POLITICAL SCIENCE 348
Supreme Court and Contemporary Issues
Spring 2013
Edward V. Heck
email: heck@mail.sdsu.edu
MWF 10000-1050
Schedule #: 22354
Adams Humanities 3113
“In the beginning, there was Brown v. Board of Education,” proclaimed Lucas A. Powe in
introducing his account of the 1954 school desegregation case in his widely-acclaimed book The
Warren Court and American Politics (Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 27). Most scholars and
close observers of the Supreme Court agree with Prof. Powe that Brown was the most important
decision of the Supreme Court in the Twentieth Century. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl
Warren (a former 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. This decision both reflected and contributed to a vigorous movement for women’s
rights and has also generated 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 those accused of crime,
and abortion rights, we will read and discuss the Court’s major contributions to political debate on
such “hot button” issues as sex discrimination, gay rights, affirmative action, and rights of political
protest. We will wrap up the semester by studying decisions dealing with 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.
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
-1-
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 (7th ed., 2010).
Although the 8th edition of the Epstein and Walker text is now available, I have decided to
continue to use the excellent 7th edition, which should give you access to used copies from a variety
of sources. Most of the cases we will read are found the 7th edition of the Epstein and Walker
casebook. A few other short assignments will be made available through the “Blackboard” site for
this class or as in-class handouts. 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 3) 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”).
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.
-2-
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 Monday, February 11, Friday,
March 15, and Wednesday, April 24. The final exam will be given at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, May
10. 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 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 some 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
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 p. 5 of the syllabus for his/her case and in addition may demonstrate expertise on the
chosen case through an oral report to the class or (in the special case of Terry v. Ohio) participation
-3-
in a dramatic presentation in class. Based on these special assignments and projects and all other “in
class activities,” each student will receive a score between “0” and “22”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.
Because it is impossible to contribute to class discussion if you are absent, 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 other in-class activities (22 points maximum). The range for each grade is as follows:
A=
B=
C=
D=
F=
184 -205 points
164 -183 points
143 -163 points
123 -142 points
below 123 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. 180-183 points for a B+ or 160-163 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
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 Appendix 8 (pp. 777-778) in the Epstein and Walker casebook for an outline of how to
brief cases). However, there are other note-taking techniques that may be equally effective. Many
-4-
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) would be 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? (During the second half of the
semester, 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? Why was that test chosen?
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.
-5-
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 10 a.m. 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 playing in the Mountain West Conference basketball tournament come to
mind). It is my intention to begin class promptly at 10 o’clock, 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 the door. 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 a better option
COURSE SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS
FIRST WEEK (January 18) – Course Introduction: The Changing Constitutional Landscape (19532013)
Assigned Readings
U.S. Constitution. In your “pocket constitution” or in Appendix 1 in the Epstein and Walker
casebook, read the key provisions of the document that the Supreme Court claims the
authority to interpret. Begin with the “unamended Constitution” of 1789 (Article I
through VII, pp. 741-747 in Epstein and Walker), then note the changes introduced
by the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-9, pp. 747-748) and Amendments 13, 14, and
15 (p. 749).
-6-
SECOND WEEK (Jan. 23-25) — The Justices Divide Along Ideological Lines
Rationalizing Apartheid: Plessy v. Ferguson
Assigned Readings
Lee Epstein and Thomas G. Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights,
Liberties, and Justice (7th ed., 2010) (Epstein), pp. 3-7 and Figure 1-2 (p. 13).
U.S. Constitution, Pocket Constitution or Appendix 1 in Epstein and Walker. Review the
Bill of Rights (particularly the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments) and Section
One of the 14th Amendment, Epstein and Walker, pp. 747-749.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 374-377.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Epstein, pp. 377-382.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 10-21 and 41-44.
Epstein and Walker, Appendix 6, p. 775. Use the chronological listing of “natural courts” in
Appendix 6 to identify the nine members of the “Roberts 2 court” and the first justice
appointed by President Obama. Use Appendix 5 (pp. 762-768) to locate brief
biographical sketches of these justices. Also, be sure you can identify the justices
appointed by President Reagan.
David G. Savage, “Sotomayor, Kagan Shift High Court Debates to the Left,” San Diego
Union-Tribune, Dec. 26, 2010, p. A-12 (“Blackboard”).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 577-578 (bottom of 2d col.) and 585-586.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Epstein, pp. 586-590.
Progress Quiz # 1 – Friday, Jan. 25
THIRD WEEK (Jan. 28-Feb. 1) – “In the Beginning, There was Brown v. Board of Education”
Assessing School Desegregation Plans in the South
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 590-591.
Sweatt v. Painter (1950), Epstein, pp. 591-593.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 593-594.
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954), Epstein, pp. 594-597.
Epstein and Walker, Box III-1 (p. 446) and p. 597 (2d col.)
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955), Epstein, pp. 598-599.
