Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties
Political Science 4110/5110 and Criminal Justice 4110
Fall 2015 – Online UW
Instructor: Maggi Maier Murdock, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
1791
The Bill of Rights is a document for all seasons. We don't just display it when
the weather is fair and put it away when the storm is tempest. To be a free
people, we must have the courage to exercise our constitutional rights. To be
a prudent people, we have to protect the rights of others, recognizing that that
is the best guarantor of our own rights.
U.S. District Court Judge William Downs, in the case of Lanker and
Ayers vs. University of Wyoming and University of Wyoming
President, 27 April 2010
Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties
1
Political Science 4110/5110 and Criminal Justice 4110
Fall 2015 – Online UW
Instructor:
Dr. Maggi Maier Murdock
Email: murdock@uwyo.edu
Phone: 766.5144 (office)
307.259.0558 (cell)
Office Hours:
Tuesday 3:00 - 4:30 pm
Wednesday 2:30 – 3:30 pm
Thursday 8:30 – 9:30 am
Always by email or phone
Introduction
This course focuses primarily on issues raised under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and, necessarily, under the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Additionally, given the
growth in the national conversation about the Second Amendment, we will examine some recent
decisions pertaining to this Amendment.
While we will certainly attend to cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in these
areas, our examination will not be based entirely on reading, briefing, and analyzing cases. For a
portion of the course we will organize our examination of the meaning of these Amendments
through some problem-based learning resting on the historical foundations within which the
cases were decided.
The traditional case-study analysis of constitutional interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and
its Amendments, by itself, tends to limit our thinking about constitutional rights and liberties to
judicial interpretations. This method urges us to reduce the human stories behind the cases to a
set of facts, followed by judicial holdings and reasoning. Understanding the problems or
controversies inherent in these Amendments, and the human stories that created the
controversies, will help us more fully understand the decisions in their historical context, as well
as the personal, political, and social implications of constitutional interpretation.
The Nature of a Scholarly Community
This class is a community of scholars, intent on learning and sharing their learning. Learning
cannot take place in an atmosphere of fear, distrust, and intolerance. Therefore, in order to learn
effectively, a community of scholars
 Must be willing to examine evidence and ideas, old or new, in novel ways and with open
minds;
 Must approach learning unbiased against groups, individuals, ideas, or evidence;
 Must trust one another, even if its members disagree; and
 Must be willing – and able – to share their learning with others.
2
Academic Integrity
The trust essential to a scholarly community is destroyed when members of the community do
not act with integrity. Our scholarly community will discuss the meaning of academic integrity,
and its antithesis, academic dishonesty, and incorporate the principles of academic integrity into
our operating rules. All acts of academic dishonesty will be dealt with seriously, swiftly, and
according to the Regulations of the University of Wyoming (see University Regulation 6-802 at
http://www.uwyo.edu/generalcounsel/_files/docs/uw-reg-6-802.pdf.
Course Expectations
All members of our scholarly community should expect to act (and be treated) with integrity,
trust, and open minds. This means that we all must enter our learning space and time prepared
and committed to learning and sharing our learning.

Students in our scholarly community should have high expectations for the instructor –
not that she will know everything and dutifully pour the sum of all knowledge on the
course topics into the students’ brains for students to dutifully repeat back. Rather,
students should expect the instructor to be an effective guide for this learning journey we
will embark upon together.

The instructor will expect that students complete assignments and activities fully, on time
and – when assigned – collaboratively. I will also expect that students demonstrate their
learning effectively.

