POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 5/3, we completed Chapter 4 by going over the Gilmore case. We then contrasted the approach taken in Gebbia versus that in Gilmore. I threw one more approach into the mix, that taken in Villano v. Kohl's, a 2005 U.S. District Court case from New York. Finally, I went over federal removal jurisdiction in the class action case of Standard Fire Insurance v. Knowles, decided by the Supreme Court on March 19, 2013. The exam, open-book and open-note, will be on Wednesday 5/8 from 1:30 - 2:30.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 5/3 we went over the Grutter case, both the majority decision and the various dissenting opinions. I compared some of the Grutter arguments to those made in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, in which the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 10, 2012. I also mentioned the case in which cert was granted in March, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, regarding the Michigan constitutional change after Grutter that outlawed any affirmative action. The exam, open-book and open-note, will be on Friday 5/10 from 8:30 - 9:30.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
April 29, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/29,we went over Kopp and Gebbia. I then discussed a First Circuit case regarding the amount in controversy Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to finish reading chapter 4 of the text (the only additional case is Gilmore, p. 143).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/29, I handed back the content-neutrality papers, and we went over them a bit. Regarding the exam on Friday May 10, we decided to start the exam at 8:30, rather than the official scheduled time of 8:00. We went over the arguments made by the state in Virginia v. Loving, and compared those arguments to those made in the two same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court this year, Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to read in the text Grutter v. Bollinger (pp. 707-716) which we will discuss in conjunction with the current Supreme Court case regarding affirmative action in higher education, Fisher v. University of Texas.
In class today, Monday 4/29,we went over Kopp and Gebbia. I then discussed a First Circuit case regarding the amount in controversy Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to finish reading chapter 4 of the text (the only additional case is Gilmore, p. 143).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/29, I handed back the content-neutrality papers, and we went over them a bit. Regarding the exam on Friday May 10, we decided to start the exam at 8:30, rather than the official scheduled time of 8:00. We went over the arguments made by the state in Virginia v. Loving, and compared those arguments to those made in the two same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court this year, Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. There is no class on Wednesday 5/1 because of Maine Day. The assignment for Friday 5/3 is to read in the text Grutter v. Bollinger (pp. 707-716) which we will discuss in conjunction with the current Supreme Court case regarding affirmative action in higher education, Fisher v. University of Texas.
Friday, April 26, 2013
April 26, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/26, we began by going over the Robey case. I then discussed two additional cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Attaway v. Omega, and McIntyre v. Nicastro. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Kopp and Gebbia cases, through p. 143 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/26, I collected the Assignment #2 papers, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, my own version of that assignment,and a letter to the editor regarding filming people coming into Planned Parenthood. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Loving v. Virginia,and the discussion of Palmore v. Sidoti that follows Loving, pp. 639-642 of the text. We'll discuss these in relation to the current same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S.
In class today, Friday 4/26, we began by going over the Robey case. I then discussed two additional cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Attaway v. Omega, and McIntyre v. Nicastro. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Kopp and Gebbia cases, through p. 143 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/26, I collected the Assignment #2 papers, and we went over them. I distributed two handouts, my own version of that assignment,and a letter to the editor regarding filming people coming into Planned Parenthood. The assignment for Monday 4/29 is to read Loving v. Virginia,and the discussion of Palmore v. Sidoti that follows Loving, pp. 639-642 of the text. We'll discuss these in relation to the current same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
April 24, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. We then went over the handout from last class, the Maine subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We turned to personal jurisdiction, covering general assertions of personal jurisdiction, and specific assertions of personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Robey, getting up to the issue of whether the Kentucky court could assert specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seller. We will pick up at that point on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is to review Robey, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. I clarified some questions about Assignment #2, and emphasized that the assignment is solely focused on content-neutrality, and students should avoid drifting into other issues that the Court discussed in those cases. We then went over all of the Morse v. Frederick opinions. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is finish Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. We then went over the handout from last class, the Maine subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We turned to personal jurisdiction, covering general assertions of personal jurisdiction, and specific assertions of personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Robey, getting up to the issue of whether the Kentucky court could assert specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seller. We will pick up at that point on Friday. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is to review Robey, previously assigned.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN class today, Wednesday 4/24, the class first did evaluations. I clarified some questions about Assignment #2, and emphasized that the assignment is solely focused on content-neutrality, and students should avoid drifting into other issues that the Court discussed in those cases. We then went over all of the Morse v. Frederick opinions. The assignment for Friday 4/26 is finish Assignment #2, due at the beginning of class on Friday.