Epstein and Walker, Appendix 6 (p. 774). Identify the nine justices who were members of
the Court when Brown I was decided in 1954. Using the same appendix, identify
additional justices appointed by President Eisenhower in the 1950s.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 599-601, including Box 13-1 and Table 13-1.
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).
7
Epstein and Walker, skim pp. 760-761, noting recent historical eras of the Court. Use
Appendix 6 (p. 774) to identify the justices appointed by Presidents Kennedy,
Johnson, and Nixon.
“Green Assignment” for Friday, Feb. 1
Answer Questions 1-6 and 8 (p. 5 on syllabus) for the case of Green v. New Kent County in
writing and hand in your answers at the end of class on Friday, Feb. 1. Please do not rely on
Wikipedia or similar sources for completing this assignment. It is essential that you read the
Court’s opinion and answer the “eight questions” in your own words
Supplementary Reading
*McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
*Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969).
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 reading).
FOURTH WEEK (Feb. 4-8) — Dismantling the Legal Structure of Apartheid
The Incorporation Debate, Part I (1868-1937)
Progress Quiz #2 – Monday, Feb. 4
Assigned Readings
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), Epstein, pp. 601-605.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 605-606.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), Epstein, pp. 619-621.
Epstein and Walker, note photograph on p. 241 as an illustration of the sit-in movement.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 581-584, including Box IV-1
Epstein and Walker, pp. 611-613, including Box 13-2.
Loving v. Virginia (1967), Epstein, pp. 612-614.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 614-616.
U.S. Constitution, review Amendments 1-9 and 14 (Section 1), in Epstein, pp. 747-749.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 67-77 (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. 77-79.
8
Supplementary Cases
.
*Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
*Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
*Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) or
in Epstein and Walker, pp. 606-611.
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 will you will become an “expert” and indicate whether you
wish to make an oral presentation on your case.
FIFTH WEEK (Feb. 11-15) – The Warren Court and Application of (Most of) the Bill of Rights to
the States
First Midterm Exam — Monday, Feb. 11
Assigned Readings
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Epstein, pp. 524-526.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 526-527 and 79-81, including Table 3-1.
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), Epstein, pp. 81-86.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 86-87 and 383.
Supplementary Reading
*Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) or in Epstein, pp. 521-523.
*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).
Jim Newton, Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made (2006).
SIXTH WEEK (Feb. 18-22) — The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule
Handcuffing the Police?: The Warren Court and Police Interrogation
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 443-445, 449-450, and 477-478.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Epstein, pp. 478-484.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 497-499.
9
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), Epstein, pp. 499-501.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Epstein, pp. 502-508 , including Box 11-3.
Epstein and Walker, Appendix 6 (p. 774). You should be able to identify the justices who
were members of the “Warren 7 Court” and the “Warren 8 Court,” and understand
the significance of the appointments of Justices Goldberg, Fortas, and Marshall.
Progress Quiz #3 – Wednesday, Feb. 20
Supplementary Cases
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
SEVENTH WEEK (Feb. 25 – March 1) — The Warren Court and the Fourth Amendment
President Nixon and the Politics of Crime: From the Warren Court to the Burger Court
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 450-451.
Katz v. United States (1967), Epstein, pp. 451-455.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 455-456 (bottom of 1st col.), 460-463, and 472-473.
Terry v. Ohio (1968), Epstein, pp. 473-476.
Epstein, pp. 477 (top of first column), 445-448, and 552-553.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976), Epstein, pp. 553-559.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 559-561 and Appendix 6 (p. 774). You should now be able to
identify the five justices appointed by Presidents Nixon and Ford and understand
their basic positions on capital punishment
Epstein and Walker, pp. 31-44.
.
Dramatic Presentation: Terry v. Ohio — Wednesday, Feb. 27
Supplementary Cases
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).
EIGHTH WEEK (March 4-8) – The Criminal Justice System in the “Republican Court Eras”
Assigned Readings
10
Epstein and Walker, review Appendix 4 (p. 761) and Appendix 6 (pp. 774-775).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 484-485.
United States v. Leon (1984), Epstein, pp. 485-489.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 561-562.
Atkins v. Virginia (2002), pp. 562-568.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 568-570 and 509-513.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004), Epstein, pp. 514-517.
Epstein and Walker, p. 489 (second column).
Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Epstein, pp. 490-493.
Epstein and Walker, p. 493.
Progress Quiz #4 – Friday, March 8
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).
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
* Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County (April 2, 2012).
Miller v. Alabama (June 25, 2012).
NINTH WEEK (March 11-15) — Recent Developments in Criminal Justice: The “Roberts Court”
and the Fourth Amendment
Assigned Readings:
Herring v. United States (2009), Epstein, pp. 494-497.
Arizona v. Gant (2009), Epstein, pp. 463-467.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 467-468.
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009), Epstein, pp. 468-472.
