Gaeth, including the three possible versions of the service by publication issue, and the facts that go to each of the different versions. I discussed the changes to the MRCivP that followed Gaeth, both in the text of the rule, and in the advisory committee notes. We then returned to subject matter jurisdiction, I reviewed the Maine case that I discussed last time, Landmark Realty v.Leasure. I talked about a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowles v. Russell, that gave a very different interpretation of what is meant by subject matter jurisdiction. I gave an introduction to today's handout of V.L. v. E.L., which goes over the rules of Full Faith and Credit and subject matter jurisdiction in the context of a same-sex adoption case.
The assignment for Monday May 1 is to review Swoboda v. Hero Decks (previously assigned) and to read today's handout of V.L. v. E.L.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/28, I distributed one handout, the Summaries of the Arguments in the Supreme Court briefing in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. We finished our discussion of Boerne v. Flores. We went over the question of Congressional power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, and how the Court majority found that RFRA was not enforcement by appropriate legislation. We also looked at the concurring and the dissenting opinions in the case. We talked also about RFRA under federal statutes (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and RLUIPA (using a different source of Congressional power). We began to discuss the situation in Locke v. Davey, in which the state of Washington argued that it was free not to aid religion with the use of its college scholarships, even though it would be permitted to do so under the Establishment clause if it wanted to do so.
The assignment for Monday May 1 is to review the majority opinion in Locke (previously assigned), to read the Locke dissent, and to read today's handout.

April 26, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/26, I distributed one handout, Maine statutes dealing with subject matter jurisdiction and with venue. After going over some questions regarding the Gaeth v. Deacon case brief, we went over the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. We went over Cheap Escape v. Haddox, in which a default judgment was vacated because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I also talked about a Maine case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, in which the Maine Supreme Court limited the circumstances that fall within subject matter jurisdiction. Time limits and filing of required papers are not, in Maine, subject matter questions. We talked about the consequence of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which include that the issue can be brought up at any time, by any party, or by the court itself, and can't be waived. On Friday, after going over the Gaeth case briefs, we will go over the Maine statutory handout from today, and I'll talk about Bowles v. Russell a U.S. Supreme Court case about the meaning of "subject matter jurisdiction" within the federal court system.
The assignment for Friday 4/28 is to finish your Gaeth v. Deacon case briefs, due at the beginning of Friday's class, to study the Maine jurisdictional statute from today, and to read in the text through p. 136 (including Swoboda v. Hero Decks).



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/26, I distributed one handout, the 2004 Supreme Court case of Locke v. Davey. We finished up our discussion of Scalia's opinion in Smith, reviewing the impact of the case and Scalia's view of the role of the Bill of Rights in the protection of minorities. We talked about the political response to Smith, and the enactment of RFRA. We began our discussion of Boerne v. Flores, which is really more a case about Congressional powers in a federalist system than a religious exercise case. We will continue on Friday with why the Court found that RFRA was neither congruent nor proportional to the problem posed by religious intolerance. We'll also cover the other opinions in Boerne.
The assignment for Friday 4/28 is to review Boerne, and to read at least the majority opinion in Locke v. Davey.

