POLITICAL SCIENCE 348
Supreme Court and Contemporary Issues
Fall 2013
Edward V. Heck
email: heck@mail.sdsu.edu
MWF 1200 - 1250
Schedule #: 22481
Adams Humanities 3177
Over a three-day period in late June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down longawaited decisions on hotly contested social and political issues involving affirmative action, voting
rights, and same-sex marriage. Essentially, these cases are the latest policy-making pronouncements
of the Court on issues of race and social policy that have been at the center of Supreme Court
decision making at least from the era of the Warren Court (1953-1969) to the present. While the
Court’s decisions on affirmative action and voting rights can be seen as incremental adjustments of
the justices’ previous positions, the Court’s conclusion that the act of Congress prohibiting federal
recognition of same-sex marriages violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (United
States v. Windsor, 2013) can only be seen as a major victory for the cause of gay rights.
Particularly interesting is the fact that two of the three key decisions of the recent “three days
in June” dealt with the politics of race relations – an issue that has done much to define the role of
the contemporary Supreme Court since the Warren Court’s famous decision in Brown v. Board of
Education (1954). Most scholars and close observers of the Supreme Court believe that Brown was
the Court’s most important decision during the Twentieth Century. Under the leadership of Chief
Justice Earl Warren (a popular four-term governor of California, who had been appointed less than a
year earlier), the Court unanimously ruled that state laws and school board regulations mandating
racial segregation in public schools violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Although the first Brown decision did not result in immediate desegregation of public schools in the
South, a good case can be made that the Court’s decision marks the beginning of the modern era of
Supreme Court history. By rejecting the legal fiction of “separate but equal,” the justices destroyed
the foundations on which a system of apartheid had been erected in the southern states and
articulated for the first time a vision of “equal citizenship” for African Americans. In later years, the
Warren Court also initiated a “due process” revolution with Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and other
decisions expanding the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the
Burger Court ruled that the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
included a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion – a decision that has generated more than 40
years of ongoing political controversy.
In this course on the Supreme Court and contemporary issues, we will focus primarily on
important constitutional decisions that followed in the wake of the path-breaking Brown, Miranda,
and Roe v. Wade decisions. In addition to cases involving race, the rights of the accused, and
abortion rights, we will read and discuss the Court’s major contributions to political debate on gay
rights and other “hot button” social issues. We will wrap up the semester by studying decisions
dealing with interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and applying the
principles of these cases to an ongoing controversy about a religious symbol on a local mountaintop.
-1-
Like all political science courses that focus on the judicial branch, this class begins and ends
with the basic proposition that the Supreme Court is a political institution. The Court’s numerous
5-4 decisions since the appointment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. testify to the ideological
and partisan divisions that characterize the 21st Century Supreme Court. The Court continues to
formulate public policy on a wide range of issues (including health care, immigration, affirmative
action, and same-sex marriage). Debates about judicial appointments leave little doubt that judicial
selection is inevitably a political process. As students of politics, we are interested not only in the
Court’s legal pronouncements (the major concern of lawyers and legal scholars), but also in the
decision-making process itself and the attitudes and backgrounds of the individual justices whose
votes determine the Court’s decisions.
“Supreme Court and Contemporary Issues” is designed for students in any major who seek an
introduction to the study of public law that emphasizes recent and contemporary decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court. Our primary goal in the course is to promote understanding of the role of the
Court in the political system by reading and discussing important cases from 1954 to the present.
More specific goals are listed below under the heading of “Student Learning Objectives.” For
political science majors and minors, Political Science 348 provides credit in the field of American
politics (Field II).
REQUIRED BOOK
The required textbook for Political Science 348 this semester is:
Lee Epstein and Thomas G. Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights,
Liberties, and Justice (8th ed., 2013).
Most of the cases we will read are found the eighth edition of the Epstein and Walker
casebook. Although use of the 8th edition if the Epstein and Walker text is strongly recommended, I
will also provide citations to assigned cases in the excellent 7th edition for students who find the
higher cost of the current edition prohibitive.
