Syllabi: Summer 08 - Spring 09DPLS 774 Spring 2009 Leadership and ResilienceDPLS 722 Spring 2009 Quantitative Data AnalysisDPLS 701sp09 Organizational TheoryDPLS 703sp09 Global Systems and Policy AnalysisDPLS 728sp09 Dissertation Scholarship and Conceptual FrameworkDPLS 747sp09 Leadership & Classical EthicsDPLS 748sp09 Leadership and Feminist EthicsDPLS 756sp09 Leadership and PsychologyDPLS 759sp09 Leadership and EconomicsDPLS 772sp09 The Invitation of LeadershipDPLS 773sp09 Portraits of Women and LeadershipDPLS 776sp09 Leadership, Authenticity and HospitalityDPLS 705fa08 Leadership and Social JusticeDPLS 706fa08 Leadership and DiversityDPLS 747fa08 Leadership and Classical EthicsDPLS 772fa08 Leadership and the Common GoodDPLS 775 Spring 09 Leading ChangeDPLS 700fa08 Leadership TheoryDPLS 708fa08 Leadership, Restorative Justice, and ForgivenessDPLS 720fa08 Principles of ResearchDPLS 718fa08 Ways of KnowingDPLS 723fa08 Qualitative Research: Theory and DesignDPLS 730fa08 Proposal SeminarDPLS 722su08 Quantitative Data AnalysisDPLS 773su08 - Leadership & SpiritualityDPLS 723su08 - Qualitative Research Theory and DesignDPLS 720su08 Principles of ResearchDPLS 745su08 Leadership and Personal Ethics
DPLS 713su08 Leadership & Law
DPLS 701su08 Organizational TheoryDPLS 774su08 The Art and Practice of DialogueDPLS 728su08 Scholarship and Dissertation FrameworkDPLS 700su08 Leadership TheoryDPLS 730su08 Proposal SeminarDPLS 775su08 - Leadership, Discernment, and VocationDPLS 703su08 - Global Systems and Policy AnalysisDPLS 730 Spring 09 Proposal Seminar

DPLS 713su08 Leadership & Law

DPLS 713 - Leadership & Law
Summer 2008              3 Credit

Professor: Dr. Georgie Ann Weatherby
Office: AD 319
Office Phone: (509) 313-3628
Home phone: (509) 456-2571
Office hours: By appointment only
email: weatherb@gonzaga.edu

Meeting Location:  Jepson 108
Meeting Dates:  June 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19

COURSE DESCRIPTION

The course will include an analysis of selected legal principles as these principles can be derived from decisions and opinions of the United States Supreme Court.  At the same time, stress will be placed upon an analysis of the leadership function exercised by the court as the protector of minority rights in such areas as freedom of speech and press, freedom of religion, civil rights and the rights of criminal defendants.

COURSE PROCEDURES

The course is scheduled to meet from 6:00 pm until 10:00 pm in Jepson108, M-R, June 9 through June 19.   The class will consist primarily of a critical reading and discussion of Supreme Court cases in the areas enumerated above.  The instructor will generate discussion of each discrete area of study and provide some amplification of the readings.  Participation is required.  Be prepared with a grasp of all cases for that night, as well as discussion of out-of-class assigned material, including briefs (each due on the night indicated).

LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Two major assignments and in-class case discussions mentioned in the calendar section later.

BRIEFING CASES – HOW ONE DOES IT:

The mere reading of a case is not very enlightening.  It is important to have some idea of what to look for in the case, and to acquire the knack of reading between the lines of the opinions.  In addition, the student should consider why the case is important; its political, social, and economic background; the implications of the ruling; and the probable reactions of various groups to it.

Students are strongly advised to outline or “brief” case decisions prior to class discussion.  Case briefs will be valuable in highlighting the importance of assigned cases and will provide a ready reference to them.  Obviously, no one else’s case analysis will be as valuable to you as your own.

Every brief should contain the following elements:

Identification of Case

1.         Name of case

2.         Citation (for possible later reference to complete official text)

3.         Date decided

Analysis of Case

4.         Background and facts (about three lines)      

5.         Issues (no more than two or three issues per case in one line each; include “yes” or “no” answers after each issue)

6.         Decision of the Court (one line)

7.         Majority opinion or reasons for the decision (about three to six lines)

8.         Any dissenting or concurring opinions (two or three lines each)

9.         Comment: Leave blank space for comments related to notes following the class discussion, etc.  (You may wish to place comments on the case in another set of class notes or on a separate sheet opposite your case brief.  Some prefer to use special notebook paper with an extra-wide left margin for briefing cases.  With this type of paper, commentary about the case is best placed in the margin opposite relevant key points in the brief.)

In the brief below, each of these elements is indicated by the numerals above.

