SUNDAYS AT JASA FALL 2023 SEMESTER
The Supreme Court: When Law and Politics Collide
Mondays at 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Virtual Class on Zoom
Instructor: Leora Harpaz
Email
- lharpaz@lharpaz.com
Course Description:
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has involved itself in
numerous controversies that have had significant political
ramifications. Whether it is redistricting, voting rights,
abortion, guns, climate change, or immigration, just to name
some of the issues, the Court’s actions have involved it in
major political controversies. This course will examine the
Court’s recent actions in areas of political significance as
well as look ahead to other issues that may reach the Court.
Student
Suggestions:
I welcome your
suggestions
for other
subjects you’d
like to hear
about. Please
use the
following link
if
you would like to make suggestions for topics you would like
covered in upcoming classes:
http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/JASA/suggestions/
Class Material:
Material
Prepared to be
Shared in
Class is
Available on
this webpage
at http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/JASA/supctlawpoliticscollidefall2023.html
Instructor Bio:
Leora Harpaz is an emeritus professor of
constitutional law at Western New England University
School of Law as well as founder of the annual Supreme
Court Conference where she was a speaker for over 25
years. Since receiving emeritus status, she has been
an instructor in several senior learner programs and
taught undergraduate law courses in the political
science department at Hunter College. She received her
B.A. from Stony Brook University and has law degrees
from both Boston University and New York University.
Previous Courses Taught for Sundays at JASA:
Law and the Movies (Summer 2023), The Supreme Court:
When Law and Politics Collide (Spring 2023), The
Supreme Court: When Law and Politics Collide (Fall
2022), Keeping Up With The Supreme Court (Spring
2022), Landmark Supreme Court Cases (Winter 2022),
Bill of Rights (Fall 2021), Major Legal Controversies:
Past, Present and Future (Spring 2021), Current Legal
Controversies (Fall 2020), Major Supreme Court Cases
(Summer 2020), Equal Protection and the Supreme Court
(Spring 2020), Freedom of Speech and the Supreme Court
(Fall 2019), Bill of Rights (Spring 2019), and Recent
Supreme Court Cases (Fall 2018)
Class 9 - Dec. 4, 2023
Goldsmith
Photo of
Prince
Goldsmith
Photo and
Warhol Images
Goldsmith
Photo and
Warhol Orange
Image
§107 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall
not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of
all the above factors.
Jack
Daniel's Whiskey Bottle and Bad Spaniels Dog Toy
Class 8 - Nov. 27, 2023
14th Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and
Vice-President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United
States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as
a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as
a member of any State legislature,
or as an executive or judicial
officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove
such disability.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended in 1972:
It shall be an unlawful employment
practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to
discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against
any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of
such individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.
The term "religion" includes all
aspects of religious observance and
practice, as well as belief, unless
an employer demonstrates that he is
unable to reasonably accommodate to
an employee's or prospective
employee's religious observance or
practice without undue hardship on
the conduct of the employer's
business.
TWA v. Hardison:
To require TWA to bear more than a
de minimis cost in order to give
Hardison Saturdays off is an undue
hardship.
We accept the District Court's
findings that TWA had done all that
it could do to accommodate
Hardison's religious beliefs without
. . . incurring substantial costs.
Groff v. DeJoy:
[A]n employer must show that the
burden of granting an accommodation
would result in substantial
increased costs in relation to the
conduct of its particular business.
Class 7 - Nov. 13, 2023
14th Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and
Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any
State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or
as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, shall
have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability.
Amnesty Act:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house
concurring therein), that all political disabilities
imposed by the third section of the fourteenth
article of amendments of the Constitution of the
United States are hereby removed from all persons
whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of
the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses,
officers in the judicial, military, and naval
service of the United States, heads of departments,
and foreign ministers of the United States.
John Anthony Castro FEC Form 2 Statement of
Candidacy: https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/236/202201309475556236/202201309475556236.pdf
Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S.
Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States, and
will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended in 1972:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer -
(1) to . . . discriminate against any individual
with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment, because of such
individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin.
The term "religion" includes all aspects of
religious observance and practice, as well as
belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is
unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or
prospective employee's religious observance or
practice without undue hardship on the conduct of
the employer's business.