Second Midterm Exam — Friday, March 15
TENTH WEEK (March 18-22) — Equal Protection and the Application of “Tests”
Sex Discrimination and “Intermediate Scrutiny”
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 624-626, including Box 13-3.
Reed v. Reed (1971), Epstein, pp 626-628.
11
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), Epstein, pp. 650-654. (Under “eight
questions” on p. 5 of the syllabus, be sure you can answer the question about the test
applied by the justices in this case).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 628-629.
Craig v. Boren (1976), Epstein, pp. 630-634.
Epstein and Walker, Appendix 6 (p. 774). You should be able to identify the justices who
were members of the “Burger 4” court and the presidents who appointed them.
Epstein and Walker, Table IV-1 (p. 581) and pp. 634-635.
Epstein and Walker, Appendix 6 (pp. 774-775). You should be able to identify the first two
women to serve on the Supreme Court and other justices appointed by Presidents
Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton.
“Sandra Day O’Connor (1981-2006)” (“Blackboard”).
United States v. Virginia (1996), Epstein, 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. 640-642.
Supplementary Cases
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
*Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981).
*Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in Epstein, pp. 656-659.
ELEVENTH WEEK (March 25-29)— A Constitutional “Right of Privacy”: Birth Control and
Abortion
Progress Quiz #5 – Monday, March 25
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 385-388.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Epstein, pp. 388-393.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 393-396.
Roe v. Wade (1973), Epstein, pp. 396-402.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 402-409, including Table 10-2 (p. 403).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Epstein, pp. 409-416.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 416-419 (including Box 10-3).
Supplementary Cases
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
*Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 127 (2007).
12
TWELFTH WEEK (April 8-12) — The “Hot Button” Issues Continue: Gay Rights and the
Beginning of the Affirmative Action Debate
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 642-643.
Romer v. Evans (1996), Epstein, pp. 643-647.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 647-648 (including Box 13-4) and 418-422.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Epstein, pp. 422-429.
Epstein and Walker, p. 429.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 659-661.
Regents v. Bakke (1978), Epstein, pp. 661-667.
Supplementary Reading
*Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), Epstein, pp. 285-289.
Progress Quiz #6 – Friday, April 12
Supplementary Reading
*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).
Scott Douglas Gerber, First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas (1999).
Andrew Peyton Thomas, Clarence Thomas: A Biography (2001).
.
THIRTEENTH WEEK (April 15-19) – Justice O’Connor and Affirmative Action
Freedom of Speech and Political Protest
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 675-676.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), pp. 676-684.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 684-688.
U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1 and 14 (Section 1), pp. 747 and 749 (review).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 193-196
Schenck v. United States (1919), pp. 196-197.
“Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1902-1932)” (“Blackboard”).
Epstein and Walker, pp. 226-227.
United States v. O’Brien (1968), Epstein, pp. 227-229.
13
Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), Epstein, pp. 257-260.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 229-230.
Texas v. Johnson (1989), Epstein, pp. 230-234.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 234-235 (including Box 5-6).
FOURTEENTH WEEK (April 22-26) – Freedom of Speech in the 21st Century
Schools and the Establishment Clause: A Lifetime of Controversy
Third Midterm Exam — Wednesday, April 24
Assigned Reading
Epstein and Walker, pp. 240-243, including Table 5-2.
Hill v. Colorado (2000), Epstein, pp. 243-248.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 129-130.
Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Epstein, pp. 130-135.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 170-171, including Table 4-4.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), Epstein, pp. 171-174.
Supplementary Cases
Engel v. Vitale, 320 U.S. 421 (1962).
*Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
FIFTEENTH WEEK (April 29 – May 3) – The Justices and Their “Tests”
Progress Quiz #7 – Wednesday, May 1
Assigned Readings
Epstein and Walker, pp. 135-139.
Lemon v. Kurtzman and Early v. DiCenso (1971), Epstein, pp. 139-143.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 143-147 and 163-165.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Epstein, pp. 165-169.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 174-178.
Lee v. Weisman (1992), Epstein, pp. 178-183.
Agostini v. Felton (1997), Epstein and Walker, pp.148-153.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 153-154 and 183-185.
14
Supplementary Cases
*Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
*Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (particularly Justice O’Connor’s concurring
opinion).
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).
SIXTEENTH WEEK (May 6-8) – School Vouchers and the Establishment Clause
Religious Displays: From Pawtucket to Mt. Soledad
Progress Quiz #8 (Required) – Monday, May 6
Assigned Readings
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), Epstein, pp. 154-160.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 183-185 and 185-186.
Epstein and Walker, review carefully Box 4-3 (p. 144) and Table 4-3 (p. 147).
Van Orden v. Perry (2004), Epstein, pp. 186-191.
Epstein and Walker, pp. 191-192.
Supplementary Cases
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).
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
*McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 554 U.S. 844 (2005)
FINAL EXAM — Friday, May 10 at 10:30 a.m.
15