(1, 2, 3) Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

(4) Background and Facts:  The Society of Sisters operates academics as an Oregon Corporation, organized in 1880.  The schools are Catholic and generate income.  The Oregon Compulsory Education Act of 1922, which goes into effect in 1926, has already caused a decrease in enrollment and income because it compels parents to send their children to public schools.  The law has had a similar impact on Hill Military Academy, a private proprietary (for profit) school incorporated in 1908.  The lower court issued a restraining order preventing appellants from enforcing the Oregon Law.

(5) Issue:  Whether a state law requiring all children to attend public school deprives those operating a non-public school of their property without due process of law under the 14th Amendment.

(6) Decision:  Yes. Lower court ruling sustained.

(7) Opinion:  Mr. J. McReynolds.  The state can, of course, “reasonably” regulate all schools.  However, this right does not extend to destroying appellees’ schools and their property interest in operating schools.  Such state action is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.  There are no “peculiar circumstances” which justify such a sweeping education attendance law.

Additionally, the law interferes with the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children.

(8) No Dissenting or Concurring Opinions

(9) Comment:  The case is decided on economic grounds (property interest of non-public school operators) and not on the freedom of choice of parents or children.  However, the court in dictum does discuss the right of the parents to exert control over the education of their children.  From this dictum comes the modern importance of this case to both parents and non-public educational institutions.

Issues of a case should always be stated as questions which can be answered by “yes” or “no.”  Unless you can do this, you do not understand the case.  Issues should be stated only to cover what was actually decided in the case.  In other words, narrowly.  But the reader should always consider whether the opinion implies a broader issue or issues.  Ponder the implications for future legal challenges.

In summarizing the opinion, outline the main points or subsidiary questions in the judge’s argument which are used to reach the answer the court gives to each issue.  Your summary may be very concise or quite detailed.  This is a matter of individual choice, and the length of the “opinion” section of your brief will also vary with the importance and complexity of the case you are briefing.  But, in general, remember that a brief should be brief.  Most of the space in a brief is taken up by the summary of reasoning contained in the opinions.   Be sure to include all of the opinions, and in your personal comments it is valuable to include a statement indicating which of the opinions you think is most valid.  (Throughout these briefs, and all writing for this course, use third person/objective language, please.  No first person/subjective (“I,” “me,” “my,” “our,” “we,” etc.)  writing will be accepted.)

REQUIRED TEXTS

The required text for the course is Choper, Fallon, Kamisar, and Shiffrin’s Constitutional Law, 10th edition, available for purchase in the University Bookstore.  Its purchase is recommended to all participants, along with the latest Supplement by the same authors entitled Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, Questions.  Members of the class are urged to prepare briefs or outlines of the assigned cases (beyond those required) and to refer to a law dictionary such as Black’s or Bouvier’s for the meaning of unfamiliar legal terms.  Students may also find it rewarding to read cases of particular interest in their fuller and more complete form in the United States Supreme Court Reports and also to read suggested references to the periodical literature and other materials whenever time permits in addition to the assigned readings.  All of these materials are available in the Gonzaga University Law Library. 

REQUIRED READINGS

Note:  Assignments of cases include the Editors’ “Notes and Questions” following each case. 

Monday, June 9:

I.  FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND DISCUSSION

·         Schenck v. United States, 588

·         Debs v. United States, 590

·         Abrams v. United States (Holmes Dissent), 594

·         Gitlow v. New York, 600

·         Whitney v. California, 603

·         Dennis v. United States, 610

·         Yates v. United States, 620

·         Scales v. United States (see Table of Cases)

·         Noto v. United States (see Table of Cases)

·         Roth v. United States & Alberts v. California (see Table of Cases)

·         Miller v. California, 674

·         FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 980

·         RAV v. Saint Paul, 811

·         44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (see Table of Cases)

Assignment 1 (100 points possible):

This assignment is due in total the first night of class, Monday, June 9, 2008 (please limit your response to 2,000 words or less).  Individuality and creativity will be assessed positively regarding all written and oral work for the class.

Please choose three cases among those listed here in the “Freedom of Expression and Discussion”  section (all found in your Constitutional Law text).  1.) Fully brief each case (including opinion and possible dissent) and then 2). Show how the outcomes of these cases furthered or hindered free expression and discussion in this country at the time the arguments were heard.  3). As a lawmaker/legislator, what would your reaction be to each decision?  (Handle them each separately.)  4).  How would you proceed to uphold or overturn the outcomes?  Be ready to present this assignment orally on the first night of class.  A written copy (double spaced) will also be expected that evening.