A few other short assignments will be made available through the “Blackboard” site for this
class or as in-class handouts. (However, it is important to note that occasional use of “Blackboard”
should not be taken to mean that this class can be completed successfully by treating it as an on-line
or “hybrid” class. I know from experience that students who rarely attend class have almost no
chance of achieving the student learning objectives for the course). Students will also be expected to
use the Internet or the library to locate and read additional Supreme Court decisions as part of course
assignments (see “Green assignment” under Week 4) and projects. The two web sites that I find
most useful for Supreme Court opinions are:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html (use “Party Name Search” or “Citation
Search” to find a specific case)
or
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ (then click on “opinions”).
-2-
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of the semester you will be able to:
1) read Supreme Court cases with understanding.
2) identify key members of the Supreme Court from 1954 to the present and explain the
significance of these justices.
3) discuss the basic conflict between liberty and order in the context of decisions protecting
the rights of individuals accused of crimes.
4) explain basic theoretical principles applied by Supreme Court justices in resolving
conflicts that turn on interpretation of the due process clause and the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
5) discuss in detail the “tests” applied by the justices in establishment clause cases and apply
the principles of these cases to resolve a hypothetical constitutional dispute.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
The nature of the materials covered in this course makes it imperative that students keep up
with their daily and weekly assignments. Reading Supreme Court opinions can be easy and fun
(once you get the hang of it), but it is a skill than can be learned only through practice. To encourage
and reward careful preparation and regular class attendance, quizzes and exams will be scheduled
throughout the semester. Specifically, there will be three midterm exams and a final (each worth 45
points) and eight “progress quizzes” (each worth eight points). The 45-point exams will generally
include essay and/or identification questions, as well as multiple choice, short answer, or other
objective questions. The midterm exams have been scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 25, Monday,
Oct. 28, and Wednesday, Nov. 20. The final exam will be given at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec.
18. Only the three high scores on these four exams will count in determining final grades; the lowest
of the four scores will be dropped. Thus, students who do well on the three midterm exams will not
be required to take the final. On the other hand, no makeup exams will be given, and a student who
misses one of the midterms is expected to take the final exam. In truly exceptional cases, a student
who can document that he/she could not avoid missing one of the first two midterms may request
assignment of an optional research project in lieu of one of the exams. These independent research
projects will require a short paper and (in most cases) an oral report on one of the justices who has
been appointed to the Supreme Court since 1953. These projects are not required, however, and a
student who misses one of the midterms will normally have his/her grade based on two midterms and
the final (in addition to progress quiz and course project/in-class activities scores).
The eight-point “progress quizzes” may be administered in oral or written form and will
normally include multiple choice, true/false, and other types of objective questions. Specific dates
for these quizzes are indicated under weekly reading assignments on the syllabus. In addition to
measuring your “progress” in understanding assigned readings and class discussions, the quiz
questions may be used to organize class discussion or provide the outline for an oral question and
answer session, including follow-up questions. The two lowest scores on the eight progress quizzes
will be dropped, and grades will be calculated on the basis of each student’s six highest scores. But
-3-
note, any student who is not present when a progress quiz is given will automatically receive a score
of “0” for that quiz. No makeup quizzes will be given. Despite the real-life complications that many
students encounter during the semester, it is not possible to provide individualized makeup quizzes.
Realistically, that means that students who habitually miss significant numbers of classes (whether
by choice or necessity) should probably drop this course.
In addition to exams, quizzes, and a special “Green assignment,” each student is required to
complete a course project (the “Eight Questions Project”) by becoming an “expert” on one court
decision selected from cases listed under supplementary materials on the syllabus or other cases
related to topics covered in this class. Each student must answer in writing the “Eight Questions”
found on pp. 5-6 of the syllabus for his/her case and in addition is encouraged to demonstrate
expertise on the chosen case through an oral report to the class or (in the special case of Terry v.
Ohio) to participate in a dramatic presentation in class. Based on these special assignments and
projects and other contributions to the class, each student will receive a score between “0” and “25”
under the heading of “projects and in class-activities.” In addition to scores earned on specific
assignments and oral reports, points may be earned under this heading primarily on the basis of class
participation. It is impossible to contribute to class discussion if you are absent, so attendance
counts.