April 24, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/24, I first clarified what I was looking for in Issue #2 in Gaeth. I went over how there were three strands of the due process issue: 1) whether the problem was publication only in a Lincoln County newspaper (as opposed to a Kennebec County paper); whether the problem was publication only in a Maine newspaper (as opposed to a Massachusetts newspaper: and 3) whether the problem was if service by publication was justified at all, as opposed to making further efforts to locate and serve Deacon personally in Massachusetts. I explained that, in terms of the case brief, you could choose any strand or combination of strands that you feel best reflects the Court's holding. The requirement is just that your choice must be pretty consistent with the opinion (e.g. the Court couldn't be saying that #3 alone is the holding, because they would never have talked about where notice was published if they had decided that service by publication was not proper in the first place. But whatever you decide that the holding is, you must make sure that your legal question (which needs to be as specific as possible) and winner's facts and loser's facts all match up together (i.e., no talking about Deacon as a Massachusetts resident if you think that the holding is only about which Maine county should publish the newspaper notice).
We then finished Chapter III of the text by going over Finstuen v. Crutcher. We followed that by discussing the excerpt from Obergefell that I had distributed last week. Finally I talked about the concepts of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/26, is to continue work on your Gaeth v. Deacon case brief (due this Friday 4/28) and to read in the text through p. 129 (Cheap Escape v. Haddox).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/24, I handed back the WWH outlines, as well as my version of the outline and my comment key to the comments that I wrote on your papers. We talked about the evaluation of pretextual reasons offered by a legislature, both in the abortion context and in the context of voter id laws. We then continued with our free exercise cases. We finished Yoder and Douglas' dissent. We talked about three cases in which the government prevailed despite high hurdles, Bob Jones, Lee, and Goldman. We then talked about the Smith case. We saw how the Court distinguished, rather than overruling, the prior cases that had subjected governmental restrictions to strict scrutiny. We will pick up on Wednesday with Scalia's view of the protection of minority rights in Smith.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/26, is to review Smith, and to read in the text through p. 131 (including Boerne v. Flores).

April 21, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/21, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from Obergefell v. Hodges that discussed full faith and credit regarding recognition of out-of-state same sex marriages. We spent pretty much the entire class period today going over aspects of the Gaeth v. Deacon case brief due next Friday. We went over the first issue of whether Lincoln county was the proper venue for the case under the Maine venue statute. I also talked about whether that part of the opinion might really just be dictum, since the case is ultimately resolved under the constitutional issue about service by publication. We talked at length about three aspects of that service of process issue: publication in Lincoln county, publication in Maine anywhere, and publication at all.
The assignment for Monday 4/24 is to continue work on your Gaeth case briefs (remembering the rule that there is no communication allowed with anyone but me regarding the brief, including what was discussed in class today). Also review Finstuen v. Crutcher (previously assigned) as well as today's handout.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/21, I collected the WWH outlines. We spent the class going over those outlines, and I plan to return them on Monday.
The assignment for Monday 4/24 is to review through Smith, previously assigned.

April 19, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/19, I first mentioned that I plan to spend some time on Friday going over any questions that the class might have about the case you're briefing, Gaeth v. Deacon, and so it would be helpful if you have read the case and started the process of briefing it. I went over a Maine case, Collins v. Trius, in which the Maine Supreme Court adopted the Restatement of Conflict of Laws in a case about a Canadian bus that has an accident on a Maine road. Back in the text, we reviewed how the Indiana court in Hubbard adopted a two-step process for its choice of law rule that wasn't exactly the same as the Restatement. We talked about federal subject matter jurisdiction, both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. We talked about the Erie doctrine, and how the federal court in diversity cases acts as a state court would in the state in which the federal court sits. And we talked about the two concepts of statutes of limitations versus statutes of repose. With all that preparation under our collective belt, we then went over Land v. Yamaha, and saw how bringing the case in Indiana had very bad consequences for the plaintiffs.
The assignment for Friday 4/21 is to continue work on your Gaeth case brief (due 4/28) and to read in the text Finstuen v. Crutcher (through the end of Chapter III).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/19, we reviewed where Sherbert left a government that burdens religion (trying to jump over the high hurdles, is where), and also compared the Wisconsin law in Yoder with the Oregon law in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (p. 99). We went through Burger's opinion in Yoder, and saw how Wisconsin's compelling interest in having kids receive a basic level of education still wasn't enough to save the Wisconsin law. We talked about White's concurrence that emphasized that other religious practices of keeping kids from getting an education would not be protected (even though the Amish were protected in this case). We will pick up with Douglas' opinion when we return to Yoder.
The assignment for Friday 4/21 is to finish work on your WWH outline, due at the beginning of class on Friday 4/21, and also to review the textbook readings previously assigned, through Employment Div. v. Smith.

