February 27, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/27, I distributed one handout, my version of the Suggs v. Norris case brief. We went through that case, and explored both the question of law (what is N.C. public policy) and the questions of fact (is there sufficient evidence of...). I then talked about the Maine case of Paffhausen v. Balano, which laid out the difference in Maine between contracts implied in fact versus contracts implied in law, including the elements of each and the measure of damages.
On Wednesday 3/1, the class will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note, covering all the material noted in this blog. If you are missing any handouts, notify me of what you want me to bring no later than 8:00 pm on Tuesday.

POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/27, we first went over the Brandenburg case, looking at the concepts of incitement, imminence, and likelihood. I then went back to the 50 years of Supreme Court cases prior to Brandenburg. I started with Schenck v. U.S. (p.194) and then talked about Abrams v. U.S. (p. 196) and Gitlow v. N.Y. (p. 200).
On Wednesday 3/1, the class will have Exam #1, open-book and open-note. If you are missing any handouts, notify me of what you want me to bring no later than 8:00 pm on Tuesday.

February 24, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/24, we first finished going through the authority that was cited by the Katko court. I introduced the concept of extending authority, as treatment that is similar to, but not the same as, following authority. We discussed the role of the U.S. Supreme Court case that was cited by the Katko court. We then examined the Maine criminal statutes about defending home and property. We went over the four mental states (intent, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence) as they applied to both the Katko case and to the Maine statute. We also went over the difference between objective and subjectively held beliefs. Finally, we began our discussion of contracts, oral contracts, and contracts against public policy.
The assignment for Monday 2/27 is continue work on your Suggs v. Norris case briefs (not handed in), to review through to the end of Chapter 1 of the text (all previously assigned), and to review for our March 1st exam.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/24, I distributed 3 handouts: assignment #1 (reproduced below); the case you'll be outlining, Reed v. Town of Gilbert; and my version of the McCullen v. Coakley outline. We first went over the requirements of the Reed outline. We then finished our discussion of McCullen by going over Scalia's concurrence. We began our discussion of Brandenburg by going over both the statute under which Brandenburg was prosecuted, and the words that he used at the KKK rally. We will continue with the rest of Brandenburg next Monday.
The assignment for Monday 2/27 is to review Brandenburg, and review for our March 1st exam. I will also talk about the textbook cases that came before Brandenburg.

Assignment due Friday March 24, 2017

The assignment is to do an outline of Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (also distributed to the class today. I have added paragraph numbers of ease of discussion—they are not part of the opinion)

Follow the format from the Sample Outlines that I’ve distributed. 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 Roman Numeral I, use the same elements that Thomas already has used:
I
(A) [¶2-5]
(B) [¶6 -10]
II
(A) [¶11-13]
(B) [¶14-15]
(C)
(1) [¶17-22]
(2) [¶23-26]
(3) [¶27-30]
III [¶31-34]
IV [¶35-36]

Add sub-elements to the outline as necessary in order to cover the points raised by Thomas. 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? Reed is the pastor of a Church that uses TDS to inform the public about its services.
[2] What was the problem that the Town had with the church’s TDS? The Town said that the church exceeded the time limits for displaying TDS, and also didn’t include a required date.

As you add sub-elements, follow these rules:
•For the element that’s going to be sub-divided, just give a title, e.g.I(B)The parties and 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 the other three opinions (Alito, Breyer, Kagan) do not outline the opinions, but rather write a paragraph or two for each opinion summarizing the point of the 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 3/24, 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.


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.

February 22, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/22, I distributed one handout, my version of the Katko case brief. The class took an in-class sample test in preparation for Exam #1 next Wednesday, March 1st. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by 8:00pm on Tuesday 2/28 to let me know that you want me to bring a missing handout for you. We finished going through the Katko case brief, including the dissenting opinion. We began looking at the kinds of authority relied on by the Katko court. We looked at primary authority versus secondary authority, and discussed again the concepts of following versus distinguishing authority. We will continue with the Hooker case and the other cited authority on Friday. We will also go through the Maine statute regarding the use of force.
The assignment for Friday 2/24 is to review Katko, review the Maine statute,and read and do a case brief of Suggs v. Norris (not handed in) and read the remainder of Chapter 1 of the text.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/22, the class took an in-class sample test in preparation for Exam #1 next Wednesday, March 1st. If you find that you are missing any handouts, you must email me by 8:00pm on Tuesday 2/28 to let me know that you want me to bring a missing handout for you. We finished going through Roberts' opinion in McCullen. We will finish the case by going over Scalia's concurrence on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 2/24 is to review your McCullen outline, and to review Brandenburg, previously assigned.

