COURSE CALENDAR & ASSIGNMENTS

January 2003
JANUARY 26, 2003

The following Supplements to this Course Description can be found on the Web:

Syllabus Legal Resources of Russell Cole Library Briefing Supreme Court Cases Appellate Brief & Oral Argument
Rules & Regulations Internet Research Links Model Case Brief Model Appellate Brief
Grades Citing Internet Sources Formulating a Legal Question Docket of Oral Arguments
Good Advice Comment Key  

Synopsis: We will concern ourselves here with three broad areas of constitutional interpretation which affect the fundamental freedoms of Americans: (1) Due Process of Law, (2) Freedom of Expression, and (3) Equal Protection of the Laws. These three correspond to chapters in your text as follows:
  • Due Process of Law
    • Due Process of Law -- Chapter 7
    • Obtaining Evidence -- Chapter 8
    • The Right of Privacy -- Chapter 9
  • Freedom of Expression
    • Freedom of Speech -- Chapter 10
    • Freedom of the Press -- Chapter 11
    • Freedom of Religion -- Chapter 12
  • Equal Protection of the Laws
    • Equal Protection of the Laws -- Chapter 13

This course uses these subject matter divisions, but in a modified fashion so as to present a picture of the historical development of constitutional interpretation as a whole. What follows is an outline of the course broken into daily units. Arabic numerals designate pages to be read in the 7th edition of Constitutional Interpretation. Pages indicated often include material before and after the case proper. This additional material is part of the assignment. Assigned cases outside the casebook are represented by hyperlinks. Be warned, the assignments vary from long to extremely long. You can use the table below to jump directly to any daily assignment.

Cases labeled with the "tape icon" () have portions of their oral arguments available for your listening if you are interested. See Irons: May It Please the Court (1993) [live recordings of oral arguments before the Supreme Court] on reserve for this course.

Cases that are indicated in red are assigned for oral argument. Cases for oral argument are listed where they best fit into the course outline with a notation of the date when they will be argued. These cases are assigned to specific students. Unless a case has been assigned to you, you should actively avoid knowing anything about it prior to reading the appellate briefs.

Assignments

You may use the table below to jump directly to the assignment for any given day in the course.
  MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
WEEK #1
WEEK #2
WEEK #3
WEEK #4 RECOVERY PERIOD

DAY #1 -- January 6

An Introduction to the Work of the Supreme Court.

  • The History of the Supreme Court
  • The Role of the Courts in Constitutional Interpretation
  • The Process of Supreme Court Decision-Making
  • The Structure and Function of the Federal Courts
  • The Relationship Between This Course and Politics 365
  • The Anatomy of a Supreme Court Decision in its Cultural Context
read: T.R. van Geel: Understanding Supreme Court Opinions, pp. xii-xvi, chapters #1-3

FOOD FOR THOUGHT -- DAYS #1-2

These are questions to ponder as you watch the video on Monday, as you read your assignment for Tuesday, and indeed for the rest of the course. These are important questions, but they are easier asked than answered. If you can make significant progress toward a sophisticated understanding of the issues raised here, you should probably consider the course a great success. Certainly, I will consider you a great success!
  1. What is policy making? Does the Court do it? Does that make the court political?
  2. Why do justices regularly deny a policy making role? And why do they surround themselves with symbolism, ritual, secrecy and formality?
  3. How have efforts to limit governmental power led to the emergence of a powerful Supreme Court?
  4. How did the court acquire the power of judicial review? Is such a power inevitable? Would the framers approve? Do you?
  5. How do the mechanics of the judicial process affect the cases heard and how they are decided? Are there systematic biases in the process which leads eventually to a judicial decision by the highest court? [Think about standing, jurisdiction, case selection procedures, decision procedures, and costs.]
  6. What are the major sources of power for the court? What are the major constraints on its power? There are clearly legal and political constraints; are there others as well? To what extent are justices bound by the precedents of their predecessors?
  7. What distinguishes constitutional from statutory interpretation? What modes of legal reasoning are associated with each?
  8. Can the court be justified in terms of democratic theory? Does it speak for the people? Does it represent majority opinion? Is it more expert than the other branches? Is it less political?
  9. How has the court evolved as an institution over the past 200 years? What are the consequences of that evolution for the judicial process? For the substance of decisions? For the status and power of the court?
  10. Who gets appointed to the court? What are the selection criteria? Can the president control the court? What is the role of the Senate? What should it be?
  11. Can the work of the court be successfully subjected to the tools of modern political science? Can judicial decisions be predicted? What are the probable consequences of court predictability?
  12. What factors enhance the probability that court decisions will be obeyed? What factors enhance the probability that they will be ignored? How does the probability of compliance affect the latitude of judicial decision-making?
  13. Is justice blind? Should it be? What would really blind justice look like? Could we recognize it if we saw it?
  14. In the last analysis, do courts really rule America? Should they? If courts don't, who (or what) does?

