McKendree College

Spring 1999

MWF 1:00-1:50

OM 204 Office Hours:

Dr. Brian Frederking Office: Pearson 203

bfrederk@atlas.mckendree.edu Phone: x 6913

Course Objectives

This course is about Supreme Court cases. We will analyze the role of the judiciary in the U.S. government by examining landmark constitutional decisions. The cases we will examine have greatly influenced the power of the federal government over the states, the relative power of the executive and legislative branches, and the power of government to regulate individual behavior.

This course is also about accumulating briefs (one-page summaries) for the 84 Supreme Court cases we will study. We will join forces to accomplish this task. Each student will be responsible for an writing a brief for an equal number of cases. Each student will provide a copy of the brief to all other students when they present their brief in class. YOUR briefs will become a part of EVERYONE’s class notes. Your participation is crucial to the success of everyone in the class.

There are four objectives to this course. First, you should develop an understanding of the role of the judiciary in shaping our society and our system of government. Second, you should become familiar with the most important principles of constitutional law. Third, you should develop the ability to summarize court cases into concise legal briefs. Fourth, you should develop an ability to use precedents, logic and evidence to evaluate and write Supreme Court decisions.

There are no exams, quizzes, or research papers in this course (!). Your grade will be based on your collection of briefs and six writing assignments.

Writing Assignments 60% Case Briefs 40%

Writing Assignments: Each assignment presents a hypothetical example similar to the disputes we discuss in class. Two students will write a full-fledged argument and advocate their side to the class, who will act as the Supreme Court. The rest of the class will vote on the case and then justify their vote with a written decision.

Briefs: As described above, you will collectively accumulate a set of briefs for each case we discuss in class. I will grade your contribution to the group’s set of briefs. This grade includes the presentations of your briefs to the class. Some guidelines and an example are at the end of the syllabus.

Epstein and Walker; Constitutional Law for a Changing America.

Date Topic Readings Cases

Introduction

Jan 13-15 The Supreme Court Ch. 1-2

The Separation of Powers

Jan 18 The Judiciary Ch. 3 Marbury v Madison (1803)

Ex parte McCardle (1869)

Jan 20-22 The Legislature Ch. 4 McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

McGrain v Daugherty (1927)

Immigration and Naturalization Service v Chadha (1983)

Bowsher v Synar (1986)

US Term Limits vs Thornton (1995)

Jan 25-27 The Executive Ch. 5 Myers v US (1926)

US v Curtiss-Wright Export (1936)

Korematsu v US (1944)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952)

US v Nixon (1974)

Morrison v Olson (1988)

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Jan 29 McKendree College Supreme Court Case #1

Federalism

Feb 1-3 Regulating the States Ch. 6 Scott v Sandford (1857)

Hammer v Dagenhart (1918)

Feb 5 US v Darby Lumber (1941)

Feb 8 Garcia v San Antonio Metro Transit Authority (1985)

Feb 5-8 Regulating Commerce Ch. 7 Gibbons v Ogden (1824)

Cooley v Board of Wardens (1852)

Schecter Poultry Corp v US (1935)

National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)

State Oil v. Khan (1998)

Feb 10 Taxing and Spending Ch. 8 Pollock v Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. (1895)

South Dakota v Dole (1987)

Feb 12 McKendree College Supreme Court Case #2

Economic Liberties

Feb 15-17 Contracts Ch. 9 Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Dartmouth v Woodward (1819)

Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge (1837)

Home Building and Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell (1934)

Feb 19-22 Substantive Due Process Ch. 10 Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Lochner v New York (1905)

West Coast Hotel v Parrish (1937)

Feb 24 Private Property Ch. 11 Penn Central v New York City (1978)

Hawaii Housing v Midkiff (1984)

Lucas v SCa Coastal Council (1992)

Feb 26 McKendree College Supreme Court Case #3

Civil Liberties

Mar 1-10 Freedom of Religion Ch. 12 Oregon Dept. of Human Resources v Smith (1990)

Cantwell v Connecticutt (1940)

Everson v Board of Education (1947)