Monday, April 22, 2013
April 22, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, Maine civil and criminal jurisdictional statutes. We went over the Cheap Escape case, and then I also talked about a Maine subject matter jurisdiction case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, and a federal subject matter jurisdiction case, Bowles v. Russell. We went over the significance of the subject matter jurisdiction label for when a lawyer's failings will be important, and when they won't. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 135 of the text (jurisdiction over the person).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, two news articles about political t-shirts in schools. We went over the Tinker case, and discussed how it might apply (or how it might be distinguished) regarding the banning of those t-shirts. I also went over the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bethel v. Fraser, and how it distinguished Tinker. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 272 of the text (Morse) and to continue work on assignment #2, due Friday 2/26.
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, Maine civil and criminal jurisdictional statutes. We went over the Cheap Escape case, and then I also talked about a Maine subject matter jurisdiction case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, and a federal subject matter jurisdiction case, Bowles v. Russell. We went over the significance of the subject matter jurisdiction label for when a lawyer's failings will be important, and when they won't. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 135 of the text (jurisdiction over the person).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Monday 4/22, I distributed one handout, two news articles about political t-shirts in schools. We went over the Tinker case, and discussed how it might apply (or how it might be distinguished) regarding the banning of those t-shirts. I also went over the 1986 Supreme Court case of Bethel v. Fraser, and how it distinguished Tinker. The assignment for Wednesday 4/24, is to read through p. 272 of the text (Morse) and to continue work on assignment #2, due Friday 2/26.
Friday, April 19, 2013
April 19, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Friday 4/19, I distributed one handout, a review of federal and certain state laws regarding both adoption rights and recognition of same-sex marriage ( since adoption by a couple is often limited to married couples). I then went over the 2011 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, in which that Court distinguished Finstuen,and reached the result that Louisiana (unlike Oklahoma) need not issue a new birth certificate to an unmarried same-sex adoptive couple. We also looked at whether getting married would change the prospects of such a couple. We began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, going over the other part of the Adar opinion, holding that there was no right by the same-sex couple to even bring their action in federal court (no subject-matter jurisdiction). We will continue next Monday with further exploration into the world of subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to read through p. 128 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/19, we began with a discussion of the application of the Brandenburg test of incitement to the hypothetical possibility of incitement in the case of the brothers alleged to be behind the Boston marathon bombings. We then returned to Snyder v. Phelps, beginning with the internet posting in that case that the Court chose not to deal with. We looked at how a flow chart of Snyder might look, and compared the characterizations of the relevant factors by the majority with the same categories by the dissent. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to review Tinker v. Des Moines, previously assigned.
In class today, Friday 4/19, I distributed one handout, a review of federal and certain state laws regarding both adoption rights and recognition of same-sex marriage ( since adoption by a couple is often limited to married couples). I then went over the 2011 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, in which that Court distinguished Finstuen,and reached the result that Louisiana (unlike Oklahoma) need not issue a new birth certificate to an unmarried same-sex adoptive couple. We also looked at whether getting married would change the prospects of such a couple. We began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction, going over the other part of the Adar opinion, holding that there was no right by the same-sex couple to even bring their action in federal court (no subject-matter jurisdiction). We will continue next Monday with further exploration into the world of subject matter jurisdiction. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to read through p. 128 of the text.
