April 2, 2019

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 4/2, I distributed 3 handouts: Maine statutes about Hindering Apprehension, etc.; Assignment #2 (reproduced below); and the case you'll be briefing, State v. Pagnani (2018 ME 129). We went over the requirements of the assignment. We then finished out discussion of Gregg v. Georgia, going through all of the questions asked by the Stewart plurality opinion, and then also going through Brennan's dissent and Marshall's dissent. We then discussed the State v. Mobbley majority opinion. We ran out of time before we talked about the Mobbley dissent, so that's where we'll pick up on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 4/4 is to review the Mobbley dissent, read in the text through p. 72 (including both Holland v. Florida and Lawrence v. Texas), look at today's Maine statutory handout, and read over the Pagnani case that you'll be briefing for nest Thursday.

Assignment due Thursday, April 11, 2019

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of State v. Pagnani, 2018 ME 129, 193 A.3d 823 (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. For this assignment, include the loser’s facts (the “even though” portion of the facts, using that phrase, and put into a parenthetical).
In addition, add a paragraph at the end of the brief simply explaining (no specialized format) the view of the dissenting Justices regarding the search of the jacket.

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 4/11, 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. Even if a classmate has missed a class in which we discuss the case brief, do not share the class discussion with the absent classmate. I am the only person with whom the case brief can be discussed. Do no outside research. Do not troll the internet.

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 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 4/2, I distributed one handout, the Supreme Court's grant of a stay in Murphy v. Collier. We talked in detail about the different outcomes in the Dunn case (no Muslim Imam in execution chamber) and Murphy (Buddhist spiritual advisor in execution chamber). We talked about Kavanaugh's asterisk about timing in Murphy, and why there was only one asterisk about the issue that, on its face, was the crucial determinant in Dunn. We discussed how the Establishment clause has been on the wane since Lemon, while the Free Exercise Clause has been on the ascent since Employment Division v. Smith. We talked about the relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause, and how Establishment talks about whether the government is allowed to aid religion, and the recent Free Exercise cases have been about government being forced to aid religion on the same basis as it aids other organizations. We then returned to American Legion v. Am. Humanist Assoc. We went over how Maryland said that they would win even if Lemon were used as the test. But that was a fallback position for them, as they preferred a test of tradition, as one alternative. We will pick up on Thursday with the other test that Maryland prefers to Lemon, and then look at the oral argument to see what the American Legion thinks the test should be.
The assignment for Thursday 4/4 is to review the briefs and the oral argument in American Legion.