April 14, 2009

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, I distributed the optional third assignment, which is included below. We discussed the assignment, and I then went over the decisions in two cases we had talked about earlier in the semester, the Navajo case, and the improperly denied peremptory challenge case (Rivera). We will discuss the Santa Fe oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday is to begin work on the Safford paper.


Assignment #3 (Optional)*

For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case
of Safford Unified School District v. Redding, Supreme Court Docket # 08-479. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 8 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 30. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. (If your computer uses the newer doc.x format, please copy and paste the paper into the e-mail, rather than attaching it). I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.


1) The first step in preparation for the prediction is to read the en banc Court of Appeals decision in this case, Redding v. Safford Unified School, 531 F.3d. 1071 (9th Cir. 2008). You can access the case through Lexis/ Nexis or you can go directly to the Ninth Circuit’s site;

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

select “advanced search” and type into the “by case name” box “redding v. safford”

The opinion was issued 7/11/2008, and the docket number in the Ninth Circuit was 05-15759

2) The second step is to read the briefs of the parties. (They are available through the Supreme Court’s website, or directly through the ABA website).

3) The third step is to read one already decided Supreme Court case. That case New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 US 325 (1985). The case are available through the LexisNexis site.

4) The final step in preparation for the prediction is to read the transcript of the oral argument of the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2009.

The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: To the extent possible, go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case.

The only important source of those indications will be the questions raised at oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.

The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”.

Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Safford), but rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. The case raises two issues: the reasonableness of the search, and the existence of qualified immunity for the school. Your prediction should also reflect, to the extent possible, a Justice’s preference for jurisprudential considerations such as the need for a clear rule (as opposed to a case-by-case analysis).

For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that Redding’s position is correct, how do you answer the school’s objections to the many practical problems in dealing with drugs in schools.

You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position with reference to the assigned briefs. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

For this paper, I have decided not to allow you to collaborate with other students. The work should be entirely your own. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism.


*Previously Announced Change in the syllabus:

The syllabus had said that grading in this class would consist of three homework assignments, each counting as 30% of the final grade, as well as 10% based on class participation and attendance. As previously announced, I have decided to modify this scheme as follows: the third assignment is now optional. If you choose to complete a third assignment, the syllabus plan is unchanged. If you choose not to complete a third assignment, each of the two graded assignments will be worth 40% of the final grade, and 20% of the grade will be based on class participation and attendance.



CMJ 375--Mass Media Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/14, we began by going over the Maine Reporter's Shield Law
(which I had distributed last week). We looked specifically at the changes in that law from its earlier version to the version that was eventually passed. We then started our discussion of copyright law. The assignment for Thursday 4/16 is to read in the textbook pp.323-331, and to read in the casebook the Nation case (p.186) and the Campbell case (p.191).