February 20, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/20, I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statute regarding the use of force in the defense of premises and property. We first finished going over the Speelman hypotheticals. I talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Jones v. Flowers, which dealt with the due process requirements involved in following up undelivered certified mail. We then began our case brief of Katko v. Briney, getting to the first issue in the case, which is where we'll pick up on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday, 2/22, is do a case brief of Katko (not handed in) and to study today's Maine statutory handout, asking yourself whether the Brineys' actions in Maine would constitute a criminal offense.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/20, we started going through the outline of McCullen v. Coakley. I first discussed some of the pre-McCullen case from the chart on p. 241 of the text, and I clarified what the enforcement problems were with the pre-McCullen Massachusetts law. We started going through the Roberts' opinion in McCullen, getting to the question of whether the Massachusetts law was narrowly tailored, which is where we'll continue on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday, 2/22, is to continue working on your McCullen outline (not handed in) and to read and prepare to discuss pp. 216-219 of the text (Brandenburg).

February 17, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/17, I distributed one handout, my version of the Speelman case brief. We went through that case, looking at the constitutional analysis, the treatment of the Nelson case, and the further requirements for a preliminary injunction. We reviewed the concepts of mandatory versus persuasive authority, and of following precedent versus distinguishing it. We began going through my handout of hypotheticals, getting through the first of the 3 questions on that sheet. Along the way, we discussed the concept of residence (versus simply living somewhere), and what defenses might have been offered had Speelman been afforded a hearing. We will continue with the remainder of the hypotheticals next Monday. I will also discuss a recent Supreme Court case, Jones v. Flowers, which decided the due process requirements of addressing a notice in a slightly different situation.
The assignment for Monday 2/20 is to review the previously assigned hypotheticals, and to read and brief (for yourself-not handed in) Katko v. Briney, pp. 38-43 of the text.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
Today, Friday 2/17, Cas Mudde spoke to the class about the European approach to civil liberties and the defense of liberal democracy. He highlighted the ways in which the civil liberties which we enjoy/tolerate in the U.S. are far more extensive than what are tolerated in Europe.
The assignment for Monday 2/20 is read McCullen v. Coakley (previously assigned) and to do an outline of the case (not handed in).

February 15, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/15, I distributed one handout, some hypotheticals altering the facts of the Speelman case. We began today by going over the schedule before Spring Break (this being Week 5 of the 7 weeks before Break). I plan to give Exam #1 on Wednesday March 1, but I'm putting off the first graded case brief until after Spring Break. We went through the Obergefell excerpt that I handed out last week, comparing the Kennedy opinion with the Roberts dissent in terms of both the treatment of Glucksberg as precedent, and the deference owed to the legislative branches. We reviewed following, distinguishing, or overruling precedent. We then started through the Speelman case brief, getting to the first issue of whether the notice sent to Speelman's home was reasonably calculated to reach her. We will continue with the rest of the Speelman case on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 2/17 is to continue work on your Speelman case brief (not handed in or graded) and to prepare to discuss today's Speelman hypotheticals handout.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/15, we began by going over the schedule before Spring Break (this being Week 5 of the 7 weeks before Break). I plan to give Exam #1 on Wednesday March 1. Also on the schedule, Cas Mudde will be speaking to our class on Friday 2/17. He specializes in how liberal democracies can defend themselves against political extremism without undermining their own core values, which certainly fits right into our exploration of the rules of free speech. We then went over the remainder of the Chaplinsky case, examining how the categories of unprotected speech have altered shape since the opinion. We went through the Cohen case, looking at how Harlan rejected all of the state's arguments about why California should be able to criminalize the words on Cohen's jacket.
The plan for Friday 2/17 is to have Cas Mudde speak, but the next assignment is to read and outline for yourselves (not handed in or graded) the abortion protest case of McCullen v. Coakley (p. 241-247).