At the end of the semester each student’s grade will be determined by the cumulative point
total for his/her three best exams (135 points) and six best quizzes (48 points), plus a score for
projects and in-class activities (25 points maximum). The range for each grade is as follows:
A=
B=
C=
D=
F=
187 -208 points
166 -186 points
145 -165 points
124 -144 points
below 124 points
Minus grades (A-, B- etc.) will not be used in this class. Grades of B+ or C+ may be awarded
to students who meet the following criteria:
1. A cumulative point total within four points of the score required for the next higher grade
(i.e. 183-186 points for a B+ or 162-165 points for a C+).
2. Active participation in class discussions and debates. Quality of contributions is more
important than quantity. An oral report is not required, but would normally be considered a
significant contribution to class discussion. (Students who miss class frequently or have little
or nothing to say when present will not receive plus grades).
3. A trend toward higher grades during the second half of the semester, particularly for those
who do well on the final exam.
READING ASSIGNMENTS AND CLASS PROCEDURE
The course outline below lists the topics to be covered and assigned readings for each week
of the semester. Each week’s assignment should be divided into three roughly equal parts with the
first third completed before Monday’s class, the second third for Wednesday’s class, and the entire
-4-
week’s assignment prior to Friday’s class. Because the assigned readings will generally be the point
of departure for class discussion, regular and thoughtful preparation is vital. Even if no specific
assignment is given, it is your responsibility to review your notes and read the appropriate cases and
other assignments listed on the syllabus. I encourage you to formulate questions or comments on
the cases as you read and to come to class prepared to share your observations or questions with the
class. Discussion of interesting or difficult topics may be carried over from one week to the next.
There are many approaches to reading judicial opinions. During the first half of the semester
(when you will be developing your opinion reading skills) it would probably be a good idea to plan
to read each case at least twice. Law students are expected to “brief” assigned cases before attending
class. (See handout on Blackboard for an outline of how to brief cases). However, there are other
note-taking techniques that may be equally effective. Many students find using note cards to
summarize the key points of each case an effective study tool, particularly in preparing for exams. I
think that the questions below will be very helpful in focusing your attention on things you need to
understand when reading an assigned case for the first time. One idea (particularly popular with
students who like to be well-organized) is to prepare tentative answers to these questions in a
notebook or electronic file as you read each case. You could then check your answers during class
discussion and correct or expand your answers as needed.
1. Who were the litigants in the case? Did the case begin as a criminal prosecution or as a
civil lawsuit? Did the case involve a conflict between a governmental body and an
individual asserting constitutional rights?
2. In what court did the case begin? Was it a state court or a federal court? Why did that
court have jurisdiction?
3. What state or federal law or governmental action did one of the litigants claim was
unconstitutional? What specific provision of the Constitution was the primary basis for this
claim?
4. Which litigant ultimately lost in the lower federal courts or a state supreme court and
sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court? Which party won in the Supreme Court?
5. Who was Chief Justice when the case was decided? What was the vote in the case?
Which justice wrote the majority opinion? Who were the dissenters?
6. Was a statute or governmental practice declared unconstitutional? What constitutional
provision(s) provided the basis for the decision? What reasons did the justices supporting
the majority opinion offer in support of their decision? (In cases assigned in Weeks 5-6 and
after the middle of Week 11, you should also answer these additional questions): What
“test” (or “standard of review”) was applied to guide the justices in the majority in
determining the constitutionality of a challenged law? What justification was offered for the
selection of that test?
-5-
7. (If there are concurring or dissenting opinions). What are the bases of disagreement
within the Court? Who do you think has the best of the argument? How would you have
voted if you had been a member of the Court? Why?
8. How does this case relate to other cases dealing with similar issues? What light does it
shed on major themes of the course?
Dissenting and concurring opinions are particularly important for political science students,
as these opinions indicate alternative ways of resolving the policy issues before the Court and shed
light on how individual justices approach the task of constitutional interpretation. When reading
cases in which two or more opinions are written, you should decide which position comes closest to
your own views (see Question #7, above). By the end of the semester you should be able to identify
at least one justice whose approach to constitutional questions seems similar to your own.