Tuesday, June 10:

II. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS:  POLITICS (brief your case of choice, be ready to discuss any or all)

·         Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 939

·         Chicago Police Department v. Mosley, 892

·         Near v. Minnesota, 837

·         U.S.v. O’Brien, 738  

·         Texasv. Johnson, 746

·         U.S.v. Eichman, 756

·         New York Times Co., v. Sullivan, 632

·         Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 653

·         FloridaStar v. B.J.F., 655

·         Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo, 960

·         New York Times Co., v. United States, 851

·         Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia, 878

·         ColumbiaBroadcasting System v. Democratic Nat’l Committee, 966 and 1456

·         Red Lion Broadcasting v. F.C.C.., 962

·         F.C.C. v. League of Women Voters (see Table of Cases)

·         HazelwoodSchool Districtv. Kuhlmeier, 944

·         ColoradoRepublican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (see Table of Cases)

Wednesday, June 11:

III. RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES (brief your case of choice, be ready to discuss any or all)

·         Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 1132

·         Wallace v. Jaffree, 1084

·         Everson v. Board of Education, 1064

·         Walz v. Tax Commission, 1066

·         Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1068

·         Stone v. Graham, 1093

·         Mueller v. Allen (see Table of Cases)

·         Allegheny Co. v. ACLU, 1101

·         U.S.v. Lee, 1135

·         Larson v. Valente, 1163

·         Thomas v. Review Board, 1158

·         Edwards v. Aguillard, 1094

·         Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 1137

·         Employment Division v. Smith, 1138

·         Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (see Table of Cases)

·         Lee v. Weisman, 1121

·         Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 927

Thursday, June 12:

IV.  CIVIL RIGHTS AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (brief your case of choice, be ready to discuss any or all)

·         Civil Rights Cases (see Table of Cases)

·         Korematsu v. U.S., 1201

·         Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League, 1236

·         Batson v. Kentucky, 1236

·         Washingtonv. Davis, 1222

·         Arlington Heightsv. Metropolitan Housing Development, 1233

·         Richmond v. J.A. Croson, 1286

·         Plessy v. Ferguson, 1197

·         Smith v. Allwright, 1447

·         South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 1505

·         Brown v. Board of Education, 1207 and 1215

·         Shelley v. Kraemer, 1457

·         Loving v. Virginia, 458 and 1218

·         Reitman v. Mulkey, 1466

·         Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 1470

·         Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 1498

·         Regents v. Bakke, 1262 and 1558

·         Memphisv. Greene, 1229

·         Washingtonv. Seattle School District, 1257

·         Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education, 1259

·         Plyler v. Doe, 1352 and 1440

·         Rostker v. Goldberg, 1319

·         Adarand v. Pena, 1294

·         Romer v. Evans, 1261 and 1334

·         U.S.v. Virginia, 1306

DEFENDANTS’ RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Monday, June 16:

A. Introductory and Death Penalty Cases  (brief your case of choice, be ready to discuss any or all)

  • Nature and Scope of 14th Amendment Due Process; applicability of Bill of Rights to the States, 361-376.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright (see Table of Cases)
  • Douglas v. California, 1424
  • The Death Penalty and Related Problems;
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 527-537

Tuesday, June 17:

B. Arrest, Search, and Seizure  (brief your case of choice, be ready to discuss any or all)

  • Wolf v. Colorado (see Table of Cases)
  • Mapp v. Ohio (see Table of Cases)
  • Rochin v. California, 371
  • Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 876
  • Conduct outside research of other pertinent cases to present in class

Wednesday, June 18:

C. Self Incrimination and Coerced Confessions  (brief your case of choice, be ready to discuss any or all)

  • Malloy v. Hogan (see Table of Cases)
  • Miranda v. Arizona (see Table of Cases)
  • Edwards v. Arizona (see Table of Cases)
  • Conduct outside research of other pertinent cases to present in class

Thursday, June 19 Assignment 2:  Final Oral Presentations (30 minutes each, or so)

Assignment 2 (100 points possible):

An oral presentation of 30 minutes or so will be required on the last night of class (Thursday, June 19). Please choose one seminal case (or more) from the following possibilities: Bowers v. Hardwick (489), Lawrence v. Texas (498), Robinson v. California (Weatherby collection), Powell v. Texas (Weatherby collection) that has affected leadership in the United States the most, in your estimation.  (PLEASE NOTE:  You may substitute other equally key cases with the instructor’s permission.) 1.) Detail/brief the case, the decision, and the dissent, and its precedent setting implications for future opinions. 2.) Defend your choice/the implications of the ultimate outcome. Are they widespread, or confined in their (national) reach? 3.) Finally, how would history have changed, had the majority decision gone the opposite way to its actual outcome? (An outline must be submitted at the time of this presentation. It is also suggested that an oral presentation be drafted on paper in preparation of the assignment to keep the dialogue on track, addressing each aspect of the multi-pronged question.)

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

The requirements for the course include class attendance and active, informed participation in the class discussion, completion of required briefs, and successful completion of the two major assignments (due the first and last days of class, respectively, with oral presentations to accompany each).

ASSESSMENT AND GRADING

According to the policy of the doctoral faculty, letter grades will be assigned at the completion of the course to each participant.  The grading for the course is based on 90% of the highest score attained out of the 300 points possible for an “A,” 80% for a “B,” and so forth.  Successful briefs = 10 points each for a possible total of 60 points, Assignment 1 = 100 points possible, Assignment 2 = 100 points possible, and participation (group and individual) = 40 points possible.