However, all of us have emergencies and obstacles in our lives. Therefore, please contact
me as soon as possible when emergencies and problems arise so that I can be of
assistance. I’d rather be a help than a hindrance as emergencies and problems affect
students’ abilities and inclination to learn.
Disability support resources. If you have physical, learning, and/or psychological
needs that will affect your learning and participation, or require accommodations, please let me
know as soon as possible. You may choose to register with, and provide documentation of your
disability to, University Disability Support Services (UDSS). You will find exceptional
disability support services at the UDSS office. You can find UDSS in Room 109 of Knight Hall,
or you can contact UDSS by email at udss@uwyo.edu or by phone at 766.6189 or TTY at
766.3073.
Learning Objectives
3
Through their learning in the class, students will demonstrate
 An ability to examine, analyze, solve, and explain problems presented by constitutional
controversies;
 An understanding of the substance of the United States Constitution and the Bill of
Rights;
 An understanding of the development of the United States Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, especially through the controversies that have led to judicial interpretations of the
constitutional meaning of the First Amendment;
 An understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle through which federally
protected civil liberties have been made applicable to the states and from which
additional civil liberties and rights have evolved; and
 An understanding of contemporary debates about the meaning of the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights.
Grading Policies
Grades are a reflection of students’ learning. Instructors don’t give grades; students earn grades
based on their effective demonstration of their work and learning. Recognizing that students
learn differently, in this course the assessments of students’ learning will be varied, providing
students with ample opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of the ideas, concepts,
processes, and methods that will be found in readings, assignments, and activities. Assessments
of learning will include quizzes, writing assignments, participation in learning activities and
discussions, research, and problem-based group projects.
According to University policy (see University Regulation 6-722 at
http://www.uwyo.edu/generalcounsel/_files/docs/uw-regulation-6-722.pdf), students in our learning
community will be assigned grades according to the plus/minus grading scale:
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF
= 94 to 100%
= 90 to 93%
= 88 to 89%
= 83 to 87%
= 80 to 82%
= 78 to 79%
= 73 to 77%
= 70 to 72%
= 68 to 69%
= 63 to 67%
= 60 to 62%
= Less than 60
4
according to students’ demonstration of their learning in a variety of
assignments and acitivities, including
Grades will be assigned
Assignment or Activity
Discussion
Exams
Participation
Assignments
Problems
Total
% of Final Grade
15%
20%
15%
20%
30%
100%
Course Resources

Learning discipline to read critically, analyze thoroughly, communicate clearly, and stay
on task in an online environment.

Textbook: Sullivan and Feldman, Constitutional Law, Eighteenth Edition. St. Paul,
Minnesota (2013).

UW Libraries (including the Law Library) can be accessed online. See
http://www.uwyo.edu/libraries/ (Links to an external site.)
.

Internet resources will be utilized for a variety of readings. These will be noted in the
syllabus and in the assignments with links to the resources. You will also probably use
Internet-based resources as you research problems presented in the class.

Learning to brief a case (if you don't already know how):
o You will brief some cases and use those briefs to discuss cases in class. But we
will also be examining controversies or problems and using cases to understand
them. Briefing cases is a good way to boil down the real meaning of a case.
o Good information about language in cases and how to brief a case can be found at
the Lloyd Sealey Library of the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice. See http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Links to an
external site.)
.
o I know you can find case briefs online (because I can find those briefs online), but
I will look for your own work, not someone else's work. This is one of the
reasons the class will be more problem-based and less case brief-focused -- no
need to require you to do something you can find online.

Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Rather than relying only on the case analysis
method, we will also utilize problem-based learning (PBL) to enhance our understanding
of issues and controversies that are at the heart of judicial decision-making.
5
Course Outline
Module
Topic
Completion
Date
Module 1
Introduction, course overview, and knowledge
assessment
September 4
Module 2
Defining, Achieving, and Maintaining
Essential Values for a National Community
September 18
 Reading

English Bill of Rights (1688)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

Declaration of Independence (1776)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

Leachman, Michael and Super, David. “States Likely Could Not
Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget
Amendment or Other Issues.” June 16, 2014. Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities research website. Accessed at
http://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-controlconstitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or.
 Assignment: Problem #1 (see Problems List at the end of
the syllabus and as a separate file under “Files” in WyoCourses for
POLS 4110).
Module 3
Constitutional Background
September 25
 Reading
 Articles of Confederation (1781)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

United States Constitution (1787) and
amendments (1791 – 1992)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp
 Assignment: Discussion, analysis, writing (see assignment in
WyoCourses for POLS 4110)
6
Exam #1 – Complete online by Sunday, 27 September at 6:00 PM
Module 4
Constitutional Background: The Supreme Court’s
October 2
Authority and Role
 Judicial Review
 Supreme Court Authority
 Judicial Exclusivity in Constitutional interpretation
 Limits on Constitutional Adjudication: Case or
Controversy Requirements
 Reading
 Judiciary Act (1789)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/judiciary_act.asp

Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 1, pp. 1-71
 Assignment: Problem #2 (see problems list at the end of the
syllabus and as a separate file under “Files” in WyoCourses for
POLS 4110).
∆ Cases:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1947)
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_1 for oral
argument and opinion announcement audio file.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6 for oral
argument audio files.
Craig v. Boren (1976)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_628
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio file.
Bush v. Gore (2000)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949
for oral arguments audio file.
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio file.
Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio file.
7
Module 5
Constitutional Background: Federalism
 Location of sovereignty in the federal system
 Limits of the Necessary and Proper Clause
 Values served by Federalism
October 9
 Reading
 Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 2, pp. 73 – 107
 Assignment: Discussion, analysis, writing (see assignment in
WyoCourses for POLS 4110)
∆ Cases
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Exam #2 – complete online by Sunday, October 11 at 6:00 PM
Module 6
The Fourteenth Amendment:
 Individual rights before the Civil War
 Post-Civil War Amendments
 Incorporation
October 16
 Reading
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 7, pp. 425 – 465
 Assignment: Discussion, analysis, writing (see assignment in
WyoCourses for POLS 4110)
∆ Cases
Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833)
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
Saenz v. Roe (1999)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_97 for
oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Adamson v. California (1947)
Duncan v. Lousiana (1968)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_410 for
oral argument audio files.
8
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521
for oral aragument and opinion announcement audio files.
Module 7
The Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process
and Equal Protection
October 30
 Assignment: Problem #3 (see problems list at the end of
the syllabus and as a separate file under “Files” in WyoCourses for
POLS 4110)
The Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process
 Substantive due process and privacy
 Procedural due process and the right to a hearing
 Reading
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 8, pp. 467 – 561
∆ Cases
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Nebbia v. New York (1934)
Williamson v. Lee Optical Company (1955)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496 for
oral argument audio files.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18 for
oral argument audio files.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_744
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_380
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140
for oral argument audio files.
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_110
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
9
The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection
 Introduction to equal protection
 Implementation and implications of Brown
 Racially discriminatory purpose and effect
 Readings
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 9, pp. 616 – 649
∆ Cases
Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395 for
oral argument audio files.
Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1734
for orl argument audio files.
Johnson v. California (2005)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_636
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_32 for
oral argument audio files.
Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_592 for
oral argument audio files.
Palmer v. Thompson (1971)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_107 for
oral argument audio files.
Washington v. Davis (1976)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1492
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection
 Affirmative action
 Gender-based discrimination
 Discrimination based on sexual orientation
 Readings
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 9, pp. 650 – 756
10
∆ Cases
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_516
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School District (2007)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_908
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Schuette v. Baum (2014)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_682
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Craig v. Boren (1976)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_628
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_406
for oral argument audio files.
United States v. Virginia (1996)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1941
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
See
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14556-q1 and
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14556-q2 for oral argument audio files.
Module 8
The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression
 Overview
 Incitement to violence
 Fighting words and hostile audiences
November 6
11
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 11, pp. 885 – 954
 Assignment: Problem #4 (see problems list at the end of
the syllabus and as a separate file under “Files” in WyoCourses for
POLS 4110).
∆ Cases:
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Debs v. United States (1919)
Abrams v. United States (1919)
Masses Publishing Company v. Patten (1917)
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Whitney v. California (1927)
Dennis v. United States (1951)
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492 for
oral argument audio files.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Feiner v. New York (1951)
Cohen v. California (1971)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_299 for
oral argument audio files.
Exam #3 - complete online by Sunday, November 8 at 6:00 PM
Module 9
The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression
November 20
 Injury to reputation and sensibility
 Sexually explicit expression
 Content-based and content-neutral speech regulations
 Government as landlord
 Assignment: Problem #5 (see problems list at the end of
the syllabus and as a separate file under “Files” in WyoCourses for
POLS 4110).
12
The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression
 Injury to reputation and sensibility
 Sexually explicit expression
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 11, pp. 955 – 1084
∆ Cases:
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1956)
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39 for
oral argument audio files.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_617
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_751
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Roth v. United States (1957)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582 for
oral argument audio files.
Alberts v. California (1957)
Miller v. California (1973)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73 for
oral argument audio files.
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_1051
for oral argument audio files.
F.C.C. vs. Pacifica Foundation (1978)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_77_528
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2004)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_218
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
13
The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression
 Content-based and content-neutral speech regulations
 Government as landlord
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 12, pp. 1111 – 1261
∆ Cases: Content-based and content-neutral
regulations
United States v. O’Brien (1968)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_232 for
oral argument audio files.
Street v. New York, (1969)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_5 for oral
argument audio files.
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155
for oral argument audio files.
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_87 for
oral argument audio files.
Boos v. Barry (1988)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_803
for oral argument audio files.
Burson v. Freeman (1992)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1056
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_521
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
∆ Cases: Government as landlord
Lovell v. Griffin (1938)
Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
Cox v. Louisiana, (1965)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_24 for
oral argument audio files.
Brown v. Lousiana (1966)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_41 for
oral argument audio files.
Adderley v. Floria (1966)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_19 for
oral argument audio files.
14
Widmar v. Vincent (1981)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_689
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District (1969)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21for oral
argument audio files.
Module 10
The First Amendment: Freedom of Association
 Freedom of association
November 27
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 13, pp. 1340 – 1383
 Assignment: Discussion, analysis, writing (see assignment in
WyoCourses for POLS 4110)
∆ Cases:
DeJong v. Oregon (1937)
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of
Boston [GLIB] (1995)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_749 for oral
argument and opinion announcement audio files.
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_91 for
oral argument audio files.
Shelton v. Tucker (1960)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_14 for
oral argument audio files.
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_6 for oral
argument audio files.
NAACP v. Button (1963)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_5 for oral
argument audio files.
Roberts v. United Stats Jaycees (1984)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_724
for oral argument audio files.
Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of
Duarte (1987)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_86_421
for oral argument audio files.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
15