The benefits to be derived from this course are largely dependent on your efforts. Through
the years I have learned that the educational value of a class is closely related to the quantity and
quality of student involvement. Some students choose to become involved primarily by listening and
thinking. Such a passive role may be acceptable, but I would urge you to become a more active
learner by asking questions and commenting on relevant issues. It does little good if you talk just to
hear the sound of your own voice, but if you have something worthwhile to say or can pose a
meaningful question, the entire class may benefit from your contribution. Moreover, the quality of
class discussion is enhanced if a wide variety of students participate actively in discussions and
debate. Although I certainly do not propose to adopt the law school method of teaching in this
course, I will not hesitate to call on specific individuals when such an approach seems an appropriate
means of enhancing the quality of discussion.
Regular class attendance is essential for those who hope to reap the maximum benefit from
this course. Many years of experience suggest to me that those who treat the act of signing up for
this class as a personal moral commitment to be in class at 12 Noon every Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday until the end of the semester will be the students who will have the most satisfying learning
experiences. I know that SDSU students can offer many explanations for missing class, but I am
quite certain that very few of these reasons are truly legitimate. (Family funerals, unavoidable child
care responsibilities, and religious obligations of an overriding nature come to mind). It is my
intention to begin class promptly at 12 Noon, and I hope that you will make a concerted effort to
arrive on time. Leaving early can disrupt the entire class, so if you absolutely must leave before class
is over, I expect you to notify me of your plans before class begins and to sit near one of the doors. It
will be much easier to join in a close and critical reading of the justices’ opinions if you get in the
habit of bringing the Epstein and Walker casebook to each meeting of the class.
The instructor’s office is in Adams Humanities 4117. Regularly scheduled office hours this
semester are from 1:15 to 3 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday. If these times are not convenient,
please get in touch with me to make an appointment for another time. The instructor’s office phone
number is 619-594-4822, but using e-mail (heck@mail.sdsu.edu) is normally the best way to contact
me.
-6-
COURSE SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS
FIRST WEEK (August 26-30) – Course Introduction: The Changing Constitutional Landscape
(1953- 2013)
Three Days in June: Affirmative Action, Voting Rights, and Same-Sex Marriage
Ideological Divisions in the Roberts Court: Gun Control and Other Hot-Button Issues
Assigned Readings
U.S. Constitution. In Appendix 1 of your casebook (Lee Epstein and Thomas G. Walker,
Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice (8th ed.,
2013), read the key provisions of the document that the Supreme Court claims the
authority to interpret. Begin with the “unamended Constitution” of 1789 (Articles I
through VII, pp. 773-779 in Epstein and Walker), then note the changes introduced
by the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-9, pp. 779-780) and Amendments 13, 14, and
15 (p. 781).
Epstein and Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America (Epstein), pp. 3-7 and 10-13
(including Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
Dan Roberts, Jim Newell, and Amanda Holpuch, “Historic victory for campaigners against
anti-gay marriage law,” The Guardian, June 27, 2013 (copy may be accessed on
“Blackboard” site for this class).
“The Majority” and “Dissent” (Photo Box on p. 1 of the New York Times, June 26, 2013
(“Blackboard”).
U.S. Constitution. Review the Bill of Rights (particularly the First, Second, and Fourth
Amendments), Epstein, pp. 779-780.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 387-390.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Epstein, pp. 390-395, (7th ed., pp. 377-382).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 395-396.
SECOND WEEK (Sept. 4-6) — Ideological Divisions and Supreme Court Appointments: From
Reagan to Obama
Rationalizing Apartheid: Plessy v. Ferguson
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 10-21 and 41-43.
“Nominations to the Supreme Court since 1953,” Baum, The Supreme Court (11th ed., 2013),
p. 29 (handout or Blackboard).
Robert Barnes, “Justice Kennedy: The Highly Influential Man in the Middle,” Washington
Post.com, May 13, 2007 (Blackboard).
David G. Savage, “Sotomayor, Kagan Shift High Court Debates to the Left,” San Diego
Union-Tribune, Dec. 26, 2010, p. A-12 (Blackboard).