DAY #2 -- January 7

An Introduction to the Work of the Supreme Court -- continued

  • The History of the Supreme Court
  • The Role of the Courts in Constitutional Interpretation
  • The Process of Supreme Court Decision-Making
  • The Structure and Function of the Federal Courts
  • The Relationship Between This Course and Politics 365
  • The Anatomy of a Supreme Court Decision in its Cultural Context

read: T.R. van Geel: Understanding Supreme Court Opinions, chapter #4 to end

DAY #3 -- January 8

[approximately 40 pages]

Fundamental Freedoms (1789-1900)

Early Interpretation of Individual Rights

    • Civil Rights Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment (1789-1868)
      • U.S. Constitution, Amendments #1-10 E33
      • Barron v. Baltimore, 32 US 243-52 (1833) 486-89
      • Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393-633 (1857)
    • The Civil War Amendments and Their Interpretation (1868-1900)
      • US Constitution, Amendments #13-15 E34
    • Due Process of Law
      • Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 US 36-129 (1873) 489-94
      • The Theories and Process of Incorporation 495-500
      • Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516-58 (1884) 500-503
    • Equal Protection of the Laws
      • Equal Protection 1192-93
      • Racial Discrimination 1193
      • Economic and Social Discrimination
        • Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 US 130 (1873), 1358-60

FOOD FOR THOUGHT -- DAY #3

Today's assignment addresses the period from 1789 through 1900. That's 120 years, so be sensitive to when cases were decided. Exercise whatever knowledge you may have of American history, and try to imagine the broader political and social context in which these cases arose.
Some questions to get you thinking:
The Bill of Rights: What do the words mean? Can you think of ways in which these amendments might have meant different things to Americans in the 1790s than they mean to us?
Barron v. Baltimore: This minor matter is the court's first chance to pronounce the meaning of the bill of rights. What's the significant outcome in terms of American constitutional history? Is the court's decision sound? How might our history have been changed if the decision had gone the other way?
Dred Scott v. Sandford: What is the constitutional status of blacks in ante-bellum America? Is the court's decision good law? Is it good politics? Is it good morality? If law, politics, and morality suggest different outcomes, which principles ought the court to prefer?
Civil War Amendments: What is the clear intent of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution? To what purpose are they put by the court? Did the court overturn the result of the Civil War? To what extent and by what means was the constitutional status of American blacks changed between Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson?

DAY #4 -- January 9

[approximately 99 pages]

The Birth of the Civil Rights Court (1900-1953)

Taking Individual Rights Seriously

    • Due Process of Law
      • Wiretapping and Eavesdropping 732-34
        • Olmstead v. US, 277 US 438-88 (1928) 734-38
      • The Right to Counsel at Trial 537
        • Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45-77 (1932) 538-41
      • The Theories and Process of Incorporation 495-500
        • Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319-29 (1937) 504-506
        • Adamson v. California, 332 US 46-125 (1947) 506-510
        • Rochin v. California, 342 US 165-79 (1952) 510-13

    • Freedom of Expression
      • Freedom of Speech 824-31
        • The "Clear and Present Danger" Test 831-32
          • Schenck v. US, 249 US 47-53 (1919) 832-33
          • Holmes Dissenting in Abrams v. US 834-35
          • Brandeis Concurring in Whitney v. California (1927) 835-37
          • The "Bad Tendency" Test 837-38
          • Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652-73 (1925) 838-41
      • Freedom of the Press 984-85
        • Censorship and Prior Restraint 985
          • Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697-783 (1931) 986-90
      • Freedom of Speech
        • Symbolic Speech 904-905
          • West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624-71 (1943) 905-11
        • The Preferred Freedoms Approach 841-42
          • Thomas v. Collins, 323 US 516-57 (1945) 842-45
          • Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1-37 (1949) 845-49
      • Freedom of the Press
        • Libel 1065-66
          • Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 US 250 (1952) 1086-90