Money and political campaigns
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 13, pp. 1383 – 1433
∆ Cases:
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.

Freedom of press
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 13, pp. 1433 – 1475
∆ Cases:
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
New York Times Company v. United States (1971)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_1873 for
oral argument audio files.
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_85 for
oral argument audio files.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_243
for oral argument audio files.
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota
Commissioner of Revenue (1983)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1839
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
16
Module 11
The First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
 Free exercise of religion
December 4
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 14, pp. 1477 – 1526
 Assignment: Problem #6 (see problems list at the end of
the syllabus and as a separate file under “Files” in WyoCourses for
POLS 4110).
∆ Cases:
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett (1943)
Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_67 for
oral argument audio files.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_526 for
oral argument audio files.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_110
for oral argument audio files.
McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1427
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
United States v. Lee (1982)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_767
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_3 for
oral argument audio files.
Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1097
for oral argument audio files.
Bowen v. Roy (1986)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_780
for oral argument audio files.
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1013
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith
(1990)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213
for oral argument and opinion anouncement audio files.
17
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_948
for oral argument audio files.
Locke v. Davey (2004)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1315
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Holt v. Hobbs (2015)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_6827
for oral argument audio files.
Module 12
The First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
 Establishment clause
December 11
 Readings:
Sullivan and Feldman, Chapter 14, pp. 1526 –
 Assignment: Discussion, analysis, writing (see assignment in
WyoCourses for POLS 4110)
∆ Cases:
Bradfield v. Roberts (1899)
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
Zorach v. Clauson (1952)
McGowan v. Maryland (1961)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_8 for oral
argument audio files.
Engle v. Vitale (1962)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468 for
oral argument audio files.
School District v. Schempp (1963)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142 for
oral argument audio files.
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_7 for oral
argument audio files.
Board of Education v. Allen (1968)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_660 for
oral argument audio files.
Allegheny County v. ACLU 1969)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_2050
for oral argument audio files.
Walz v. Tax Commission (1970)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_135 for
oral argument audio files
18
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89 for
oral argument audiio files.
Stone v. Graham (1980)
Widmar v. Viincent (1981)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_689
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Mueller v. Allen (1983)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_82_195
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Marsh v. Chambers (1983)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_82_23k
for oral argument audio files.
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1256
for oral argument audio files.
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_812
for oral argument audio files.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513
for oral argument audio files.
Bowen v. Kendrick (1988)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_253
for oral argument audio files.
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1014
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1751
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1014
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1014
for oral argument and opinion announcement audio files.
Quiz #4 - complete online by Sunday, December 13 at 6:00 PM
19
Problems List
Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties
Political Science 4110/5110 and Criminal Justice 4110
Fall 2015 – Online UW
Problem 1
Defining, Achieving, and Maintaining Essential Values for a
National Community
Course Module 2 (Due September 18, 2015)
Background:
The Constitution of the United States defines two ways in which amendments to the Constitution
may be initiated (See U.S. Constitution, Article V, found at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art5.asp). The first method begins with the Congress:
“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
amendments to this constitution….” This is the only method that has been used since the
Constitution was ratified in 1788. The second method begins with the states and involves an
additional process – a constitutional convention: “…or on the application of the legislatures of
two-thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments….”
The second method has not been used. However, there is a movement (see, for example, the
American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC] at http://www.alec.org/initiatives/restore-thebalance/) which seeks to employ the second method of initiating constitutional amendments
through state legislatures applying to Congress to call a constitutional convention. The
Leachman and Super article, “States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on
Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues,” outlines some of the difficulties inherent in
calling a new constitutional convention (see http://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-couldnot-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or).
We will assume for the purposes of this problem that, in fact, two-thirds of the states (34 states)
have petitioned Congress to call a constitutional convention on a balanced budget amendment.
As demanded by Article V of the Constitution, the Congress calls a constitutional convention to
address a balanced budget amendment. The constitutional convention is to be held in the fall of
2015 and you are delegates to this convention. Given the current polarization in the U.S.
political system, this new constitutional convention is likely to behave like the first constitutional
convention in 1787: it will exceed its mandate and take on a universe of issues, perhaps even
radically restructuring the national government. It’s time to start thinking about what values,
processes, and participants are important in our political system.
20
The Problem:
1. Define what values are essential to the essence of this political system;
2. Determine how best to achieve and maintain those values, given the opportunity to
examine and reevaluate those values during the new constitutional convention.
3. Define how you will proceed, especially how to structure a political system that embodies
and operates on these values; and
4. Justify your actions.
5. Essential to these larger questions are other questions that each group must answer to
reach the larger decisions of defining, achieving, and maintaining national community
values (and justifying these decisions):
 What could your group gain – and lose – by maintaining the status quo under the
current Constitution?
 What could your group gain – and lose – by seeking a radical change from the status
quo by developing a new constitution?
 What knowledge, experience, and resources does your group bring to these decisions?
 What vulnerabilities does your group have as it faces these decisions?
 How will you work with other groups in the convention (and nationally) to address
these decisions?
Your assignment:

The class has been randomly divided into six groups with five members each. Each
group has been assigned a leader, who will serve as the facilitator for the beginning of
your discussions for this assignment. However, each group will determine the role each
of its members should assume for the assignment – but all members of each group must
be effectively involved in the work of the group.

Each group has a different role to play in solving this problem.
 Group 1 consists of the business leaders who are delegates to the convention.
 Group 2 consists of the political leaders who are delegates to the convention.
 Group 3 consists of the urban working class people who are delegates to the
convention.
 Group 4 consists of the rural and agricultural people who are delegates to the
convention.
 Group 5 consists of the traditionally “voiceless” peoples in the country: the poor,
the homeless, and the marginalized who are delegates to the convention.
 Group 6 consists of the intellectuals (e.g., teachers, religious leaders) who are
delegates to the convention.

Submit a presentation of your group’s decisions, with appropriate justifications, in some
form online through WyoCourses by 6:00 pm on Friday, September 18.

Show how each member of the group has contributed to the discussions, decisions, and
presentation.
21
Problem 2
Constitutional Background:
The Supreme Court’s Authority and Role
Course Module 4 (Due October 2, 2015)
Background: Following the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, the new
government had to be implemented – beginning with the first elections under the Constitution
(see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolu01.asp). Once elections were held and the
new Congress and President were in place, the Congress began to draft and pass the laws
necessary for the formation of government. For our purposes, we are most interested in the
Judiciary Act of 1789, An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States (see
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/judiciary_act.asp). This act was passed on September
24, 1789, and it established the federal court system of the new United States.
Beginning with the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has defined its
authority and role in a number of cases. By reading the cases, understanding the controversies,
and unearthing the stories of the people involved in the controversies, we can get a better
understanding of how the Court has defined its role over the course of two centuries.
Cases:
Marbury v. Madison (1803) Group 1
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) Group 2
Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles (1947)
Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Group 4
Group 3
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_1 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio file.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
Group 5
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6 for oral argument audio files.
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Group 6
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_628 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio file.
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Group 7
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949 for oral arguments audio file.
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Group 8
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio file.
Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
Group 9
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio file.
22
The Problem:
1. Discover and explain the story of the people and controversy behind each of these
Supreme Court decisions, including what political issues were present in the country at
the time.
2. Define the issues involved in each of these cases: that is, what questions was the Court
asked to decide and why?
3. Analyze how the Court decided the questions.
4. Explain how the Court’s decision may have been affected by the contemporary political
issues.
5. Summarize how the Court’s decision in the case helped define its authority and role.
Your assignment:

The class has been randomly divided into nine groups with 3-4 members each. Each
group has been assigned a leader, who will serve as the facilitator for the beginning of
your discussions for this assignment. However, each group will determine the role each
of its members should assume for the assignment – but all members of each group must
be effectively involved in the work of the group.

The case to which each group is assigned is noted above beside the case name.

Submit a presentation of your group’s findings in some form online through WyoCourses
by 6:00 pm on Friday, October 2.