April 17, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/17, we first finished our discussion of Strunk v. Strunk. We went over the question of what person or court had the power to make the decision for the ward Jerry, that donation of his kidney was in his own best interest. We also talked about the specific circumstance here that meant that the donation actually was in Jerry's best interest. Finally, we went over the dissent's view that this donation was a step down a slippery slope. We then turned to Hubbard v. Greeson. We went over the concepts of choice of law (or conflict of law) common law rules, the forum state, substantive law, the Restatement, and significant contacts. We saw how the Indiana Supreme Court changed the 99 year-old Indiana choice of law rule, much to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/19 is to continue work on your Gaeth v. Deacon case brief (due 4/28) and to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie doctrine and Land v. Yamaha).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/17, we first reviewed the Braunfeld plurality opinion, and how it started the process of using a stricter scrutiny test than just the "valid secular purpose" test. We then went through Sherbert v. Verner, and saw the Court employ a full strict scrutiny test of compelling interest and least restrictive alternative. The concurring and dissenting opinions weighed in on the nature of the "burden" if it is not financial, and the proper treatment of Braunfeld (to follow, distinguish, or overrule it).
The assignment for Wednesday 4/19 is to review Yoder (previously assigned) and to read in addition Employment Division v. Smith (through p. 124). Also, continue working on your WWH outlines, due this Friday.

April 14, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/14, I distributed two handouts, Assignment #2, due Friday 4/28 (which is reproduced below), and the case you'll be briefing, Gaeth v. Deacon. (If you weren't in class, you can also access the case by going to Google Scholar, checking the bullet for "case law", and entering 2009 ME 9). We talked about the subject of the case, which is constructive service of "process" (the 2 pieces of paper that start a court case, the summons and the complaint). I also assigned the class to read the textbook material about this subject, which is on pp. 159-162. We then finished up our discussion of the Butler (dictum) case by talking about "voluntariness" as a separate issue from Miranda. Finally for Butler, we talked about why the Miranda rules even theoretically might apply to Butler's case, since the interrogation during which Butler made his statement preceded the Miranda decision. I talked about Johnson v. New Jersey, in which the Supreme Court decided to which cases in the legal pipeline Miranda would apply. We then moved on to the Dempsey case. In the federal court system we compared the "old" flexible rule (that sometimes allowed prospective only application) to the "new" bright line rule (that automatically applied the new rule to all cases still in the pipeline). We discussed why the Montana Supreme Court has the authority to set its own rule (even in the face of contrary U.S. Supreme Court opinions), and how they chose a compromise between the federal flexible versus bright-line approaches. Finally we went over the set-up of the Strunk v. Strunk case, and left off with the question of whether any person or court has the authority to say that it is in Jerry's interest to give up one of his kidneys.
The assignment for Monday 4/17 is to read in the text pp. 159-162; to begin work on the Gaeth case brief; review Strunk; and to read in addition pp. 113-116 (Hubbard v. Greason).

Assignment due Friday, April 28, 2017

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Gaeth v. Deacon,
2009 ME 9, 964 A.2d 621 (also distributed to the class today).

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

For example: Under the 4th Amendment’s requirement of “probable cause”, was there a fair probability that drug-related evidence would be found at the suspect’s residence when there were multiple informants who substantiated the suspect’s drug activity, and that the suspect lived at the particular property, and the officer used her knowledge and experience to assert that evidence of drug activity would likely be found in a drug-trafficker’s home even though there was no information that the suspect had used his home in connection with his business?

Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Friday 4/28, 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. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me. Do not plagiarize any other work. Do not even consult any other work. The whole point of the assignment is to have you learn how to get the most of the your own reading of the case.

IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/14, we looked at how the law of free exercise developed after the Reynolds (polygamy) case. We talked about Pierce (compulsory public school; Cantwell (license to solicit); Gobitis (compulsory flag salute); Prince (child religious pamphleteering); and Braunfeld (Sunday closing laws). We saw in Braunfeld how the Warren plurality opinion added additional hurdles to the flow chart, even if they didn't result there in any change to the outcome of the case for Mr. Braunfeld.
The assignment for Monday 4/17 is to review Sherbert v. Verner (previously assigned) and to read in addition Wisconsin v. Yoder (through p.115). In addition, continue working on your WWH outline, due 4/21.

April 12, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/12, we continued going through the Chapter 3 question of how to tell what the law really is. We talked about the due process challenge to the individual mandate in the Massachusetts health care law that preceded the ACA, and the difference between the enumerated powers of Congress versus the police power of state legislatures. We talked then about the limits on those state powers, and I discussed the preemption case of Rowe v. N.H. Transport Assoc. We discussed ex post fact laws and sex offender registries, and the "punishment" aspect of the current U.S. Supreme Court case of Packingham v. N.C. We then discussed the Butler case and dictum. I went over the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., in which the Court basically agreed with the Butler court. I went through the votes in the Harris case, and we talked about how a change in the personnel of the Court can change the meaning of the constitution. We talked about three different kinds of dictum that we've seen: beyond the facts presented, even if, and more than one way to get to a result.
The assignment for Friday 4/14 is to read in the text through p. 113 (Dempsey and Strunk). Also on Friday, I plan to distribute our second graded case brief assignment.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/12, we finished going over the dissenting opinions in Casey. We looked at the cases in the remainder of Chapter 10 that we're not covering, and we talked about the religion case coming in the Supreme Court next week, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. We started going through the textbook discussion of religion, starting with the definition of "religion". We then talked about free exercise in relation to the Mormon challenge to the federal anti-polygamy statute, which is where we'll pick up on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 4/14 is to review through Cantwell (previously assigned) and to read in addition through p. 110 (Sherbert v. Verner).

April 10, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/10, we first reviewed the argument in NFIB v. Sebelius that we discussed last week, the language of the constitution regarding creation v. regulation of activity. We then looked at Roberts' opinion in terms of precedent, and the various arguments made by the government. We talked about the necessary and proper clause, and I went over the case of Gonzales v. Raich. We reviewed the opinions by Ginsburg and Scalia.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/12 is read in the text through p. 107, including, but not limited to, State v. Butler.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/10, we continued our journey through Casey. We finished going through the joint opinion, as well as the Blackmun and Stevens opinions. We began the Rehnquist opinion, and will finish it and Scalia's opinion on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/12 is to review the remainder of Casey, finish the textbook reading on abortion (through p. 427) and then begin our next unit (religious freedom) by reading pp. 95-103 of the text. Also, continue work on your WWH outline.

April 7, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/7, I finished our discussion of ethics with the current Supreme Court case of Epic Systems v. Lewis. That case asks whether an employer may force an agreement onto its employees in which the employees forgo the right to exercise their federal rights to engage in collective action, through the imposition of a mandatory individual arbitration agreement. We then talked about the history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause. We talked about how mining, unionization, and child labor were all held to be commerce within a state, and therefore not within the interstate commerce power. We talked then about how the Supreme Court in 1937 changed its interpretation, and we went over Wickard v. Filburn. We began the discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius with the first argument by Roberts, that the "creation" of commerce can't be within the power of "regulation" of commerce, because that would leave some other words of the constitution as being mere surplusage. That's the point at which we'll pick up next week.
The assignment for Monday 4/10 is to review all the opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius, previously assigned.



POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/7, I distributed two handouts: assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be outlining, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellersted. We went over the assignment, and reviewed the format for outlines. We then went back into the Casey case. We got through Part III of case, and so we'll pick up on Monday with Part IV (p. 420).
The assignment for Monday 4/10 is to begin work on your Whole Woman's Health outline, and to review the remainder of Casey.