    • Equal Protection of the Laws
      • Racial Discrimination
      • "State Action" Under the Fourteenth Amendment 1262-63
        • Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1-23 (1948) 1263-65
        • Sweatt v. Painter, 339 US 629-36 (1950) 1198-99

    FOOD FOR THOUGHT -- DAY #4

    Writing The American Supreme Court (University of Chicago Press, 1960) in the late 1950s, Robert McCloskey, called his era the era of the "civil rights court." He traced its beginnings to the "revolution of 1937," when the Supreme Court abandoned the commitment to laissez-faire economic policies that had dominated its decisions since the end of the Civil War.

    Here we examine the first half of the 20th century, the period before the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice. We'll find some movement on the Civil Rights front before 1937, but also a serious reluctance to take rights seriously when they are suspected of threatening "national security."

    As the historical period shortens and the number of cases to consider increases, we introduce three broad substantive categories -- due process, free expression, and equal protection -- which will be further subdivided in days to come.

    Be on the lookout for examples of "incorporation" or "substantive due process."

    A. Due Process of Law:

    Olmstead v. US: The founding fathers never heard of electronics, so how is the nation to adapt? Is the court's approach a sound one? Legally? Practically? Is Congress shirking its duty?

    Olmstead excepted, the fundamental issue here is the exact meaning of the 14th Amendment's restrictions on state action, specifically what constitutes denial of due process. Are these decisions just? Are they good law? How do Barron v. Baltimore and the 14th amendment fit in? What does "due process" mean anyway? Be sensitive to the different theories and approaches advocated for establishing the legal limits of due process.

    B. Freedom of Expression:

    Schenck v. US and Gitlow v. New York: Does the first amendment mean what it says? Must there always be practical limits to a right of free expression? What principles does the court set forth in its effort to delineate the limits of free speech? Is the court true to those principles once enunciated? Can (should) the right to speak be made to depend upon whether anyone is paying attention?

    In these and subsequent cases you must learn to be sensitive to the content of the speech concerned, the nature or character of the speaker, the context of the speech, and the effects or probable effects of the speech. How do these factors interrelate to produce the decisions we read?

    C. Equal Protection of the Laws:

    Keeping in mind the decision in Dred Scott and especially the postwar decisions in Hall, the Civil Rights Cases, Louisville, and Plessy, examine carefully the slow evolution of the court in cases of discrimination against blacks. What do you think the court is trying to accomplish in Smith v. Allwright, Shelley v. Kraemer, and Sweatt v. Painter? And how can you square those decisions with the court's position in Korematsu v. US? Is discrimination against blacks constitutionally different from discrimination against Japanese? Should it be?

DAY #5 -- January 10

[approximately 79 pages]
The Warren Court: Eisenhower's Biggest Mistake? (1953-1969)
Expanding Due Process Rights & Inventing a New One
    • Due Process of Law (Chapter 7
      • Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
        • The Jury Trial Guarantee 513
        • Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145- 93 (1968) 513-18
      • The Right to Counsel 531
        • Herbert L. Packer, "Two Models of the Criminal Process" 531-37
        • The Right to Counsel at Trial
          • Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335-52 (1963) 541-44
        • The Pretrial Right to Counsel 548-49
          • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 549-56 (1966) 549-56
          • The Right to Counsel at Lineups 556-58
      • The Right Against Self-Incrimination
      • Confrontation and Cross-Examination
      • Cruel and Unusual Punishment
      • Punishment for an Act, Not a Condition 593
        • Robinson v. California, 370 US 643-86 (1962) 594-96
        • Note on Powell v. Texas 596-98

    • Obtaining Evidence (Chapter 8) 641
      • The Exclusionary Rule 641-43
        • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643-86 (1961) 643-48
      • Warrantless Searches and Seizures 665
      • Hot Pursuit 674
        • Warden v. Hayden, 387 US 294-325 (1967) 674-75
      • Street Stops 691
        • Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1-39 (1968) 692-95
        • Sibron v. N.Y. / Peters v. NY, 392 US 40-82 (1968) 695-99
      • Search Incident to Arrest 670
        • Chimel v. California, 395 US 752-83 (1969) 670-74
      • Current Controversies in Search and Seizure Law
      • Wiretapping and Eavesdropping
        • Berger v. New York, 388 US 41-129 (1967) 738-42
        • Katz v. US, (1967) 742-45