Show how each member of the group has contributed to the discussions, decisions, and
presentation.
23
Problem 3
The Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process and Equal Protection








Substantive due process and privacy
Procedural due process and the right to a hearing
Introduction to equal protection
Implementation and implications of Brown
Racially discriminatory purpose and effect
Affirmative action
Gender-based discrimination
Discrimination based on sexual orientation
Course Module 7 (Due October 30, 2015)
Background: Following the Civil War in the United States, three important amendments
were added to the Constitution. The Thirteen Amendment, ratified in 1865 abolished slavery
(see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13). The Fifteenth Amendment,
ratified in 1870, decreed that race could not be a bar to voting rights (see (see
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13). The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified
in 1868 (See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#13), decreed “All persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The due process clause has been
utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court to provide both substantive and procedural due process to
citizens, addressing a number of rights we value as citizens, including fundamental privacy
rights. The equal protection clause has been utilized by the U.S. Supreme Court to address
addressing a number of rights we value as citizens, especially equal protection of the laws for all
citizens, regardless of race or ethnicity.
The U.S. presidential election campaigns have begun in earnest, even though the actual 2016
election is more than a year away. Interestingly, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
has become a matter of discussion in the campaign during the summer of 2015. The discussion
largely focuses on “birthright citizenship” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (see
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#14).
Especially among the Republican candidates, there is discussion about repealing some or all of
the Fourteenth Amendment – though, admittedly the discussion is currently not well focused or
substantiated (see http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-19/where-the-republicanpresidential-candidates-stand-on-birthright-citizenship).
We will build on our first problem: a new constitutional convention and the possibilities for
radical change that could be introduced. Again, we will assume for the purposes of this problem
24
that, in fact, two-thirds of the states (34 states) have petitioned Congress to call a constitutional
convention on a balanced budget amendment. As demanded by Article V of the Constitution,
the Congress calls a constitutional convention to address a balanced budget amendment. The
constitutional convention is to be held in the fall of 2015 and you are delegates to this
convention. Given the current polarization in the U.S. political system, this new constitutional
convention is likely to behave like the first constitutional convention in 1787: it will exceed its
mandate and take on a universe of issues, perhaps even radically restructuring the national
government. You have already started thinking about what values, processes, and participants
are important in our political system. Now it’s time to think about the Fourteenth Amendment
and its role in the definition of individual rights in the United States.
The Problem:
1. Identify what constitutional due process and equal protection issues have been defined by
the U.S. Supreme Court using the Fourteenth Amendment;
2. Examine and explain whether these protections are central to our system of government,
and our belief in the rights of individuals;
3. Examine and explain whether the rights of the individual and the needs of society have
been appropriately balanced through Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal
protection cases;
4. Examine and explain what would be gained – and lost – if the Fourteenth Amendment
were repealed; and
5. Utilize the cases listed in the syllabus (or other cases you may find) to illustrate and
substantiate your discussion.
Your assignment:

The class has been randomly divided into six groups with 5 members each. Each group
has been assigned a leader, who will serve as the facilitator for the beginning of your
discussions for this assignment. However, each group will determine the role each of its
members should assume for the assignment – but all members of each group must be
effectively involved in the work of the group.

Group assignments are as follows:
 Groups 1 and 6 examine the areas of
o Substantive due process and privacy
o Procedural due process and the right to a hearing
 Groups 2 and 5 examine the areas of
o Introduction to equal protection
o Implementation and implications of Brown
o Racially discriminatory purpose and effect
 Groups 3 and 4 examine the areas of
o Affirmative action
o Gender-based discrimination
o Discrimination based on sexual orientation
25

Submit a presentation of your group’s findings in some form online through WyoCourses
by 6:00 pm on Friday, October 30.

Show how each member of the group has contributed to the discussions, decisions, and
presentation.
26
Problem 4
The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression


Incitement to violence
Fighting words and hostile audiences
Course Module 8 (Due November 6, 2015)
Background: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is often seen as
critical to our definition of what it means to be a citizen: we have the right to express ourselves,
to practice (or not practice) religion as we wish without government involvement, we have a free
press, and we have the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of
our grievances. But the controversies created by the actual practice of our rights under the First
Amendment reflect the reality that freedom of expression, especially, brings us into contact with
strange ideas and practices, which sometimes we see as dangerous. How do we reconcile the
rights of the individual with the needs of society (or freedom versus security), how has that
balance changed through over the last century, and for what reasons has the balance been struck?
Cases:
Schenck v. United States (1919) Group 1
Debs v. United States (1919) Group 2
Abrams v. United States (1919) Group 3
Masses Publishing Company v. Patten (1917)
Gitlow v. New York (1925) Group 5
Whitney v. California (1927) Group 6
Dennis v. United States (1951) Group 7
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Group 8
Group 4
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492 for oral argument audio files.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Group 9
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Group 10
Feiner v. New York (1951) Group 11
Cohen v. California (1971) Group 12
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_299 for oral argument audio files.
The Problem:
1. Discover and explain the story of the people and controversy behind each of these
Supreme Court decisions, including what political issues were present in the country
at the time.
2. Define the issues involved in each of these cases: that is, what questions was the
Court asked to decide and why?
3. Analyze how the Court decided the questions.
27
4. Explain how the Court’s decision may have been affected by the contemporary
political issues.
5. Summarize how the Court’s decision in the case helped define the meaning and
application of equal protection.
Your assignment:

The class has been randomly divided into twelve groups with 2-3 members each. Each
group has been assigned a leader, who will serve as the facilitator for the beginning of
your discussions for this assignment. However, each group will determine the role each
of its members should assume for the assignment – but all members of each group must
be effectively involved in the work of the group.