Assignment #2 due Friday April 21, 2017
The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Breyer’s majority opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (also distributed to the class today). I have added paragraph numbers for ease of discussion—they are not part of the opinion.

Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. Read over my Comment Key for Reed to remind you of the frequent problems regarding outline format. Note that the basic format is Title (for the Roman numerals and any other elements that have sub-elements below them); and then Question and Answer for the other elements. Do not outline the introductory section of the Opinion (before Roman Numeral I). Starting with I(B), use the same elements that Breyer already has used:
I
(A) OMITTED
(B) [¶1-3]
(C) [¶4-6]

II OMITTED

III [¶7-11]

IV [¶12-22]

V [¶23-38]

If I’ve omitted parts (e.g. “II”), you just omit it as well.

Add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by Breyer. For example, under I(B), you might add sub-elements such as
I
(B) The parties and the Prior Proceedings
[1] Who are the Petitioners and what were they seeking? They are abortion providers who sought injunctions against both the admitting-privileges and surgical center (ASC) provisions, as violating Casey.
[2] What did the District Court find?
[a] It found that if the ASC provision went fully into effect, the remaining abortion facilities could not reasonably be thought to be able to meet for abortion services.
[b] As for the admitting privileges requirement, it found that ...

As you add sub-elements, follow these rules:
•For the element that’s going to be sub-divided, you can give a title or a question, e.g.
I(B)The parties and the prior proceedings
or
I(B)Who were the parties and what were the prior proceedings?

•Put the added sub-element number or letter in brackets (“[ ]”).

Don’t try to label the Roman Numerals until you’ve outlined the other parts; only then can you see what the entire roman numeral section is about.

For Thomas’ dissenting opinion do not outline the opinion, but rather give a few paragraphs summarizing the main points of his opinion.

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 Friday 4/21, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any deduction from your grade. 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.

If you can’t talk to each other about question, to whom can you talk? Me. E-mail me with the specific questions that you have

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.

April 5, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/5, we went through the Glassford v. BrickKicker case. We talked about arbitration clauses, substantive and procedural unconscionability, and severability clauses. I plan to begin on Friday with a current arbitration case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The assignment for Friday 4/7 is read in the textbook through p. 98 (NFIB v. Sebelius).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/5, we first finished up the dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade. We briefly went over the Akron case, and then began our discussion of Casey. We got through Part III (A) of the joint opinion, and will pick up at III (B) on Friday. Also on Friday, I anticipate assigning another graded opinion outline.
The assignment for Friday 4/7 is to review the remainder of Casey, previously assigned.

April 3, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/3, I handed back the Williams case briefs, as well as my comment key to the numbered comments that I had made. We went over Lawrence v. Texas, covering the equal protection v. due process field of battle, Kennedy's assessment of the previous Bowers v. Hartwick characterization of the right and history, the flow chart of fundamental rights, and Kennedy's ultimate conclusion of the lack of any legitimate state interest. We talked also about the legislating of morality overall.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/5 is to read in the text through p. 77 (Glassford v. BrickKicker).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/3, we first finished our discussion of Griswold by going over the dissenting opinions. We discussed the basic jurisprudential question: what's the line between what the legislature is allowed to make criminal, versus what the constitution protects as an individual's right and puts off the table to government regulation. That question becomes especially challenging when there's no specific constitutional provision to go by. Then we moved on to Roe v. Wade. We went through Blackmun's opinion in terms of whether the right to abortion is fundamental; where the right is located in the constitution; and whether (and when) the state nevertheless has a compelling interest in maintaining maternal health and protecting potential life. We will pick up on Wednesday with the dissenting opinions.
The assignment for Wednesday 4/5 is to review the rest of Roe, and to read in addition Planned Parenthod v. Casey (through p. 425). If you're unable to finish all that, at least try to get through the O'Connor/Kennedy/Souter plurality opinion (through p. 422)