    • The Right of Privacy (Chapter 9) 753-56
      • Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479-531 (1965) 756-63

DAY #6 — January 13

[approximately 44 pages]

9:00 to 10:00 a.m. Meet in Cole Library Room 126 for a class on researching case law with Corey Williams-Green

The Warren Court: Eisenhower's Biggest Mistake? (1953-1969)
Expanding Freedom of Expression
    • Freedom of Speech (Chapter 10)
      • The "Clear and Probable Danger" Test 849-53
      • "Clear and Present Danger" Triumphant 853
        • Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444-57 (1969) 854-56
      • The "Heckler's Veto" 858-61
      • Time, Place and Manner Limitations 862
      • Speech in a "Public Forum" 862-63
        • Adderly v. Florida, 385 US 39-56 (1967) 863-66
      • Symbolic Speech
        • Wearing an Armband in School 912
          • Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 US 503-26 (1969) 912-15
        • Draft Card Burning . . . 917
          • US v. O'Brien, 391 US 367-91 (1968) 917-21

    • Freedom of the Press (Chapter 11)
      • Censorship and Prior Restraint
      • Obscenity 1034-35
        • Roth v. U. S. / Alberts v. California, 354 US 476-514 (1957) 1035-42
        • Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557-72 (1969) 1042-44
      • Libel
        • New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254-305 (1964) 1066-70
        • Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts / A.P. v. Walker, 388 US 130-74 (1967) 1070-74
      • Free Trial -- Fair Press 1090-91
        • Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333-63 (1966) 1091-96

    • Freedom of Religion (Chapter 12) - Warren Court cases will be synopsized in the introduction to current era cases.

DAY #7 — January 14

[approximately 54 pages]
The Warren Court: Eisenhower's Biggest Mistake? (1953-1969)
Taking Racial Discrimination Seriously
    • Equal Protection of the Laws (Chapter 13)
      • Racial Discrimination
        • The Brown Decision 1199-1200
          • Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483-96 (1954) 1200-1206
          • Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US 294-301 (1955) 1206-1208
          • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1-30 (1958) 1208-12
      • "Private" Discrimination and the Concept of "State Action"
        • Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 US 715-30 (1961) 1265-66
        • Other Cases on State Action 1266-67
        • Reaching Private Conduct Through the Thirteenth Amendment 1273-74
          • Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 US 409-80 (1968) 1274-76
      • Voting Rights and Electoral Discrimination 1285-87
        • Voting Rights Act
          • South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 US 301-62 (1966) 1287-92
        • Voting Rights and Access to the Ballot 1298
          • Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 US 621-41 (1969) 1298-1301
      • Malapportionment 1304
        • Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186-349 (1962) 1304-13
        • Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533-632 (1964) 1313-18
        • Lucas v. 44th General Assembly of Colorado, 377 US 713-65 (1964) 1318-21
      • Economic and Social Discrimination 1331-34
        • Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618-77 (1969) 1334-39

DAY #8 — January 15

[approximately 91 pages]
The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Due Process: Weighing the Rights of the Accused Against the Rights of Society
    • Due Process of Law (Chapter 7)
      • Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the 14 Amendment
        • Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78-145 (1970) 518-24
        • Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 US 404-15 (1972) 524-28
        • Nonincorporated Second Amendment 528-30
      • The Right to Counsel
        • Brewer v. Williams, 430 US 387-441 (1977) 558-62
        • Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 US 292-317 (1980) 562-64
        • Edwards v. Arizona, 451 US 649-90 (1981) 565-67
        • Note on Nix v. Williams 567-68
      • The Right Against Self-incrimination 569-70
        • California v. Byers, 402 US 424-78 (1971) 571-75
        • Testimonial Evidence in Drunk Driving Cases 576-77
        • Voluntariness of Confessions before Miranda 577-79
        • Admissibility of Confessions after Miranda 579
        • New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649-90 (1984) 580-85
      • Confrontation and Cross-examination 585-86
        • Maryland v. Craig, 497 US 836-70 (1990) 586-93
      • Cruel and Unusual Punishment
        • The Death Penalty 598
          • Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238-470 (1972) 598-613
          • McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 US 279-367 (1987) 614-23
        • Victim Impact Evidence 623
          • Payne v. Tennessee, 501 US 808-67 (1991) 623-28
        • Mandatory Life Imprisonment 628-29
        • Forfeiture 629-30
        • Prisoners' Rights 630-32
        • Confining Dangerous Persons 632-33
          • Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 US 346 (1997) 633-38
        • Excessive Fines and Excessive Bail 638-40