The case to which each group is assigned is noted above beside the case name.

Submit a presentation of your group’s findings in some form online through WyoCourses
by 6:00 pm on Friday, November 6.

Show how each member of the group has contributed to the discussions, decisions, and
presentation.
28
Problem 5
First Amendment Freedom of Expression
 Injury to reputation and sensibility
 Sexually explicit expression
 Content-based and content-neutral speech regulations
 Government as landlord
Course Module 9 (Due November 13 - 20, 2015)
Background. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is often seen as
critical to our definition of what it means to be a citizen: we have the right to express ourselves,
to practice (or not practice) religion as we wish without government involvement, we have a free
press, and we have the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of
our grievances. But the controversies created by the actual practice of our rights under the First
Amendment reflect the reality that freedom of expression, especially, brings us into contact with
strange ideas and practices, which sometimes we see as dangerous. How do we reconcile the
rights of the individual with the needs of society (or freedom versus security), how has that
balance changed through over the last century, and for what reasons has the balance been struck?
How does the First Amendment continue to be practiced – and enforced – even today?
The Problem:
In the fall of 2008, the University of Wyoming Social Justice Research Center invited Professor
William Ayers to present a public lecture and faculty talk at the University of Wyoming on April
5 and 6, 2010. Professor Ayers was invited to the University of Wyoming to give two talks: a
public lecture entitled: "Trudge Toward Freedom: Moral Commitment and Ethical Action," and
a talk to faculty and graduate students entitled: "Teaching and Research in the Public Interest:
Solidarity and Identity." Professor Ayers was asked to speak about the moral responsibility of
keeping educational processes democratic, and about his twenty years of research on education.
Professor Ayers' public lecture was scheduled for April 5, 2010, and the faculty speech was
scheduled the following day.
Professor Ayers' speaking engagement was approved by the University. However, prior to
Professor Ayers' speaking engagement, on March 30, 2010, University officials applied pressure
to a UW professor who had invited him to speak causing him to cancel Professor Ayers'
scheduled appearances.
On April 8, 2010, a University of Wyoming student began to raise support to have Professor
Ayers speak at the University of Wyoming, and asked a student group to sponsor Professor
Ayers' speech. The president of the student group and the student met with a University of
Wyoming administrator, who noted that there was pressure on the University, including pressure
from politicians and donors, to not allow Professor Ayers to speak – and that allowing Professor
29
Ayers to speak would adversely affect the University.
Following this discussion, the student group withdrew its sponsorship of Professor Ayer’s
speech. However, the student continued her efforts and contacted the athletic scheduling office,
which confirmed that the University of Wyoming Sports Complex was available, and could be
booked for Professor Ayers' speech on April 28, 2010. When the student attempted to book the
facility, athletic scheduling office staff person indicated that she would first have to make some
telephone calls.
Approximately 45 minutes later, General Counsel for the University of Wyoming contacted the
student to notify her that the University of Wyoming was not available as a venue for Professor
Ayers. On April 12, 2010, General Counsel sent an email to the student in which she advised
"the University of Wyoming will not be available as a venue for the event you are hosting for Mr.
William Ayers."1
For the purposes of this problem, we will assume that these are the facts of a case being argued
before the United States Supreme Court.
Your assignment:
The class has been divided into six groups:

Group A are the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Professor Ayers and the student (here, Ms.
Smith). Your responsibility is to develop the argument that Professor Ayers’ and Ms.
Smith’s First Amendment freedom of speech rights are being denied by the actions of the
University. Utilize the First Amendment cases from the syllabus (and what you may find
on your own) to explain and substantiate your argument in a brief that is no longer than 5
pages. Due online through WyoCourses by 6:00 pm on Friday, November 13.

Group B are the attorneys for the defendant, the University of Wyoming. Your
responsibility is to develop the argument that the University of Wyoming has the right
and the responsibility to deny this particular speech. Utilize the First Amendment cases
from the syllabus (and what you may find on your own) to explain and substantiate your
argument in a brief that is no longer than 5 pages. Due online through WyoCourses by
6:00 pm on Friday, November 13.

