The Written Assignments for this course are composed of a number of brief writing efforts. Students must complete and hand these in at various class meetings only on the dates noted here. Each assignment should be the student's own work, even if there are sources that provide such information. (N.B. the Plagiarism link on this website.) The purpose of these assignments is to insure student preparation for class each day and these will greatly help students develop efficient and better writing skills. Students should develop the ability to write clearly, concisely, and quickly, as well as regularly. Students will prepare these written assignments as announced in class and/or on this website. These assignments will be very brief documents. Please note that EARLY and LATE submissions WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Please do not submit electronic assignments either. It is essential that students develop the abilities to write clearly, concisely, directly, and analytically, throughout the semester and make precise deadlines. Each case assignment should be submitted in typed, single-spaced form on a separate sheet of paper, with your name on each page, along with the name of the case and the case citation at the top of the page.
The sequence of reading assignments in OBrien and the supplementary materials are listed below. The first written assignment is to prepare a BRIEF for each of the cases listed in the Chapter 4 readings. The nature of a brief is indicated in the Reading and Briefing Cases page of this website. You should plan to submit a brief for the first case Barron v. City of Baltimore and the second case the Slaughter House Cases on Tuesday, January 15, 2008. The first of these cases is pretty straightforward, but the second of them is much more challenging. You should plan to stay four (4) cases ahead of where class discussion ends each class period. While the discussion of these first two cases will probably not finish on the 15th, you should devote enough energy to briefing these that you have some method for sorting through legal issues and the reasoning of the Court. The actual progress through the cases listed in Chapter 4 will be relatively slow, and you should have little difficulty keeping ahead of the class discussion. Writing, means submitting a written copy of your brief for evaluation by the instructor, as they are due. Students should also bring a copy of their briefs to class for notation and for reference during class discussion. (Never leave home without your case briefs for this course!)
If a case listed below contains the legal citation and is bolded, then it is NOT in O'Brien and student should read the case in full either in the HSSE Library or on line through Lexis-Nexis.)
The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights O'Brien Ch. 4
The writing assignment for the following cases involve preparing a BRIEF for each of the cases listed below. Pay particular attention to the document on this web-site about what and how to "brief" in connection with a case.
Section A. The Selective Nationalization of Guarantees of the Bill of Rights Plus Other Fundamental Rights.
N.B. A case name that is in BOLD and that includes the citation indicates that this cases should be read in its entirety, by reading the case in the U.S. Reports. You might find O'Brien's discussion of these cases useful, if a discussion is presented, but you should develop your own assessment of these cases by reading the entire opinion.
Barron v. The Mayor and City of Baltimore The Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) Hurtado v. California Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Nebraska 164 U.S. 403 (1896) Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Palko v. Connecticut Adamson v. California Rochin v. California Breithaupt v. Abrahm 352 U.S. 432 (1957) Griswold v. Connecticut Duncan v. Louisiana Section B. The Rise and (Partial) Retreat of the "Due Process Revolution"
| Goss v. Lopez | 419 U.S. 565 (1975) |
| O'Connor v. Donaldson | 422 U.S. 563 (1975) |
| Youngberg v. Romeo | 457 U.S. 307 (1982) |
| DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept of Social Services | 489 U.S. 189 !989) |
| Michael H. v Gerald D. | 491 U.S. 110 (1989) |
| BMW of North America v. Gore | |
| County of Sacramento v. Lewis | |
| Doe v. Dept of Public Safety | 271 F.3d 38 (2nd Cir. 2001) |
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. v. Campbell | 538 U.S. 408 (2003) |
Economic Rights and American Capitalism O'Brien Ch. 3
The writing assignment for the following cases involve preparing a HOLDING for each of the cases listed below. This was explained in class on 1 February. Students should consult the webpage for a discussion of the development of a holding. Students are encouraged to continue preparing briefs for each case since this will aid them in understanding and remember each of the cases that are assigned and discussed in class. (In the preparation of briefs, pay particular attention to the logic of the arguments the Court uses to support its holding in each case.)
Section A. The Contract Clause and Vested Interests in Property.
| Fletcher v. Peck | |
| Trustees of Darmouth College v. Woodward | |
| Chas. River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge Co. | |
| Home Bldg & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell | |
| City of El Paso v. Simmons. | |
| United States Trust Co. of New York v. State of New Jersey |
Section B. The Development and Demise of a "Liberty of Contract."
| Santa Clara County v. So. Pac. Railroad Co. | 118 U.S. 394 (1886) |
| Allgeyer v. Louisiana | 165 U.S. 578 (1897) |
| Jacobson v. Massachusetts | 197 U.S. 11 (1905) |
| The Slaughterhouse Cases | |
| Munn v. Illinois | |
| Lochner v. New York | |
| Muller v. Oregon | |
| Coppage v. Kansas | 236 U.S. 1 (1915) |
| Adkins v. Children's Hospital | 261 U.S. 525 (1923) |
| Morehead v. Tipaldo | 298 U.S. 587 (1936). |
| West Coast Hotel v. Parrish | |
| Lincoln Federal Labor Union v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co. |
Section C. The "Takings Clause" and Just Compensation.
| Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff | |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Comm. | |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council | |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | 535 U.S. 302 (2002) |
| Kelo v. City of New London | 545 U.S. 469 (2005) |
The Right to Free Speech O'Brien Ch. 5
The writing assignment for the following cases involves the following:
Prepare an Outlined argument for the party that lost each of the cases listed below. These outlines should be at least two levels of headings for the cases that are listed below. After the second case, the outline must be linked to the previous two cases (as precedent). That means the case must be analytically "compared and contrasted with" the two previous cases.
N.B. The cases with bolded names and bolded citations attached to them below are NOT excerpted in the Casebook. They need to be read in the original.
Section A. Judicial Approaches to the First Amendment.
Abrams v. U.S. 250 U.S. 616 (1919) Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 (1927) Yates v. U.S. 354 U.S. 298 (1957) Scales v. U.S. 367 U.S. 203 (1961) Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd 367 U.S. 1 (1961) Schenk v. U.S. Gitlow v. New York Dennis v. U.S. Brandenberg v. Ohio Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights 547 U.S. 47 (2006)
Section B. Obscenity, Pornography, and Offensive Speech
Roth v. U.S. Stanley v. Georgia Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton New York v. Ferber City of Erie v. Pap Reno v. A.C.L.U. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition Cohen v. California Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Fnd Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul Minnesota Wisconsin v. Mitchell Virginia v. Black Rust v. Sullivan
Section C. Libel
New York Times v. Sullivan Gertz v. Robt, Wekch, Inc. Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
Section D. Commercial Speech
Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council 425 U.S. 748 (1976). Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Comm'n 447 U.S. 557 (1980) 44 Liquormat, Inc. v. Rhode Island. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n 544 U.S. 550 (2005)
Cruel and Unusual Punishment O'Brien Ch. 10
The writing assignment for the following cases involves the following:
Prepare an Outlined argument for the party that lost each of the cases listed below. These outlines should be at least two levels of headings for the cases that are listed below. After the second case, the outline must be linked to the previous two cases (as precedent). That means the case must be analytically "compared and contrasted with" the two previous cases.
N.B. The cases with bolded names and bolded citations attached to them below are NOT excerpted in the Casebook. They need to be read in the original.
Section A. Non Capital Punishment
Ewing v. California Section B. Capital Punishment
Furman v. Georgia Lockett v. Ohio McCleskey v. Kemp Payne v. Tennessee Morgan v. Illinois Atkins v. Virginia Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005) Baze v. Rees 217 S.W.3d 207 (KY 2006)