DAY #9 — January 16

[approximately 79 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Due Process: Weighing the Rights of the Accused Against the Rights of Society
    • Obtaining Evidence (Chapter 8)
      • The Exclusionary Rule
        • Stone v. Powell, 428 US 465-542 (1976) 648-55
        • US v. Leon, 468 US 897-980 (1984) 656-65
      • Warrantless Searches and Seizures
        • Motor Vehicles 675
          • Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443-527 (1971) 675-79
        • Probable Cause and Reasonableness 703-704
        • Emergencies and Inspections 686-87
          • Michigan v. Tyler, 436 US 499-518 (1978) 687-91
        • Border Searches 702-703
        • Plain Sight 679-80/81
          • California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207-26 (1986) 680-86
        • Consent 666
          • Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429-51 (1991) 666-70
        • When May Police Officers Use Deadly Force 699-702
      • Current Controversies in Search and Seizure Law 706-707
        • New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 US 325-86 (1985) 715-22
        • California v. Greenwood, 486 US 35-56 (1988) 729-32
        • National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 US 656-87 (1989) 707-15
        • Michigan v. Sitz, 496 US 444-77 (1990) 722-28
      • Wiretapping and Eavesdropping
        • Note on Pen Register 745-46
        • Note on Cordless Phones 746-47
        • US v. US District Court for Eastern Michigan, 407 US 297-344 (1972) 747-51
        • Note on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 752

DAY #10 — January 17

[approximately 65 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Due Process: Weighing the Rights of the Accused Against the Rights of Society
    • The Right of Privacy (Chapter 9)
      • Abortion 763
        • Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113-78 (1973) 763-72
        • Maher v. Roe, 432 US 464-90 (1977) 790-94
        • The Constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment 795-97
        • City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 US 416-75 (1983) 772-75
        • Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 883 (1992) 775-88
        • Note on Free Access to Clinics Act 788-89
        • Note on Antiabortion Protesters and RICO Act 789-90
        • The Constitutionality of the "Gag Rule" 797-99
      • Privacy and Other Lifestyle Issues 799-800
        • Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186-220 (1986) 800-809
        • Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, (10th Circuit, 1987) 809-12
      • The Right to Die 812-14
        • Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 US 702 (1997) 814-21
        • Vacco v. Quill, 521 US 793 (1997) 821-23

DAY #11 — January 20

[approximately 33 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Free Expression: Has Anything Really Changed?
    • Freedom of Speech (Chapter 10)

      • The "Clear and Present Danger Test"
        • Note on Murder by the Book 856-58

      • Time, Place, and Manner Limitations
        • Speech in a Public "Forum"
          • Note on the ISKON Cases 866-70
          • Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 US 819 (1995) 870-75
          • Loper v. New York City Police Department, (2nd Circuit, 1993) 875-78
          • Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 US 753 (1994) 878-884
          • Hill v. Colorado (June 28, 2000) oral argument #1 on Day #13
        • Speech on Private Property 884
          • Hudgens v. N.L.R.B., 424 US 507-543 (1976) 884-890
          • Note on Pruneyard v. Robins 890-93
          • City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 US 43 (1994) 893-96
        • Offensiveness 896
          • Cohen v. California, 403 US 15-28 (1971) 896-99
          • Note on the Outdoor Movie Screen 899-900
          • Note on George Carlin's "Filthy Words" 900-902
          • Note on the Nazi March in Skokie 902-903
        • Other Cases on Time, Place and Manner Limitations Generally 903-904

DAY #12 — January 21

[approximately 60 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Free Expression: Has Anything Really Changed?
    • Freedom of Speech (Chapter 10)
      • Symbolic Speech
        • Note on the High School Speaker 915-17
        • Nude Dancing and Flag Burning 921
          • Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 US 560-596 (1991) 921-27
          • Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397-439 (1989) 927-34
          • Erie v. Pap's A.M. (March 29, 2000) oral argument #2 on Day #14
        • Cross Burning and Hate Speech 934
          • R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 US 377 (1992) 934-40