Zorach v Clauson (1952)

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Sherbert v Verner (1963)

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)

Earley v DiCenso (1971)

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972)

Lynch v Donnelly (1984)

Goldman v Weinberger (1986)

Edwards v Aguillard (1987)

Lee v Weisman (1992)

Mar 12-24 Freedom of Speech Ch. 13 Schenk v US (1919)

Dennis v US (1951)

Edwards v South Carolina (1963)

Brandenberg v Ohio (1969)

Texas v Johnson (1989)

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942)

R.A.V. v St. Paul, Minnesota (1992)

W Va Board of Ed. v Barnett (1943)

Mar 29 McKendree College Supreme Court Case #4

Mar 29-31 Freedom of the Press Ch. 14 Near v Minnesota (1931)

Branzburg v Hayes (1972)

Miller v California (1973)

New York Times v Sullivan (1964)

New York Times v US (1971)

Apr 5-7 Right to Privacy Ch. 15 Griswold v Connecticutt (1965)

Bowers v Hardwick (1986)

Cruzan v MO Dept of Health (1990)

Roe v Wade (1973)

Apr 9-14 Rights of the Accused Ch. 16-17 Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Furman v Georgia (1972)

Gregg v Georgia (1976)

Apr 16 McKendree College Supreme Court Case #5

Civil Rights

Apr 19-26 Discrimination Ch. 18 Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

Reed v Reed (1971)

Craig v Boren (1976)

Milliken v Bradley (1974)

San Antonio v Rodriguez (1973)

Swann v County Board of Ed (1971)

Frontiero v Richardson (1973)

Univ. of California v Bakke (1978)

Metro Broadcasting v FCC (1990)

Adarand Constructors v Pena (1995)

Apr 28-30 Voting Rights Ch. 19 Lousiana v US (1965)

South Carolina v Katzenbach (1966)

Reynolds v Sims (1964)

Miller v Johnson (1995)

May 3 McKendree College Supreme Court Case #6

May 5 Conclusion

A case brief is a summary of the case. It should follow the outline below.

• The essential events that caused the case. Who, what, when, where and why.
• A brief history of lower court decisions in this case.

• State the constitutional problem in question form.

• State the answer to the question raised above.

Rationale (who wrote it?)

• Explain the majority opinion.
• Include any tests and/or standards used by the court.

• If any, who?
• Explain how this differs from rationale.

• If any, who?
• Explain why he/she/they disagree.

• Personal reference about the significance of this case.

South Dakota v Dole 1987, 483 US 203, p. 111

• Cg passed a law encouraging states to have a 21 yr old minimum drinking age. The law required the loss of federal highway money if a state did not comply.
• S. Dakota allows 19-yr olds to drink 3.2% beer. It does not comply with the new federal law. It will lose $4m. It sues the fed govt alleging a violation by Cg of the 21A (states regulate sales of alcohol) and 10A (reserved powers).
• Fed DC dismissed the suit. CA agreed.

• Does the law exceed the power of Cg by violating the 10A and/or 21A?

• No. The law is valid.

• We do not have to decide here the boundaries of the 21A – Cg has acted under the spending power Art 1, sec 8. Cg may add conditions to the receipt of federal money.
• Spending power is limited: 1) it must be in pursuit of the general welfare; 2) it must not be ambiguous; 3) it must be related to the federal interest in the program; 4) it must not conflict with other Const.al provisions.
• The Q here is #4. Our past cases tell us the meaning of #4 is that the feds may not use the power to get the states to do something that is itself unconstitutional.
• The law passes the #4 test. The loss to the state is small. This is not coercion.

• This is not a condition of spending. It’s an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor. That power is given to the states under 21A. For Cg to exercise power like that is a violation of state’s rights.

(O’Connor alone)

• There is a problem with #3. The minimum drinking age is not sufficiently related to highway construction.

• No discussion of 10A issue.

Note the abbreviations used:

"Cg" for Congress "10A" for Tenth Amendment

"Fed DC" for Federal District Court "CA" for Court of Appeals