Identify the nine members of the Court that decided D.C. v. Heller and the presidents who
appointed them. How have the two appointments by President Obama changed the
7
dynamics of Supreme Court voting and decision making? Use Appendix 2 (pp. 785791) to locate brief biographies of justices appointed by Presidents Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 603-604 and 611-612.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Epstein, pp. 612-616, (7th ed., pp. 586-590).
THIRD WEEK (Sept. 9 -13) – “In the Beginning, There was Brown v. Board of Education”
Assessing School Desegregation Plans in the South
Progress Quiz # 1 – Monday, Sept. 9
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 616-617.
Sweatt v. Painter (1950), Epstein, pp. 617-619, (7th ed., pp. 591-593).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 619-620.
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954), Epstein, pp. 620-624, (7th ed., pp. 594-597).
“Earl Warren (1953-1969)” (Blackboard).
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955), Epstein, pp. 624-625, (7th ed., pp. 598-599).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 625-627, including Box 13-1 and Table 13-1.
Supplementary Cases and Related Reading
* McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
* Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
Lucas A. Powe, Jr., The Warren Court and American Politics (2000).
* (Students who want to present an oral report in class and also get a head start on the “Eight
Questions” project may volunteer to present oral reports on the Supreme Court cases listed
above under supplementary cases).
FOURTH WEEK (Sept. 16-20) — Dismantling the Legal Structure of Apartheid
Using Congressional Power to Promote Civil Rights
Assigned Readings
Green v. New Kent County Board of Education, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). (Use Internet to locate
and read full text of opinion and then complete the special “Green assignment”
below).
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), Epstein, pp. 627-631, (7th ed.,
pp. 601-605). (Be sure you can identify the new chief justice appointed by President
Nixon following the retirement of Chief Justice Warren in June, 1969).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 631-632.
8
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), Epstein, pp. 647-649 (7th ed., pp. 619-621).
Epstein and Walker, note photograph on p. 245 as an illustration of the sit-in movement.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 607-610 (including Box IV-1) and 729-732.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), Epstein, pp. 732-735.
Robert Barnes, “Court Trims Voting Rights Act,” U.T. San Diego, June 26, 2013
(Blackboard).
Epstein, pp. 735-737.
“Green Assignment” for Monday, Sept. 16
Answer Questions 1-6 and 8 (pp. 5- 6 on syllabus) for the case of Green v. New Kent County
in writing and hand in your answers at the end of class on Monday, Sept. 16. Please do not
rely on Wikipedia or similar sources for completing this assignment. It is essential that you
read the Court’s opinion in full and answer the “eight questions” in your own words.
Progress Quiz #2 – Wednesday, Sept. 18
Supplementary Cases
.
* Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969).
* Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
Cases marked with an asterisk (*) on this syllabus are recommended for oral reports, and are
also included on the official signup sheets for the required “eight questions” project. Other
cases listed on the signup sheets are more appropriate for written reports only. Please be sure
to sign up for the case on which you will become an “expert” and think seriously about the
advantages of choosing a case for which an oral presentation is appropriate.
FIFTH WEEK (Sept. 23-27) Loving v. Virginia: Apartheid and the Application of Strict Scrutiny
Regents v. Bakke: Affirmative Action in the Pursuit of Equality
First Midterm Exam — Wednesday, Sept. 25
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 639-640, including Box 13-2.
Loving v. Virginia (1967), Epstein, pp. 639-642, (7th ed., pp. 612-614). (Be sure to note the
equal protection test or standard of review used in Chief Justice Warren’s majority
opinion. See last part of Question #6 in “Eight Questions” (p. 5, above)).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 689-691.
Regents v. Bakke (1978), Epstein, pp. 691-698, (7th ed., pp. 661-667).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 698-701.
9
SIXTH WEEK (Sept. 30 – Oct. 4) – Remedying the Effects of Discrimination: The Use of
Racial Classifications
The Incorporation Debate, Part I (1868-1937)
Assigned Readings:
Epstein, pp. 706-707.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Epstein, pp. 707-716, (7th ed., pp. 676-684).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 716-718 and 631-632.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, Epstein, pp. 632-638,
(7th ed., pp. 606-611).
Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), read Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion on the Internet.