      • Campaign Finance Reform, Corporate Speech, and Party Patronage 940-41
        • Campaign Finance Reform 941
          • Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1- (1976) 941-950
          • Note on the NCPAC Case 950-52
        • Corporate Speech 952
          • First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 US 765-828 (1978) 953-59
          • Note on Public Utility Billing Inserts 959-61
          • More Cases 961-62
        • Party Patronage 962
          • Branti v. Finkel, 445 US 507-534 (1980) 962-68

      • Commercial Speech 968-69
        • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 US 557 (1980) 969-78
        • Note on Ohralik and Primus Cases 978-83

DAY #13 — January 22

[approximately 101 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Free Expression: Has Anything Really Changed?
    • Freedom of the Press (Chapter 11)
      • Censorship and Prior Restraint
        • The Right to Publish
          • Note on Alexander v. US 990-92
          • Note on 2 Live Crew 992-95
          • New York Times v. US, 403 US 713-63 (1971) 995-1002
          • Note on US v. Progressive 1003-05
          • Note on Cox v. Cohn 1005-06
          • Cases on Newspaper Sanctions 1007
          • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 US 260-91 (1988) 1007-11
        • Confidentiality of Sources 1011-12
          • Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 US 665-752 (1972) 1012-14
          • Note on Myron Farber and the New York Times 1015-16
          • Note on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily 1017-18
        • The Right of Access 1018-19
          • Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 US 241-63 (1974) 1019-22
          • Houchins v. KQED, 438 US 1-40 (1978) 1022-30
          • Note on the Freedom of Information Act 1030-31
          • Note on Island Trees School District v. Pico 1031-34

      • Obscenity
        • Miller v. California, 413 US 15-48 (1976) 1044-47
        • Note on Kiddy Porn 1047-48
        • Paris Adult Theater I v. Slayton, 413 US 49-114 (1973) 1048-54
        • National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 569 US 524 (1998) 1054-59
        • American Booksellers Association, Inc. v. Hudnut 771 F.2d 323 (1985) 1059-63
        • Note on Regulation of Indecency 1063-65
        • Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, ___ US ___ (2002)

      • Libel
        • Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323-404 (1974) 1074-81
        • Note on Time v. Firestone 1081-83
        • Note on Herbert v. Lando 1083-85
        • Other Cases 1085

      • Fair Trial--Free Press
        • Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 US 539-617 (1976) 1096-1100
        • Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 US 555-606 (1980) 1200-1108
        • Note on Globe v. Superior Court 1108
        • Other Cases 1109

DAY #14 — January 23

[approximately 83 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Free Expression: Has Anything Really Changed?
    • Freedom of Religion (Chapter 12) 1110

      • The Establishment Clause 1110-14
        • Prayer, Bible-Reading, and Sunday Closing 1114-5
        • The Lemon Test and Financial Aid to Religion 1126-27
          • Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 US 664-727 (1970) 1127-30
          • Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602-71 (1971) 1130-34
          • Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672-97 (1971) 1134-39
          • Agostini v. Felton, 521 US 203 (1997) 1139-47
          • Whither Lemon? 1147
          • Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 US 578-640 (1987) 1147-53
          • Note on Lynch v. Donnelly 1153-55
          • Note on Allegheny County v. ACLU 1155-57
          • Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 US 753 (1995) 1157-62
          • Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) 1162-67
          • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (June 27, 2002) oral argument #3 on Day #15

      • The Free Exercise of Religious Belief 1167-69
        • Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205-49 (1972) 1175-80
        • Thomas v. Indiana Employment Security Review Board, 450 US 707-27 (1981) 1169-75
        • Employment Division, Oregon Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 US 872-921 (1990) 1180-86
        • Church of the Lukumbi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 US 520 (1993) 1186-91

DAY #15 — January 24

[approximately 58 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Equal Protection or Reverse Discrimination?
    • Equal Protection of the Laws (Chapter 13)

