JASA Fall 2018 Semester

Syllabus for Pondering Politics: Recent Supreme Court Cases

Class Meetings: 11:00 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. in Room 204

Instructor: Leora Harpaz
E-mail address: lharpaz@lharpaz.com
Website: www.lharpaz.com

Course Description: This course will explore recent cases before the United States Supreme Court in areas such as freedom of speech, presidential power, political gerrymandering, and the death penalty. Each class will focus on a single case including major cases decided in 2018 as well as cases the Court has agreed to review during its 2018-2019 Term.

Class Coverage:

Week 1 (Sept 30) - Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (7 to 2 decision) (Majority opinion by Justice Kennedy) (Issue: Whether the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses were violated by a decision interpreting Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act to require that a baker provide wedding cakes for same sex couples over the baker’s religiously rooted objection) (Decision: The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions in assessing a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration were biased against his religion and violated the Free Exercise Clause) (Other opinions: Justice Kagan concurring joined by Justice Breyer; Justice Goresuch concurring joined by Justice Alito; Justice Thomas concurring in part and concurring in the judgment joined by Justice Goresuch; Justice Ginsburg dissenting joined by Justice Sotomayor).

Week 2 (October 7) - Gill v. Whitford (9 to 0 decision) (Issue: Whether the 2010 redistricting of the Wisconsin legislature to achieve electoral advantages for the Republican party violated the equal protection, free speech, and freedom of association protections in the U.S. Constitution) (Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) (Decision: The Democratic voters who brought the lawsuit lacked standing to sue based on their allegations they have been harmed statewide rather than by alleging they had been harmed by the dilution of their voting power by the redistricting of the specific state legislative districts where they voted) (Other opinions: Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor; Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment joined by Justice Goresuch).  

Week 3 (October 14) - Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (7 to 2 decision) (Issue: Whether a Minnesota law prohibiting the wearing of political messages on hats, t-shirts, buttons, jackets, and other clothing worn to a polling place on Election Day violates the First Amendment) (Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) (Decision: Minnesota’s broad ban on political apparel at polling places on Election Day violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause) (Other opinions: Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Breyer).

Week 4 (October 21) - Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (5 to 4 decision) (Issue: Whether agency fees required to be paid by public-sector employees who are non-union members in lieu of union dues to the public employee union serving as their collective bargaining representative violates the First Amendment by compelling objecting employees to support speech they find objectionable) (Majority opinion by Justice Alito) (Decision: Overruling Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., the Court finds that compelling the payment of agency fees violates the First Amendment) (Other opinions: Justice Sotomayor dissenting; Justice Kagan dissenting joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor).   

Week 5 (October 28) - Carpenter v. United States (5 to 4 decision) (Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause in order to acquire cell phone location records from a wireless carrier) (Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) (Decision: A warrant supported by probable cause is required for the government to acquire past cell phone records maintained by a third party, a wireless carrier, “that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements”) (Other opinions: Justice Kennedy dissenting joined by Justices Thomas and Alito; Justice Thomas dissenting; Justice Alito dissenting  joined by Justice Thomas; Justice Gorsuch dissenting).

Week 6 (November 4) - Trump v. Hawaii (5 to 4 decision) (Issue: Whether the President violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause when he exercised his discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the U.S. from 8 countries most of which have predominantly Muslim populations) (Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) (Decision: the president lawfully exercised his discretion to suspend the entry of aliens from 8 countries because the respondents have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the proclamation issued by the president discriminates against Muslims in violation of the Establishment Clause) (Other opinions: Justice Kennedy concurring; Justice Thomas concurring; Justice Breyer dissenting joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Sotomayor dissenting joined by Justice Ginsburg).

Week 7 (November 11) - McCoy v. Louisiana (6 to 3 decision) (Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to insist that his attorney refrain from admitting the defendant's guilt, even when his attorney, based on his experience, believes that admitting guilt is the defendant's best chance to avoid the death penalty) (Opinion by Justice Ginsburg) (Decision: The Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel does not allow the defendant's counsel to make certain critical decisions, such as whether the defendant admits his guilt, over the objection of the defendant even if the attorney concludes in the exercise of his professional judgment that the admission is the best way for the defendant to avoid the death penalty) (Other opinions: Justice Alito dissenting joined by Justices Thomas and Goresuch).

Week 8 (November 18) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra (5 to 4 decision) (Issue: Whether California statute requiring disclosure of certain information by crisis pregnancy centers to prospective patients is compelled expression that violates the First Amendment) (Opinion by Justice Thomas) (Decision: Petitioners are likely to succeed in their claim that the California FACT Act requires clinics that oppose abortion to disclose information that interferes with the communication of their pro-life views in violation of the First Amendment) (Other opinions: Justice Kennedy concurring; Justice Thomas concurring; Justice Breyer dissenting joined by Justice Kagan; Justice Sotomayor dissenting joined by Justice Ginsburg)

Week 9 (December 2) The American Legion v. American Humanist Association consolidated with Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association (petition for writ of certiorari granted on November 2, 2018) (Issue: Whether a 93-year-old war memorial referred to as the “Peace Cross” that was erected on public property to honor soldiers who died in World War I and features a 40-foot tall Latin cross endorses Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment).

The remaining case will be selected from among the cases the Court has agreed to decide in 2019.