Group C are the attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), writing an
amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to support the plaintiffs. Your responsibility is to
develop the argument that Professor Ayers’ and Ms. Smith’s First Amendment freedom
of speech rights are being denied by the actions of the University. Utilize the First
Amendment cases from the syllabus (and what you may find on your own) to explain and
substantiate your argument in a brief that is no longer than 5 pages. Due online through
WyoCourses by 6:00 pm on Friday, November 13.
.
1
This information was taken from the Plaintiffs’ filings in U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, dated
April 15, 2010, in the case of Ayers and Lanker v. University of Wyoming.
30

Group D are the attorneys for the American Enterprise Institute, writing an amicus
curiae (friend of the court) brief to support the defendant. Your responsibility is to
develop the argument that the University of Wyoming has the right and the responsibility
to deny this particular speech. Utilize the First Amendment cases from the syllabus (and
what you may find on your own) to explain and substantiate your argument in a brief that
is no longer than 5 pages. Due online through WyoCourses by 6:00 pm on Friday,
November 13.

Group E are the justices of the United States Supreme Court. Your responsibility is to
examine the briefs for the plaintiffs and the defendants (including the amicus briefs),
undertake your own examination of First Amendment cases, and write an opinion
deciding the case that is no longer than 5 pages. Due online through WyoCourses by
6:00 pm on Wednesday, November 18.

Group F are journalists, members of the press, who are reporting on the case for
National Public Radio. Your responsibility is to examine the briefs for the plaintiffs and
the defendants (including the amicus briefs), examine the Court’s opinion, undertake
your own examination of First Amendment cases, and write a story about the case that
enables listeners to understand the stance of both the plaintiffs and the defendant, as well
as the First Amendment cases that guided both parties and the Court. Due online
through WyoCourses by 6:00 pm on Friday, November 20.
Note: This is a real case, decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, by the
Honorable William Downs, U.S. District Judge, on April 27, 2010. You can find Judge Downs’
opinion online (see http://www.aclu-wy.org/archive/NewsEvents/ayers_court_opinion.pdf).
However, I would caution all parties not to just copy Judge Downs’ opinion or the filings of the
parties.
31
Problem 6
The First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
 The Free Exercise Clause
Course Module 11 (Due December 4, 2015)
Background: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is often seen as
critical to our definition of what it means to be a citizen: we have the right to express ourselves,
to practice (or not practice) religion as we wish without government involvement, we have a free
press, and we have the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of
our grievances. But the controversies created by the actual practice of our rights under the First
Amendment reflect the reality that freedom of expression, especially, brings us into contact with
strange ideas and practices, which sometimes we see as dangerous. How do we reconcile the
rights of the individual with the needs of society (or freedom versus security), how has that
balance changed through over the last century, and for what reasons has the balance been struck?
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides ample evidence of the difficulty of
striking this balance.
Cases:
Reynolds v. United States (1879) Pair 1
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Pair 2
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett (1943) Pair 3
Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) Pair 4
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_67 for oral argument audio files.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
Pair 5
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_526 for oral argument audio files.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Pair 6
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_110 for oral argument audio files.
McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
Pair 7
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1427 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio files.
United States v. Lee (1982)
Pair 8
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_767 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio files.
Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) Pair 9
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_3 for oral argument audio files.
Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) Pair 10
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1097 for oral argument audio files.
Bowen v. Roy (1986)
Pair 11
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_780 for oral argument audio files.
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988) Pair 12
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1013 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio files.
32
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990)
Pair 13
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213 for oral argument and opinion
anouncement audio files.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) Pair 14
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_948 for oral argument audio files.
Locke v. Davey (2004)
Pair 15
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1315 for oral argument and opinion
announcement audio files.
Holt v. Hobbs (2015)
Pair 16
See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_6827 for oral argument audio files.
The Problem:
1. Discover and explain the story of the people and controversy behind each of these
Supreme Court decisions, including what political issues were present in the country
at the time.
2. Define the issues involved in each of these cases: that is, what questions was the
Court asked to decide and why?
3. Analyze how the Court decided the questions.
4. Explain how the Court’s decision may have been affected by the contemporary
political issues.
5. Summarize how the Court’s decision in the case helped define the meaning and
application of equal protection.
Your assignment:

The class has been randomly divided into pairs. Each pair will determine how to divide
or share efforts – but both members of the pair must be effectively involved in the work of
the group.

The case to which each pair is assigned is noted above beside the case name.

Submit a presentation of your pair’s findings in some form online through WyoCourses
by 6:00 pm on Friday, December 4.

Show how each member of the pair has contributed to the discussions, decisions, and
presentation.
33