U.S. Constitution, review Amendments 1-9 and 14 (Section 1), in Epstein, pp. 779-780 and
781.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 66-76 (skim Barron and Hurtado cases primarily to understand how
the debate over application of the Bill of Rights to the states changed after the
ratification of the 14th Amendment).
Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Epstein, pp. 76-77, (7th ed., pp. 77-79).
Supplementary Cases and Related Readings
.
* City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 689 (1989).
Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990).
Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), in Epstein, pp. 671-675.
* Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
Helen J. Knowles, The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty (2009),
Chapter 4.
Scott Douglas Gerber, First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas (1999).
Andrew Peyton Thomas, Clarence Thomas: A Biography (2001).
SEVENTH WEEK (Oct. 7 -11) — The Warren Court and Application of (Most of) the Bill of Rights
to the States
The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule
Progress Quiz #3 – Monday, Oct. 7
Assigned Readings
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Epstein, pp. 545-548, (7th ed., pp. 524-526).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 548-551 and 79-80, including Box 3-1 and Table 3-1.
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), Epstein, pp. 80-86, (7th ed., pp. 81-86).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 86 and 395-396.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 459-461, 464-465, and 497-498.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Epstein, pp. 498-504, (7th ed., pp 478-484).
10
Supplementary Cases
* Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) or in Epstein, pp. 541-545.
* Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942).
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
McDonald v. City of Chicago (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2010).
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
EIGHTH WEEK (Oct. 14-18) – Handcuffing the Police?
Investigations
The Warren Court and Police
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 517-519.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), Epstein, pp. 519-523, (7th ed., pp. 499-501). (Be sure you can
identify the president who appointed the justice who wrote the majority opinion in
this case).
Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Epstein, pp. 523-529 , including Box 11-3, (7th ed., pp. 502508).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 465-466.
Katz v. United States (1967), Epstein, pp. 466-471, (7th ed., pp. 451-455).
Progress Quiz #4 – Friday, Oct. 18
NINTH WEEK (Oct. 21 - 25) — From the Warren Court to the Burger Court: President Nixon and
the Politics of Crime
Dramatic Presentation: Terry v. Ohio — Monday, Oct. 21
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 480-483 and 492-493.
Terry v. Ohio (1968), Epstein, pp. 493-497, (7th ed., pp. 473-476).
Epstein, pp. 461-463 and 575-576.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976), Epstein, pp. 576-583, (7th ed., pp. 553-559).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 583-585 (including Box 12-3) and pp. 31-43.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 504-505.
United States v. Leon (1984), Epstein, pp. 505-509, (7th ed., pp. 485-489).
Supplementary Cases
11
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
* United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).
* Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).
TENTH WEEK (Oct. 28 – Nov. 1) – The Criminal Justice System in the Rehnquist Court
Second Midterm Exam — Monday, October 28
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 585-586.
Atkins v. Virginia (2002), pp. 586-592, (7th ed., pp. 562-568).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 592-596 and 530-534.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004), Epstein, pp. 534-539, (7th ed., pp. 514-517).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 509-510.
Supplementary Cases (Oral report volunteers are welcome!):
* Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
* New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
* Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985).
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
* Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
ELEVENTH WEEK (Nov. 4 – 8) – Recent Developments in Criminal Justice: The “Roberts Court”
and the Fourth Amendment
Equal Protection and the Application of “Tests”
Progress Quiz #5 – Wednesday, Nov. 6
Assigned Readings:
Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Epstein, pp. 510-513, (7th ed., pp. 490-493).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 513-514.
Arizona v. Gant (2009), Epstein, pp. 484-487, (7th ed., pp 463-467).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 487-488.
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009), Epstein, pp. 488-492, (7th ed., pp.
468-472).
12
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), Epstein, pp. 679-684, (7th ed., pp. 650654). Under the “eight questions” on pp. 5-6) of the syllabus, be sure you can answer
the question about the “test” applied by the justices in this case.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 652-657 (skim Reed v. Reed noting that Chief Justice Burger
apparently used the rational basis test to strike down on equal protection grounds a
state law that treated men and women differently).
Supplementary Cases (Criminal justices cases from 2012 and 2013 would be excellent
choices
for those who have decided to present an oral report to the class).
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
* United States v. Kyllo, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
* Herring v. United States (2009), 555 U.S. 535 (2009), excerpts in Epstein, pp. 514-517.