TWA v. Hardison:
To require TWA to bear more than a de minimis cost
in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue
hardship.
We accept the District Court's findings that TWA had
done all that it could do to accommodate Hardison's
religious beliefs without . . . incurring
substantial costs.
Groff v. DeJoy:
[A]n employer must show that the burden of granting
an accommodation would result in substantial
increased costs in relation to the conduct of its
particular business.
Class 6 - Nov. 6, 2023
HEROES Act:
§1098bb. Waiver authority for response to military
contingencies and national emergencies
(a) Waivers and modifications (1) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless
enacted with specific reference to this section, the
Secretary of Education (referred to in this part as
the ‘‘Secretary’’) may waive or modify any statutory
or regulatory provision applicable to the student
financial assistance programs under title IV of the
Act [20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.] as the Secretary deems
necessary in connection with a war or other military
operation or national emergency to provide the waivers
or modifications authorized by paragraph (2).
Class 5 - Oct. 30, 2023
Section 2: Voting Rights Act:
42 U.S.C. § 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to
vote on account of race or color through voting
qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of
violation.
a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting
or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed
or applied by any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the
right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 1973b
(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of
this section.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is
established if, based on the totality of
circumstances, it is shown that the political
processes leading to nomination or election in the
State or political subdivision are not equally open to
participation by members of a class of citizens
protected by subsection (a) of this section in that
its members have less opportunity than other members
of the electorate to participate in the political
process and to elect representatives of their choice.
The extent to which members of a protected class have
been elected to office in the State or political
subdivision is one circumstance which may be
considered: Provided, That nothing in this section
establishes a right to have members of a protected
class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in
the population.
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public
accommodation - definition.
(1) As used in this part 6, “place of public
accommodation” means any place of business engaged in
any sales to the public and any place offering
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations to the public, including but not
limited to any business offering wholesale or retail
sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep,
or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or
recreational area and facility; any public
transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse,
swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor,
gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve
the health, appearance, or physical condition of a
person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary,
clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other
institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a
mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an
educational institution; or any public building, park,
arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library,
exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor
or outdoor. “Place of public accommodation” shall not
include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place
that is principally used for religious purposes.
(2)
(a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a
person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold
from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of
disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, gender expression,
marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
of a place of public accommodation or, directly or
indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display,
post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed
communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates
that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of a place of public accommodation will
be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or
that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place
of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable,
unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability,
race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender expression, marital status, national
origin, or ancestry.
(b) A claim brought pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
subsection (2) that is based on disability is covered
by the provisions of section 24-34-802.
(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for
any person to discriminate against any individual or
group because such person or group has opposed any
practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6
or because such person or group has made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in
an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted
pursuant to this part 6.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a
person to restrict admission to a place of public
accommodation to individuals of one sex if such
restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of such place of public accommodation.
Class 4 - Oct. 23, 2023
The Elections Clause - Art. I, Sec. IV, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress
may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except
as to the Place of chusing Senators.
Moore v. Harper Majority Opinion by Chief Justice
Roberts:
“State courts retain the authority to apply state
constitutional restraints when legislatures act under
the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.
But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to
exercise judicial review. In interpreting state law in
this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds
of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally
intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state
legislatures by Art I, § 4, of the Federal
Constitution. Because we need not decide whether that
occurred in today’s case, the judgment of the North
Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed.”
Class 3 - Oct. 16, 2023
Fifteenth Amendment: Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any state on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in
consequence of appropriations made by law
Class 2 - Oct. 9, 2023
Students for
Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows
of Harvard College
Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
1. “Today, this Court stands in the way
and rolls back decades of precedent and
momentous progress. It holds that race
can no longer be used in a limited way
in college admissions to achieve such
critical benefits. In so holding, the
Court cements a superficial rule of
colorblindness as a constitutional
principle in an endemically segregated
society where race has always mattered
and continues to matter. The Court
subverts the constitutional guarantee of
equal protection by further entrenching
racial inequality in education, the very
foundation of our democratic government
and pluralistic society.”
