LAW 558, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FALL 2014)
Mon. & Wed., 1:00 - 3:00, Rm. 101; Prof. Anthony Johnstone, Rm. 312 (x6711)
Constitutional law constitutes the political system and governs government. This
course surveys the Constitution of the United States, how it is interpreted, and who
interprets it. Following the text of the Constitution, the course begins with the idea of
popular sovereignty expressed in the Preamble. Next the course examines the vesting
and limitation of legislative powers in Article I, executive power in Article II, and
judicial power in Article III, as well as the relationship of the federal government to
the States. Then the course examines the Bill of Rights with a focus on the First
Amendment’s Religion and Speech Clauses. The course concludes by examining the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Objectives. Students should develop a practical understanding of: the basic
doctrines of constitutional law; the modes of constitutional argument; the
relationship between structural and rights constraints on government; and the
interaction of judicial and other actors in a constitutional system. Skills emphasized:
problem solving, legal analysis, legal research, communication, and litigation.
Readings. In addition to the constitutional provision(s) at issue, the text is
Choper, Fallon, Kamisar and Shiffrin, Leading Cases in Constitutional Law (West
2014). The syllabus, which also serves a course outline, denotes assignments by day
(including page count), “(Chapter.Section:Pages)” indicates casebook readings, and an
asterisk (*) indicates readings on Moodle. Boldface indicates principal cases.
Questions. I am generally available in my office except mornings prior to class;
stop by any time my door is open or email for an appointment. Otherwise, please post
questions on Moodle rather than emailing so your colleagues can benefit from them.
Assessment. Your grade has three components: discussion (20%), brief (20%), and
exam (60%). Discussion measures constructive engagement in class discussion: two
arguments made on call, plus two volunteered comments. Brief measures the
research, analysis, and writing of two 500-word briefs posted on Moodle: an opening
brief arguing an issue related to a day’s topic (10%, posted within a week after the
topic’s day, limit four per day), and a response in opposition to a classmate’s brief
from a different section (10%, posted as a reply within two weeks of the topic’s day,
one response per opening brief); brief day selections, made on a sign-up sheet at my
office, are final (unless a classmate will swap). Exam measures a three-hour, openbook, multiple-essay exam. Grades are subject to deductions for unprofessional
conduct. Bonus assignments may be provided during the course. To encourage open
discussion, please do not record class sessions.
Academic Honesty. All students must practice academic honesty. Academic
misconduct is subject to an academic penalty by the course instructor and/or a
disciplinary sanction by the University. All students need to be familiar with the
Student Conduct Code of the University of Montana. Law students should also be
familiar with the Law School Honor Code in the Law Student Handbook.
Disabilities. The University of Montana assures equal access to instruction
through collaboration between students with disabilities, instructors, and Disability
Services for Students (“DSS”). If you think you may have a disability adversely
affecting your academic performance, and you have not already registered with DSS,
please contact DSS in Lommasson 154. The Law School will work with you and DSS
to provide an appropriate accommodation.
Fall 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The syllabus is subject to change depending on course and legal developments.
THE PREAMBLE & THE SECOND AMENDMENT: INTRODUCTION
1. I. “We the People … do ordain and establish this Constitution,” Preamble.
Mon
A. Judicial Review and Democracy (1.1: pp 13-16)
8/25
1. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch (1962)
(17)
2. Choper, The Supreme Court and the Political Branches (1974)
3. Friedman, The Will of the People (2009)
4. A “Double Standard” of Judicial Review?
II. “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” Amend. II.
A. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (6.3: pp 355-69)
1. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
2. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
2.
Wed
8/27
(21)
3.
Wed
9/3
(20)