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Friday 4/19, we began with a discussion of the application of the Brandenburg test of incitement to the hypothetical possibility of incitement in the case of the brothers alleged to be behind the Boston marathon bombings. We then returned to Snyder v. Phelps, beginning with the internet posting in that case that the Court chose not to deal with. We looked at how a flow chart of Snyder might look, and compared the characterizations of the relevant factors by the majority with the same categories by the dissent. The assignment for Monday 4/22 is to review Tinker v. Des Moines, previously assigned.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
April 17, 2013
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes dealing with same-sex and other adoptions and new birth certificates. I went over a Maine conflict of law rule case, Collins v. Trius. We then talked about the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, and went over the Finstuen case as well as the Maine statutes. I will begin on Friday with the 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, with a different view of Full Faith and Credit and same-sex adoptions. The assignment for Friday 4/19 (although I failed to say it in class) is to read through p. 128 of the text (Cheap Escape).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is reproduced below. That assignment is due Friday 4/26. We talked about the question of content-neutrality and how it relates to the near-universal desire to exclude the Westboro Baptist Church from memorial observances. We talked about the relation between matters of public concern and the requirement of content-neutrality. We finished our general discussion of the expansion of First Amendment protection from public officials, to public figures, to matters of public concern. We also discussed the case of Hustler v. Falwell regarding the intersection of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Free Speech, and how the flow chart from that case was not followed in Snyder v. Phelps. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of targeting,both in terms of the WBC demonstration, and the internet "Epic", and then move on to Alito's dissent. The assignment for Friday 4/19 is to read through p. 267 of the text.
Assignment #2
One of the things that’s been crucial in the Court’s treatment of Free Speech issues has been a determination of whether the government’s restriction on speech has been found to be “content-neutral” or not.
The Court has sometimes been split, though, in deciding and articulating exactly what it means by this concept of content-neutrality, as well as when that concept is to be applied.
For this assignment, I’m asking you to write a series of numbered paragraphs, (following the numbering below) which address the Court’s approach to content-neutrality.
1) Start with Texas v. Johnson (p. 234). Brennan says that the Texas statute is not content-neutral. In what sense does he find it not to be neutral? Is it simply because the statute covers a particular subject (flags)? Or is it because the statute prohibits a certain viewpoint to the flag (anti-flag)? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Brennan in this context? Then describe Rehnquist’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
2) Next go to Hill v. Colorado (p. 247). Stevens characterized the Colorado statute as content-neutral. What questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? Then describe what process Scalia uses in reaching the opposite conclusion. What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context?
3) Third is R.A.V. v. St. Paul (p. 255). Scalia describes that ordinance as not content-neutral. Again, what questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context? Then describe White’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
4) Fourth is Snyder v. Phelps (p. 258). How does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Roberts in this context? How does Alito then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
5) Fifth is Tinker v. Des Moines (p. 264). How does Fortas analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Fortas in this context? How does Black then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
6) Finally, there’s Morse v. Frederick (p. 267). Does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What questions does he ask in order to decide that the school can suspend Frederick? Then discuss Stevens’ dissent. How does Stevens analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
Here’s a (fictitious) example of the format I’m looking for:
Roberts decides that this statute is not content-neutral. He asks whether the statute could be enforced without reference to the content of the signs. “If the signs said ‘I love babies’ as oppose to ‘I hate baby-killers’, there would have been no violation”. (Cohen, right-hand column, p. 242). The “intimidation” that the statute forbids, says Roberts, only exists in the context of the message itself. You can’t decide if the sign-holder intended to intimidate unless you look at the content of the sign, and that’s what makes the law content-based. Alito, on the other hand, believes that the statute is content neutral. He asks whether “intimidation” itself is a category that is based on content. He answers that intimidation is “proscribed as a result of any communication” (Cohen, left-hand column, p. 242), and so the statute on its face, and in its enforcement, is content neutral.
You are encouraged to use snippets of quotations from the opinions to illustrate your points. When you quote, you should just cite to the text page number (as above), and to the left or right column. Your paper should be 2-3 pages long.
Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, April 26th. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, the Maine statutes dealing with same-sex and other adoptions and new birth certificates. I went over a Maine conflict of law rule case, Collins v. Trius. We then talked about the concepts of Full Faith and Credit, and went over the Finstuen case as well as the Maine statutes. I will begin on Friday with the 5th Circuit case of Adar v. Smith, with a different view of Full Faith and Credit and same-sex adoptions. The assignment for Friday 4/19 (although I failed to say it in class) is to read through p. 128 of the text (Cheap Escape).
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Wednesday 4/17, I distributed one handout, Assignment #2 which is reproduced below. That assignment is due Friday 4/26. We talked about the question of content-neutrality and how it relates to the near-universal desire to exclude the Westboro Baptist Church from memorial observances. We talked about the relation between matters of public concern and the requirement of content-neutrality. We finished our general discussion of the expansion of First Amendment protection from public officials, to public figures, to matters of public concern. We also discussed the case of Hustler v. Falwell regarding the intersection of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Free Speech, and how the flow chart from that case was not followed in Snyder v. Phelps. We will pick up on Friday with a discussion of targeting,both in terms of the WBC demonstration, and the internet "Epic", and then move on to Alito's dissent. The assignment for Friday 4/19 is to read through p. 267 of the text.
Assignment #2
One of the things that’s been crucial in the Court’s treatment of Free Speech issues has been a determination of whether the government’s restriction on speech has been found to be “content-neutral” or not.
The Court has sometimes been split, though, in deciding and articulating exactly what it means by this concept of content-neutrality, as well as when that concept is to be applied.
For this assignment, I’m asking you to write a series of numbered paragraphs, (following the numbering below) which address the Court’s approach to content-neutrality.
1) Start with Texas v. Johnson (p. 234). Brennan says that the Texas statute is not content-neutral. In what sense does he find it not to be neutral? Is it simply because the statute covers a particular subject (flags)? Or is it because the statute prohibits a certain viewpoint to the flag (anti-flag)? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Brennan in this context? Then describe Rehnquist’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
2) Next go to Hill v. Colorado (p. 247). Stevens characterized the Colorado statute as content-neutral. What questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? Then describe what process Scalia uses in reaching the opposite conclusion. What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context?
3) Third is R.A.V. v. St. Paul (p. 255). Scalia describes that ordinance as not content-neutral. Again, what questions does he ask in order to reach this conclusion? What would a content-neutral statute look like to Scalia in this context? Then describe White’s dissent. Does he think that the statute is content-neutral? How does he reach his conclusion?
4) Fourth is Snyder v. Phelps (p. 258). How does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Roberts in this context? How does Alito then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
5) Fifth is Tinker v. Des Moines (p. 264). How does Fortas analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What would a content-neutral tort look like to Fortas in this context? How does Black then analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
6) Finally, there’s Morse v. Frederick (p. 267). Does Roberts analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality? What questions does he ask in order to decide that the school can suspend Frederick? Then discuss Stevens’ dissent. How does Stevens analyze this case in terms of content-neutrality?
Here’s a (fictitious) example of the format I’m looking for:
Roberts decides that this statute is not content-neutral. He asks whether the statute could be enforced without reference to the content of the signs. “If the signs said ‘I love babies’ as oppose to ‘I hate baby-killers’, there would have been no violation”. (Cohen, right-hand column, p. 242). The “intimidation” that the statute forbids, says Roberts, only exists in the context of the message itself. You can’t decide if the sign-holder intended to intimidate unless you look at the content of the sign, and that’s what makes the law content-based. Alito, on the other hand, believes that the statute is content neutral. He asks whether “intimidation” itself is a category that is based on content. He answers that intimidation is “proscribed as a result of any communication” (Cohen, left-hand column, p. 242), and so the statute on its face, and in its enforcement, is content neutral.
You are encouraged to use snippets of quotations from the opinions to illustrate your points. When you quote, you should just cite to the text page number (as above), and to the left or right column. Your paper should be 2-3 pages long.
Your papers will be graded on how well you complete the assignment and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
The paper should be a minimum of 2 pages long, and no more than 3 pages (double spaced). Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Friday, April 26th. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. If you do not have the paper done on time, be in touch with me right away.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)