2. “Today, this Court . . . imposes a
superficial rule of race blindness on
the Nation. The devastating impact of
this decision cannot be overstated. The
majority’s vision of race neutrality
will entrench racial segregation in
higher education because racial
inequality will persist so long as it is
ignored.”
3. “Notwithstanding this Court’s
actions, however, society’s progress
toward equality cannot be permanently
halted. Diversity is now a fundamental
American value, housed in our varied and
multicultural American community that
only continues to grow. The pursuit of
racial diversity will go on. Although
the Court has stripped out almost all
uses of race in college admissions,
universities can and should continue to
use all available tools to meet
society’s needs for diversity in
education. Despite the Court’s
unjustified exercise of power, the
opinion today will serve only to
highlight the Court’s own impotence in
the face of an America whose cries for
equality resound. As has been the case
before in the history of American
democracy, ‘the arc of the moral
universe’ will bend toward racial
justice despite the Court’s efforts
today to impede its progress.”
Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion:
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness,
today, the majority pulls the ripcord
and announces ‘colorblindness for all’
by legal fiat. But deeming race
irrelevant in law does not make it so in
life. And having so detached itself from
this country’s actual past and present
experiences, the Court has now been
lured into interfering with the crucial
work that UNC and other institutions of
higher learning are doing to solve
America’s real-world problems.
No one benefits from ignorance. Although
formal race-linked legal barriers are
gone, race still matters to the lived
experiences of all Americans in
innumerable ways, and today’s ruling
makes things worse, not better. The best
that can be said of the majority’s
perspective is that it proceeds
(ostrich-like) from the hope that
preventing consideration of race will
end racism. But if that is its
motivation, the majority proceeds in
vain. If the colleges of this country
are required to ignore a thing that
matters, it will not just go away. It
will take longer for racism to leave us.
And, ultimately, ignoring race just
makes it matter more.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9:
No money shall be drawn from the
treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law
Class 1 - Oct. 2, 2023
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Harvard’s list of benefits from a diverse student
body:
“(1) training future leaders in the public and private
sectors;
(2) preparing graduates to adapt to an increasingly
pluralistic society;
(3) better educating its students through diversity;
and
(4) producing new knowledge stemming from diverse
outlooks.”
UNC’s list of benefits:
“(1) promoting the robust exchange of ideas; (2)
broadening and refining understanding; (3) fostering
innovation and problem-solving; (4) preparing engaged
and productive citizens and leaders; [and]
(5) enhancing appreciation, respect, and empathy,
cross-racial understanding, and breaking down
stereotypes.”
Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
1. “Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back
decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds
that race can no longer be used in a limited way in
college admissions to achieve such critical benefits.
In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of
colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an
endemically segregated society where race has always
mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts
the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by
further entrenching racial inequality in education,
the very foundation of our democratic government and
pluralistic society.”
2. “Today, this Court . . . imposes a superficial rule
of race blindness on the Nation. The devastating
impact of this decision cannot be overstated. The
majority’s vision of race neutrality will entrench
racial segregation in higher education because racial
inequality will persist so long as it is ignored.”
3. “Notwithstanding this Court’s actions, however,
society’s progress toward equality cannot be
permanently halted. Diversity is now a fundamental
American value, housed in our varied and multicultural
American community that only continues to grow. The
pursuit of racial diversity will go on. Although the
Court has stripped out almost all uses of race in
college admissions, universities can and should
continue to use all available tools to meet society’s
needs for diversity in education. Despite the Court’s
unjustified exercise of power, the opinion today will
serve only to highlight the Court’s own impotence in
the face of an America whose cries for equality
resound. As has been the case before in the history of
American democracy, ‘the arc of the moral universe’
will bend toward racial justice despite the Court’s
efforts today to impede its progress.”
Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion:
“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the
majority pulls the ripcord and announces
‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming
race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.
And having so detached itself from this country’s
actual past and present experiences, the Court has now
been lured into interfering with the crucial work that
UNC and other institutions of higher learning are
doing to solve America’s real-world problems.
No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal
race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still
matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in
innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things
worse, not better. The best that can be said of the
majority’s perspective is that it proceeds
(ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing
consideration of race will end racism. But if that is
its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain. If the
colleges of this country are required to ignore a
thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will
take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately,
ignoring race just makes it matter more.”