ARTICLE I: NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE POWERS
I. “All legislative Powers herein granted,” Art. I, § 1.
II. “[A]ll Laws which shall be necessary and proper,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 18.
A. Sources and Nature of Congressional Powers (2.1: pp 35-44)
1. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
2. Jackson, Veto Message (1832) (see pp 1.1: p 12)
3. United States v. Comstock (2010)
4. United States v. Kebodeaux (2013)
III. “To lay and collect Taxes,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
A. The Taxing Power (2.3.I: pp 84-87)
1. NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
IV. “To … provide for the … general Welfare,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
A. The “Spending” Power (2.3.II: pp 87-96)
1. United States v. Butler (1936)
2. Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)
3. Helvering v. Davis (1937)
4. United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co (1950)
5. South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
6. Sabri v. United States (2004)
7. NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
V. “To regulate Commerce … among the several States,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
A. Foundations of Commerce Regulation (2.2.I: pp 44-50)
1. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
2. Champion v. Ames (Lottery Case) (1903)
3. Houston, E & W Texas Ry. v. U.S. (Shreveport Case) (1914)
B. Limitations on Commerce Power (2.2.II.A: pp 50-53)
1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
2. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
3. Carter v. Carter Coal (1936)
(continued)
2
Fall 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
C. Expansion of Commerce Power (2.2.II.B: pp 53-60)
1. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
2. United States v. Darby (1941)
3. United States v. Sullivan (1948)
4. Scarborough v. United States (1977)
5. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
6. Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)
7. Perez v. United States (1971)
D. Noncommercial Interests & Commerce Regulation (2.2.III: pp 60-64)
1. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
2. Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
3. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Ass’n (1981)
4.
Mon
9/8
(20)
5.
Wed
9/10
(21)
E. Renewed Limits on Commerce Regulation (2.2.IV: pp 64-84)
1. United States v. Morrison (2000)
2. [United States v. Lopez (1995)]
3. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
4. Pierce County v. Guillen (2003)
5. NFIB v. Sebelius (Health Care Cases) (2012)
FEDERAL SUPREMACY & STATE RESERVED POWERS
VI. “[T]he supreme Law of the Land,” Art. VI, cl. 2.
A. Federal Preemption (4.0: pp 171-73)
1. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000)
2. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
B. The “Dormant” Commerce Clause (4.2:175-76, 180-83)
1. [Wyoming v. Oklahoma (1992)]
2. [Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)]
3. Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
4. Maine v. Taylor (1986)
VII. “The powers not delegated … are reserved,” Amend. X.
A. Intergovernmental Immunities (2.5: pp 98-105)
1. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
2. Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)
3. National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)
4. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth. (1985)
5. South Carolina v. Baker (1988)
6. Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991)
B. Reserved Powers (2.5: pp 105-113)
1. Printz v. United States (1997)
2. (New York v. United States (1992))
3. Reno v. Condon (2000)
3
Fall 2014
6.
Mon
9/15
(21)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
7.
Wed
9/17
(19)
8.
Mon
9/22
(24)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
4
ARTICLE II: THE EXECUTIVE POWER
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President,” Art. II, § 1, cl. 1.
A. Domestic Lawmaking (3.1.I: pp 115-24)
1. Youngstown S&T Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case) (1952)
2. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981)
3. Medellin v. Texas (2008)
“The President shall be Commander in Chief,” Art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
“He shall have Power [with] the Senate, to make Treaties,” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
A. Foreign Affairs and War (3.1.II: pp 124-26)
1. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
“The Congress shall have Power … To declare War,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 11.
“[T]he Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,” Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
“[D]ue process of law,” Amend. V.
A. War and Individual Rights (3.1.III: pp 126-37)
1. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
2. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
3. Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
Happy 227th Constitution Day!
VII. “[T]ake Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Art. II, § 3.
A. Delegation of Rulemaking Power (3.2.I: pp 138-39)
1. Yakus v. United States (1944)
2. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. (2001)
3. Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
4. United States v. Mead Corp. (2001)
VIII. “[The President] … shall appoint … Officers,” Art. II, § 2.
A. Appointment and Removal of Officers (3.2.III: pp 145-63)
1. Myers v. United States (1926)
2. Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)
3. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
4. Bowsher v. Synar (1986)
5. Morrison v. Olson (1988)
6. Mistretta v. United States (1989)
7. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement (1991)
8. Edmond v. United States (1997)
9. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Acct’ing Oversight Bd. (2010)
10. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noel Canning (2014)
ARTICLE III: THE JUDICIAL POWER
I. “The judicial Power … shall be vested in one supreme Court,” Art. III, § 1.
A. Nature and Scope of Judicial Review (1.1: pp 1-12)
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
2. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution (2004)
3. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (1922)
4. Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal (1938)
5. Fallon, Marbury and the Constitutional Mind (2003)
(continued)
Fall 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
B. Political Questions (1.2: pp 21-33)
1. Pacific States Tel. & T. Co. v. Oregon (1912)
2. [Luther v. Borden (1849)]
3. Baker v. Carr (1962)
4. Gilligan v. Morgan (1973)
5. Nixon v. United States (1993)
6. Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)
7. Zivotofsky v. Clinton (2012)
9.
Wed
9/24
(22)
II.
10.
Mon
9/29
(19)
I.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,” Art. III, § 2.