February 10, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/10, I distributed 2 handouts: my version of the Glucksberg case brief, and an excerpt from the same sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges. We finished going over the Glucksberg case brief, including also Souter's concurrence. We saw the flow chart of substantive due process played out, as the Court decided that strict scrutiny (the high hurdles) was not required, and rational basis review (the low hurdles) was met. Along the way we discussed the treatment of precedent by either following it or distinguishing it.
The assignment for Monday 2/13 is to read the Obergefell excerpt, and to read in the text through p. 38. Do a case brief of Speelman v. Housing Authority (for yourself, not handed in or graded).


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/10, I distributed one handout, a news article about a potentially disruptive speech at USM. We first finished our discussion of the Alvarez opinion, going over both the Breyer concurrence and the Alito dissent. We discussed the tests used by all three opinion-writers, and the application of the various tests. We then looked at the revised Stolen Valor Act (previous handout) and discussed whether the revised act met the objections of Kennedy and of Breyer. We started our discussion of Chaplinsky by examining how the N.H. Supreme Court had narrowed the interpretation of the state statute to include only "fighting words" even though the statutory words alone reached the very broad category of any "annoying" words. We will pick up on Monday with the exact definition of fighting words, and the rest of the Murphy's opinion in Chaplinsky.
The assignment for Monday 2/13 is to review Chaplinsky and Cohen (previously assigned) and to read today's handout. Compare the designation of the costs of security with the textbook chart on p. 241.

February 8, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/8, we began going through the Glucksberg case brief. In the prior proceedings, we talked about a panel opinion in the Court of Appeals, versus the en banc opinion. We went over the difference it makes whether an asserted liberty interest is labeled as fundamental or not. Restrictions on fundamental rights can only be imposed by government if government can meet strict scrutiny (the high hurdles) whereas government can restrict non-fundamental rights if the restrictions meet rational basis review. We worked on the formulation of the legal issues in Glucksberg. We identified the first issue as the description of the right asserted by the doctors, and then the second issue as whether that right was fundamental. We will pick up with the remaining issues in the case on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 2/10 is to continue work on the Glucksberg case briefs, focusing on the remaining issues in the case.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/8, I distributed one handout, my version of the Alvarez outline. We went through that outline as far as Kennedy's plurality opinion. Along the way, we discussed the concepts of content-based restrictions versus viewpoint-based restrictions; strict scrutiny hurdles; the role of public perception and counterspeech; and categories of speech unprotected by the 1st Amendment. We will pick up on Friday with outlines of the Breyer and Alito opinions.
The assignment for Friday 2/10 is to read in the text pp. 233-241 (Chaplinsky and Cohen).

February 6, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 2/6, I distributed one handout, an essay by Brittany Maynard about the right to assistance in suicide. We first went over the Maine sentencing statute that I had distributed earlier. We talked about Maine's punishment range for murder, as well as the other classifications of crimes. I also went over the proper citation form for Maine statutes. I then talked a little about the history of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause. I discussed the differences between incorporation of the Bill of Rights versus the concept of fundamental rights. We went over as well the ideas behind the 9th and 10th Amendments. We briefly discussed the limits on government urged by Brittany Maynard.
The assignment for Wednesday 2/8 is to read the Maynard essay, and to review your own case brief of the Glucksberg case, previously assigned.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 2/6, I distributed one handout, the revised Stolen Valor Act written by Congress after the Alvarez opinion. We began class by going over the Maine statute regarding disorderly conduct at funerals, and explored its constitutionality. We went over the concept of "fighting words". We then began to go through the Alvarez opinions and outline. We began by counting votes in the case, and I talked about the process the Court uses for assigning the writing of opinions. We started outlining Kennedy's plurality opinion, getting through the contentions of both parties. We left off with the rule for content-based restrictions, which is where we'll pick up in the outline on Wednesday.
The assignment for Wednesday 2/8 is to review your own outline of Alvarez (all three opinions) and to read the revised statute, asking yourself whether it is constitutional.

