April 12, 2011

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term--2011

In class today, Tuesday 4/12, I distributed one handout, assignment #3, which is reproduced below. We went over the assignment, highlighting the parts of the al-Kidd case that are not included in the assignment. I also discussed the Whren and Edmond cases, as they are used by both sides of the al-Kidd case. The assignment is to start working on assignment #3, as well as to read the portion of Respondent's brief that deals with the constitutional issue (Part I(A)of the al-Kidd brief).

Assignment #3
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.

Your first job as a new Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Ashcroft v. al-Kidd case. The specific part that you’ve been assigned is a portion of the qualified immunity question: whether an arrest based on a material-witness warrant violates the Fourth Amendment when the purpose of that warrant is for investigation and detention, rather than to secure the testimony of the arrestee at a trial. This discussion is found at Part II (B) of Ashcroft’s brief, Part I (A) of al-Kidd’s brief, and Part II (A) of Ashcroft’s Reply Brief.

Your opinion is not a prediction of the votes; don’t worry about the other Justices, just concentrate on reaching and justifying the decision that you think makes the most sense. Where you cite to the oral argument, you’re looking to the response of the lawyers rather than the viewpoint expressed by the other Justices.

Since this will be your first Supreme Court opinion, here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the argument raised by the losers, both in their brief and in the oral argument?
• You should have at least two specific references to each party’s position in the briefs (two for Ashcroft, and two for al-Kidd), with specific reference to the page number of the argument.
• You should have at least two specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• You should deal specifically with how Whren and Edmond are to be interpreted in light of the present case.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.

You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.

Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:

This Court rejects al-Kidd’s position that dual-motive arrests can be distinguished from the single-motive arrests that he seeks to forbid. While his brief argues that how the distinction between the two is made is of no concern for this Court (al-Kidd Brief, p. 47), at oral argument he conceded that there is no way (short of an outright admission by a prosecutor) that a fact-finder could ever distinguish these two situations (17:6). We refuse to establish such a charade as a principle of our constitution.

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 28. 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. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.

This due date is the last day of class. If you would like me to return your paper to you, please indicate that on the top of your paper. If you want the paper returned, I will leave your paper in my mailbox in the Political Science Office in 229 N. Stevens on the morning of Thursday May 5.

The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.

The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.

As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before April 28, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating your analysis. But, if they do decide the case before April 28, I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog, as well as e-mail you through the MaineStreet portal. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the old Justices on the Court have written their views before receiving the benefit of your view.

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/12, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm statute. I began class by clarifying the Flaherty assignment for Thursday: as for Count II of the Complaint (Section IV of the Opinion), omit this from the Facts, Issues, and Holding of the case brief, but include it in all of the other sections. I then talked about the concept of personal jurisdiction. I contrasted it with subject-matter jurisdiction, and with Conflict of Law Rules. We discussed the ways in which a court may assume jurisdiction over a defendant, including domicile, service of process within the state, consent, and constitutionally sufficient contacts with the forum state. I talked about the Maine case of Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, a personal jurisdiction case that was decided on the question of whether the Massachusetts driver could have reasonably anticipated litigation in Maine. We then went over the Maine long-arm statute which I had distributed, detailing the kinds of actions that will subject an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction in Maine. The assignment for Thursday 4/14 is to finish up your Flaherty case briefs, which are due at the beginning of Thursday's class.