A. Standing (12.1.I-II: pp 1071-86)
1. Allen v. Wright (1984)
2. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env. Servs., Inc. (2000)
3. Heckler v. Mathews (1984)
4. Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013)
5. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
6. Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)
7. United States v. Windsor (2013)
8. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
9. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
10. FEC v. Akins (1998)
B. Mootness (12.2.I: pp 1086-90)
1. DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974)
2. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env. Servs. (TOC), Inc. (2000)
3. United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty (1980)
C. Ripeness (12.2.II: pp 1090-93)
1. United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)
2. O’Shea v. Littleton (1974)
THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE RELIGION CLAUSES
“[N]o law respecting an establishment of religion,” Amend. I, cl. 1.
A. Aid to Religion (8.1.I-II: pp 729-36)
1. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
2. Walz v. Tax Comm’n (1970)
3. Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock (1989)
4. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
5. Mitchell v. Helms (2000)
B. Acknowledgement of Religion (8.IV: pp 769-81)
1. McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
2. Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
3. Lee v. Weisman (1992)
4. Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)
5. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow (2004)
5
Fall 2014
11.
Wed
10/1
(22)
12.
10/2
10/3
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
II. “[N]o law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion],” Amend. I, cl. 1.
A. The Free Exercise Clause (8.2.I: pp 784-801)
1. Reynolds v. United States (1878)
2. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
3. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943)
4. Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
5. Jimmy Swaggert Ministries v. Board of Equal. (1990)
6. United States v. Lee (1982)
7. Gillette v. United States (1971)
8. Johnson v. Robison (1974)
9. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States (1983)
10. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n (1988)
11. Employment Division v. Smith (Peyote Case) (1990)
12. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993)
13. Locke v. Davey (2004)
14. Hosanna-Tabor Evang. Church & School v. EEOC (2012)
B. Intersection of Establishment and Exercise (8.4: pp 803-807; 810-11)
1. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987)
2. Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
[Browning Symposium: The Future of Federalism]
Attend at least one keynote at least one panel. There will be a Moodle
discussion forum to discuss each keynote and panel. Post a short response
(250 words or so) to the speakers or your classmates’ responses on each of
the relevant forums by Monday, October 6. The two responses will count
toward a portion (5 pts.) of your class discussion grade. (If you ask a good
question during Symposium Q & A sessions, you only need one response.)
Thursday, 6:00: Keynote Address by Ilya Somin
Friday, 10:20: Cooperative and Uncooperative Federalism
Friday, 1:00: Federal and State Conflicts
Friday, 2:45: Commerce, Taxing, Spending & Coercion
Friday, 4:30: Closing Keynote Address by Roderick Hills
Mon
10/6
[No Class]
Browning Symposium responses are due today.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH & THE PRESS
13. III. “[N]o law … abridging the freedom of speech [or] press,” Amend. I, cl. 2.
Wed
A. Seditious Libel (7.II.B: pp 406-11)
10/8
1. Jefferson, Writings (1804) (1.1: p 12)
(22)
2. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
B. Incitement (7.1.I.A: pp 371-373, 376-78, 381-85; 7.1.I.D: pp 398-402)
1. Schenck v. United States (1919)
2. Abrams v. United States (1919)
3. Whitney v. California (1927)
4. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
(continued)
6
Fall 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
5. Hess v. Indiana (1973)
6. Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)
7. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)
C. Prior Restraints and National Security (7.4.II: pp 585-91)
1. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
14.
Mon
10/13
(24)
D. Offensive Words and Disturbing the Peace (7.1.IV.C: pp 463-67)
1. Cohen v. California (1971)
E. Content-Based and Content-Neutral Regulation (7.2: pp 508-28)
1. United States v. O’Brien (1968)
2. Texas v. Johnson (1989)
3. United States v. Eichman (1990)
4. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
15.
Wed
10/15
(22)
F. Government Property and The Public Forum (7.6: pp 618-35)
1. [Hague v. CIO (1939)]
2. Schneider v. Irvington (1939)
3. Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)
4. Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley (1972)
5. Int’l Society for Krishna Consciousness Inc. v. Lee (1992)
6. Lee v. Int’l Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (1992)
7. Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
8. Burson v. Freeman (1992)
9. Hill v. Colorado (2000)
10. McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
16.
Mon
10/20
(18)
G. The Right Not to Speak (7.9.I: pp 683-92)
1. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (1943)
2. Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
3. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)
4. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Inst. Rights, Inc. (2006)
5. Hurley v. Irish-American GLB Group of Boston (1995)
6. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)
7. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (1985)
8. Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union (2012)
9. United States v. United Foods, Inc. (2001)
10. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (1995)
11. Brown v. Socialist Workers (1982)
H. Expressive Association (7.9.II: pp 693-702)
1. Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)
2. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
3. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)
7
Fall 2014
17.