March 31, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/31, I distributed my version of the Williams case brief, and collected the classes' case briefs. I plan to grade them this weekend and return them on Monday. We spent the class going over the briefs, as well as the questions of whether Castille might in fact have treated the decision to seek the death penalty as perfunctory, and whether Castille might have had knowledge of the misconduct that his office participated in (the Brady violation).
The assignment for Monday 4/3 is to review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/31, we started with the origin of substantive due process and the Lochner case. We talked about the demise of Lochner, and the bad reputation of substantive due process. We then began our discussion of Griswold. We counted votes to see whether there was a majority opinion in the case. We went through Douglas' opinion, and the three concurrence. We will pick up next Monday with the dissents in Griswold.
The assignment for Monday 4/3 is to review Griswold, and then to read in the text through p. 410 (Roe v. Wade).

March 29, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/29, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine and federal statutes regarding hindering apprehension, the creation of common law crimes, misprision of a felony, and mandated reporting of child abuse. I went over again the format of how to write issues for your Williams case brief, and clarified that the paragraphs about the dissenting opinions just should focus on the ways in which the dissent disagreed with the majority. We went through all 4 parts of today's handout, looking at the relationship of each law to the concept of morality. I talked to the class about the Florida Supreme Court case of Holland v. Florida. We began our discussion of Lawrence v. Texas with a look at Kennedy's statement that the majority may not impose its morality on others, and talked about how that principle would negate most of what legislatures do.
The assignment for Friday 3/31 is to finish your Williams case briefs (due at the beginning of class) and review Lawrence v. Texas, previously assigned.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/29, we first talked about how the free speech cases like Reed might impact a current Maine legislative proposal to limit campaign contributions from lobbyists (speaker-based restrictions, in the vocabulary of Reed). We then finished our discussion of free speech with a review of the Williams case, in which the Supreme Court upheld the federal law that criminalized the distribution of (otherwise protected) material if the seller tried to pass it off as illegal material. We then began our discussion of the protection of privacy. We talked about Olmstead and Lochner as privacy cases, and began talking about Griswold
The assignment for Friday 3/31 is to review Griswold, previously assigned.

March 27, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/27, I first went over some aspects of the Williams case brief (due Friday). I talked about the Plaintiff's objective, cause of action, the trial court defense, and the prior proceedings. We went over the structure of Kennedy's opinion, and saw how he divided the substantive parts of the opinion into II(A), II(B), and III, which would be your guide to the distinct issues raised and resolved. We then went back to the Caperton case, and I highlighted the structure of the issues addressed in that case: the facts for one issue would turn into the legal question for the next issue. We finished Caperton, and then went over the Mobbley case, and statutory interpretation. I plan to distribute the Maine criminal statute regarding the analogous situation on Wednesday. Also on Wednesday, I'll just talk about the Holland case (p. 65) so I won't assign that as reading.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/29 is continue working on your Williams case brief, and to read in the text pp. 67 - 73 (Lawrence v. Texas).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 3/27, I distributed 2 handouts, my version of the Reed outline, and the key to my comments on the Reed outline passed in by the class (which I also returned today). We went over the remainder of the outline from where we left off last Friday. We began with Thomas' explanation of speaker based and event based distinctions. We looked again at the Bangor Sign Ordinance, which seemed to have both speaker-based and event-based distinctions, and tried to figure out whether they are content-neutral or content-based. We then talked about the application of strict scrutiny, looking at both the government interest (assumed here by Thomas to be compelling) and the nature of the underinclusiveness problem identified by Thomas. And we went through the three concurrences.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/29 is to review Williams and virtual child porn, and review Griswold (all previously assigned).