February 3, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 2/3, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine sentencing statutes. We started with a review of Roberts' dissent in Miller, and contrasted that dissent with the views of Thomas and Alito. I then discussed 4 cases that preceded Miller: Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stanford v. Kentucky, Roper v. Simmons, and Graham v. Florida. I then discussed the 2016 case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which dealt with the issue of the retroactive application of the Miller rule. We talked about Roberts' vote in Montgomery. We also discussed how Montgomery viewed the holding of Miller.
The assignment for Monday 2/6 is to read through p. 34 (including Washington v. Glucksberg). Write out a brief of Glucksberg, though it again will not be handed in or graded. Also read today's handout of the Maine sentencing statutes.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 2/3, I distributed 2 handouts: my version of an outline for Snyder v. Phelps, and an excerpt from the Maine statutes regarding disorderly conduct, including demonstrations at funerals. We first reviewed the first part of the Roberts opinion in Snyder in which he set out the rules for how to determine if there's 1st amendment protection (public v. private concern), and then how to determine whether speech is a matter of public v. private concern. We picked up with the question of how that rule then gets applied in the facts of this case, looking at the content and the context of the speech. We discussed Roberts' view of whether government still may regulate here as a time,place, or manner restriction, whether there was viewpoint discrimination here, and whether the standard of outrageous conduct was sufficient as a guard of free speech. We then talked about Alito's dissent, as he seemed to disagree with both the questions that are to be asked, and the application of those questions to the facts here. We also looked at whether he disagreed with Roberts about whether the speech was in fact a matter of public concern. I talked about a case cited in the opinion, Hustler v. Falwell, in which the Court also protected the speaker (Hustler) against a jury verdict given to the target (Falwell) on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The assignment for Monday 2/6 is to do an outline of U.S. v. Alvarez (previously assigned), following my Snyder outline as a guide to form (though your Alvarez outlines will not be handed in or graded). Also read over the Maine disorderly conduct statute, and think about whether it is constitutional in light of Snyder.

February 1, 2017

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 2/1, I distributed one handout, my version of the Miller v. Alabama case brief. We finished going through that case brief, both regarding the format, and the substance. We also went over the contention raised by the juveniles that was not dealt with in Kagan's opinion. We talked about Breyer's concurrence, and discussed the difference between a concurrence in the opinion versus a concurrence in the judgment. We got through Roberts' dissent, and will pick up with with Thomas' dissent. On Friday I also plan to talk about four juvenile sentencing cases that preceded Miller, and one case that followed it.
The assignment for Friday 2/3 is to review the Thomas and Alito dissenting opinions in Miller.


POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 2/1, I first reviewed the Rehnquist dissent in Central Hudson Gas. I then talked about a 2011 Supreme Court case, Sorrell v. IMS, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law that restricted the flow of information to and from pharmaceutical sales companies as they tried to influence the prescribing practices of doctors. We discussed how the line of commercial speech cases might come into play in Lee v. Tam. We then turned to hateful speech and Snyder v. Phelps. I went over the cause of action in the case (the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress) and how the involvement of the government in such cases was somewhat different from the legislature-created rules that were challenged in the previous cases that we looked at. I went over the history of 1st Amendment protection in such tort cases, beginning with New York Times v. Sullivan (protections for speakers against suits brought by public officials). We discussed the later expansion of 1st Amendment protection for speakers if the plaintiff was a public figure, and the state of the law regarding matters of public concern. We began going through the majority opinion in Snyder by outlining the structure of Roberts' opinion. We covered the first broad section (the test for how to decided if the speech here is protected as being on a matter of public concern) as well as the first question dealing with how that test was to be applied, the content of the speech. We will continue with the context of the speech on Friday.
The assignment for Friday 2/3 is create an outline of both the majority and dissenting opinions in Snyder (not handed in or graded), using the outline format to highlight the structure of the opinions. Also review Alvarez, previously assigned.