Wed
10/22
(20)
18.
Mon
10/27
(19)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: INTRODUCTION
I. “[O]ther[] [rights] retained by the people,” Amend. IX.
A. Unenumerated Rights (5.1.I: pp 213-16)
1. Calder v. Bull (1798)
2. Wynehamer v. People (N.Y. 1856)
3. Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
4. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
B. Prelude to Reconstruction (9.2.I: pp 824-29)
1. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
II. “No State shall …,” Amend. XIV, § 1.
A. Incorporation of Rights Against the States (5.1.II-III: pp 216-23)
1. Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833)
2. Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
3. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) (6.1.III: p 259)
B. The Concept of State Action (10.1: pp 1005-1009)
1. Civil Rights Cases (1883)
III. “Congress shall have the power to enforce,” Amends. XIII, XIV, & XV.
A. Congressional Enforcement Powers (11.2: pp 1039-55, 1068-70)
1. South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)
2. Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
3. Boerne v. Flores (1997)
4. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
5. Rome v. United States (1980)
6. United States v. Morrison (2000)
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: DUE PROCESS & LIBERTY
19. IV. “No State shall ... deprive any person of … liberty,” Amend. XIV, § 1.
Wed
A. Economic Liberty (5.2: pp 224-30)
10/29
1. Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)
(20)
2. Lochner v. New York (1905)
3. Muller v. Oregon (1908)
4. Adair v. United States (1908)
5. Coppage v. Kansas (1915)
6. Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
B. Transition to a Double Standard of Scrutiny (5.3: pp 231-34)
1. Nebbia v. New York (1934)
2. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
3. United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
C. Family Liberty (6.2: pp 266-77)
1. [Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)]
2. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
3. [Poe v. Ullman (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting)]
4. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
8
Fall 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
20.
Mon
11/3
(24)
D. Reproductive Liberty (6.2[.I]: pp 277-285, 287-303)
1. Roe v. Wade (1973)
2. Doe v. Bolton (1973)
3. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
21.
Wed
11/5
(28)
E. Personal Liberty (6.2[.II]: pp 323-51)
1. Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
2. Vacco v. Quill (1997)
3. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
4. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
22.
Mon
11/10
(21)
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: EQUAL PROTECTION
V. “[T]he equal protection of the laws,” Amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 3.
A. Race and Ethnic Ancestry (9.2.II: pp 829-48)
1. Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)
2. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
3. Korematsu v. United States (1944)
4. Brown v. Board of Education (I) (1954)
5. Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
6. Brown v. Board of Education (II) (1955)
7. Cooper v. Aaron (1858); see also id. (1.1: p 13)
8. Griffin v. County School Bd. (1964)
9. Green v. County School Bd. (1968)
10. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. (1971)
11. Oklahoma City Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell (1991)
12. Loving v. Virginia (1967) (see also pp 314-15)
13. Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)
14. Johnson v. California (2005)
23.
Wed
11/12
(22)
B. De Jure vs. De Facto Discrimination (9.2.III: pp 848-53)
1. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
2. Washington v. Davis (1976)
C. Affirmative Action (9.2.IV: pp 857-61, 875-88)
1. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978)
2. Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)
3. Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007)
24.
Mon
11/17
(22)
D. Discrimination Based on Gender (9.3: pp 897-919)
1. Reed v. Reed (1971)
2. Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
3. Craig v. Boren (1976)
4. United States v. Virginia (1996)
(continued)
9
Fall 2014
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
E. Gender Differences- Real and Imagined
1. Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)
2. Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977)
3. Michael M. v. Superior Court (1981)
4. Nguyen v. INS (2001)
F. “Remedial” Gender Discrimination
1. Califano v. Webster (1977)
2. Orr v. Orr (1979)
3. Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan (1982)
25.
Wed
11/19
(21)
G. Sexual Orientation (9.4.I: pp 919-35)
1. Romer v. Evans (1996)
2. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
3. United States v. Windsor (2013)
4. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
H. Regulatory & Other Classifications (9.1: pp 813-818)
1. Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)
2. New Orleans v. Dukes (1976)
26.
Mon
11/24
(19)
I.
Political Equality (9.5.I.A-C: pp 947-59, 963-66; E: 984-88)
1. Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elec. (1966)
2. Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969)
3. Crawford v. Marion County Elec. Bd. (2008)
4. Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
5. Veith v. Jubelirer (2004)
6. Bush v. Gore (2000)
10