March 24, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 3/24, I first went over some aspects of the Williams case brief, due on Friday 3/31. We talked about the mechanism of post-conviction review, Brady violations, the disposition of the case, and using the structure of the opinion (the outline) in order to figure out the issues addressed by Kennedy. We then returned to the Caperton case, and noted that the structure there was roughly the same as that used in Williams: first the Court decides what standard is required by due process, and the the Court applies that standard to the particular facts of the case. On Monday we will continue our Caperton discussion by starting with the issue of applying the facts of Caperton to the standard of whether there is a significant, disproportionate influence in helping a judge get elected in a pending case.
The assignment for Monday 3/27 is to continue working on your Williams case brief, due at the beginning of class on 3/31, review the rest of Caperton, and read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 58-64 (Mobbley).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 3/24, I distributed 1 handout, an excerpt from the Bangor sign ordinance. I collected the Reed outlines, and we went over them. We got as far as Thomas' discussion of how the Court of Appeals had erred in identifying the ordinance as one based on the identity of the speaker, which Thomas said was incorrect as a factual question. That's the point at which we'll pick up our discussion on Monday. As we went through the Reed outline, we also compared the Gilbert ordinance with Bangor's and identified a number of ways in which Bangor's could be considered fscially content-based.
The assignment for Monday 3/27 is to review U.S. v. Williams, and to read in the text pp. 390-401, including Griswold v. Connecticut.

March 22, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 3/22, we finished our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia by discussing the two dissenting opinions in the case. We then began our discussion of Caperton v. Massey Coal by going through the underlying facts, and the due process recusal issue. We got as far as looking at whether the Court majority accepted Benjamin's understanding of what due process requires, which is where we'll pick up on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 3/24 is to review Caperton, and to at least read and begin work on your Williams case briefs. I plan to begin on Friday with a discussion about Williams, so as to make it easier for you to understand and brief the case.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 3/22, I first clarified a format question about the Reed outline that's due Friday: even if you have sub-elements under an element, you can, if you wish, use Q & A format for the element (rather than just "title" of the element, as I had stated in the assignment). We then finished going over Reno v. ACLU, and looked at Congressional attempts to fix the problem in the COPA (p. 369) and then the PROTECT act (p. 373). We talked about how PROTECT goes after virtual depictions, and why Congress may have targeted material in which no actual children were involved. We will continue with the Williams case when we finish our discussion of Reed.
The assignment for Friday 3/24 is to finish your Reed outlines (due at the beginning of Friday's class) and to review Williams (previously assigned).

March 20, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 3/20, I distributed 2 handouts: Assignment #1 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Williams v. Pennsylvania. We went over the assignment. We then began our discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, formulating the issues posed by Stewart's opinion. We will finish our discussion of Gregg on wednesday by going over the dissenting opinions in the case.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/22 is to begin work on the Williams case brief, and to read in the text pp. 78-82 (Caperton v. Massey Coal).


Assignment due Friday, March 31, 2017

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, __U.S. __ (2016)

Only brief Kennedy’s majority opinion. For the Roberts and Thomas dissenting opinions, just write a brief paragraph for each, explaining the basic views of that dissent.

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 (from the textbook case of Caperton v. Massey Coal): “Under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, does a campaign contribution have a significant and disproportionate influence on a judicial election when the $3 million spent was out of proportion to any other spending in the race, the appellate case was pending at the time of the contribution, and it was foreseeable that the case would be heard by the court to which the candidate was seeking election, even though there was no evidence that the contribution actually caused the victory of the candidate?”.

Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” and “Holding” are copied and pasted. Everything that you put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.

Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.

You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.

If you cannot be in class on Friday 3/31, 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, Monday 3/20, we talked a little about the Reed outline (due this Friday) and I shared with the class my draft length for the outline as a little over 2 pages (as a guide to how long the outline might be). I reviewed the current case of Packingham v. North Carolina (the sex offender registrant who accessed Facebook) and the we used the assigned textbook cases as a vehicle for looking at some of the issues in Packingham. We went through Stevens' opinion in Reno v. ACLU. We will go over the legislative response to the case, and the case of U.S. v. Williams on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday 3/22 is to continue working on your Reed v. Gilbert outlines, due Friday, and to review the rest of Chapter 8, including U.S. v. Williams, previously assigned.