* United States v. Jones (2012), Epstein, pp. 471-475.
* Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County (2012).
* Miller v. Alabama (2012).
* Salinas v. Texas (2013).
* Maryland v. King (2013).
TWELFTH WEEK (Nov. 13 -15) – Sex Discrimination and “Intermediate Scrutiny”
A Constitutional “Right of Privacy”: Birth Control and Abortion
Assigned Readings
Craig v. Boren (1976), Epstein, pp. 657-661, (7th ed., pp. 630-634).
Epstein, pp. 661-663 and 669-671.
“Sandra Day O’Connor (1981-2006)” (Blackboard).
United States v. Virginia (1996), Epstein, pp. 663-669, (7th ed., pp. 635-640).
Alex Roth, “Justice tells of closing door on sexism,” San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 8,
2003, p. B3 (Blackboard).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 397-400.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Epstein, pp. 400-405, (7th ed., pp. 388-393).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 405-409.
Roe v. Wade (1973), Epstein, pp. 409-416, (7th ed., pp. 396-402).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 416-422, including Table 10-2 (p. 417).
Progress Quiz #6 – Friday, November 15
Supplementary Cases
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
* Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).
* Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in Epstein, pp. 685-689.
13
THIRTEENTH WEEK (Nov. 18 - 22) -- Liberty and Equality in the Era of Justices O’Connor and
Kennedy
Third Midterm Exam — Wednesday, November 20
Assigned Readings
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Epstein, pp. 422-431, (7th ed., pp. 409-416).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 431-433 (including Box 10-3).
Epstein and Walker, p. 671.
Romer v. Evans (1996), pp. 671-676, (7th ed., Epstein, pp. 643-647).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 676-677 (including Box 13-5).
Supplementary Cases and Readings
* Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
* Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 127 (2007).
Knowles, The Tie Goes to Freedom, Chapters 3 and 5.
FOURTEENTH WEEK (Nov. 25) – Justice Kennedy and “Gay Rights”
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 433-437.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Epstein pp. 437-444, (7th ed., pp. 422-429).
Epstein and Walker, p. 444.
United States v. Windsor (2013, majority opinion by Justice Kennedy).
Please note: This class will not meet on Wednesday, Nov., 27, but you should find time to read
Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Windsor on the Internet during the Thanksgiving break.
FIFTEENTH WEEK (Dec. 2 - 6) – Schools and the Establishment Clause: A Lifetime of
Controversy
Progress Quiz #7 – Wednesday, Dec. 4
Assigned Reading
Epstein and Walker, pp. 128-130.
Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Epstein, pp. 130-134, (7th ed., pp. 130-135).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 169-170, including Table 4-4.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), Epstein, pp. 170-175, (7th ed., pp 171-174).
14
Epstein and Walker, pp. 134-138.
Lemon v. Kurtzman and Early v. DiCenso (1971), Epstein, pp. 138-142, (7th ed., pp. 139143).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 142-146 and 162-163.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Epstein, pp. 164-169, (7th ed., pp. 165-169).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 175-177.
Lee v. Weisman (1992), Epstein, pp. 177-182 (7th ed., pp. 178-183).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 182-184.
Supplementary Cases
Engel v. Vitale, 320 U.S. 421 (1962).
* Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
* Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
SIXTEENTH WEEK (Dec. 9 - 11) – The Justices and Their “Tests”
Religious Displays: From Pawtucket to Mt. Soledad
Progress Quiz #8 (Required) – Monday, December 9
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 152-153.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), Epstein, pp. 153-158, (7th ed., pp. 154-160).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 184-185.
Epstein and Walker, review carefully Box 4-4 (p. 143) and Table 4-3 (p. 146).
Van Orden v. Perry (2004), Epstein, pp. 186-190, (7th ed., pp. 186-191).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 190-191.
Supplementary Cases
* Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (particularly Justice O’Connor’s concurring
opinion).
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).
Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986).
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993).
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), excerpts in Epstein and Walker, pp. 146-151.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
* McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 554 U.S. 844 (2005).
FINAL EXAM — Wednesday, Dec. 18 at 10:30 a.m.
15