      • Racial Discrimination
        • The Scope and Duration of Desegregation 1212
          • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 US 1-32 (1971) 1213-1219
          • Milliken v. Bradley, 418 US 717-815 (1974) 1219-28
          • Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 US 33-81 (1990) 1228-34
        • Proving Discriminatory Intent 1234-35
          • Palmer v. Thompson, 403 US 217 (1971) 1237-40
          • Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 US 252 (1976) 1235-37
          • Note on Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection 1240-42
        • Affirmative Action or "Reverse Discrimination" 1242
          • Note on Regents v. Bakke & Other Cases 1242-47
          • City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 US 469-562 (1989) 1247-56

      • "Private" Discrimination and the Concept of "State Action"
        • "State Action" under the 14th Amendment
          • Note on Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 1268
          • Jackson v. Metro Edison Co., 419 US 345-74 (1974) 1269-70
          • Note on Palmore v. Sidoti 1272
        • Reaching Private Conduct through the 13th Amendment
          • Runyon v. McCrary, 427 US 160-214 (1976) 1277-82
        • Private Discrimination and First Amendment Issues 1282-85
          • Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (June 28, 2000) oral argument #4 on Day #16

DAY #16 — January 27

[approximately 71 pages]

The Era of Republican Hegemony: Burger & Rehnquist (1969-present)
Equal Protection or Reverse Discrimination?
    • Equal Protection of the Laws (Chapter 13)

      • Voting Rights and Electoral Discrimination
        • The Voting Rights Act
          • Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 US 30-108 (1986) 1292-98
        • Voting Rights and Access to the Ballot
          • Note on Closed Primaries 1301-04
      • Presidential Elections
      • Malapportionment 1321-23
        • Note on Davis v. Bandemer 1323-24
        • Shaw v. Reno, 509 US 630 (1993) 1324-31

      • Economic and Social Discrimination
        • Social Welfare Benefits and Limitations on the Right to Travel
          • Note on Social Welfare Benefits and the Right to International Travel 1339-41
        • Indigency 1341-42
          • San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 US 1-137 (1973) 1342-52
          • Note on Equality of Public School Finance & State Constitutional Law 1353-54
        • Illegitimacy 1354-55
          • Labine v. Vincent, 401 US 532-59 (1971) 1355-58
        • Gender 1358
          • Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 US 677-92 (1973) 1360-64
          • Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190-228 (1976) 1364-68
          • Califano v. Westcott, 443 US 76-96 (1979) 1369-71
          • Note on Gender Discrimination and the Veterans' Preference 1371-73
          • US v. Virginia, 518 US 515 (1996) 1373-80
          • Nguyen v. INS (June 11, 2001) oral argument #5 on Day #17
        • Age 1381
          • Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 US 307-27 (1976) 1381-87
          • Note on Cleburne 1387-88
        • Sexual Preference 1388
          • Steffan v. Perry (D.C. Circuit, 1994) 1389-94
          • Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620 (1996) 1394-1400
          • Note on Same-Sex Marriage and the Full Faith and Credit Clause 1400-01
        • Alienage 1401-02
          • Ambach v. Norwick, 441 US 68-90 (1979) 1402-06
          • Notes on Illegal Aliens and Government Services 1406-10

DAY #17 — January 28

The Future of the Court: A chance to catch up, reflect on the past, and speculate about the future. Pretty clearly it does make a difference who nominates the next justices! There may be a short handout or two to read in preparation for this discussion, or we may just all collapse in a heap.

Liberties are always at risk at times of perceived crisis: the Civil War, the World Wars, the Cold War, and now the undeclared, open-ended, War on Terrorism, which will presumably be fought on American soil as well as abroad. In this unique and unprecedented war, courts will have to determine once again how to strike the constitutional balance between war powers and civil rights. Indeed, they have already begun to do so. In preparation for our final class, please invest one hour in listening to one of the best and most troubling hours of radio every broadcast. You'll find it at This American Life. Select "All Episodes" then "Secret Government." Click . Listen carefully. This is real audio. You don't get to rewind. After you have listened to the program, check out the cases below.

  • In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 (US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, November 18, 2002)-- scan the opinion if you have the time.
  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (January 8, 2003) -- read the attached news coverage. Scan the opinion if you have the time.

DAY #18 — January 29

Final Examination: {The examination traditionally begins at 7:00 o'clock Wednesday morning}

 
 
Last Update: January 26, 2003
Site Maintainer: politics@cornellcollege.edu
Athletics Library Politics Department Cornell College Home Page About Cornell Admissions Academics Alumni Campus Life Offices News Home Search Site Map Directory