Case Briefs
Hypothetical Cases

Arcs of Jurisprudence

Case Briefs GVPT432

Check list against syllabus
  1. 1st Amendment, Establishment Clause Arc of 1st Amendment Establishment Clause Jurisprudence
  3. 1st Amendment, Establishment of Religion, Religious Display Alone: American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019) written 2023-03-08 (Need concurrances and dissent) "abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot." regarding “longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices”.
  4. 1st Amendment, Establishment of Religion, Religious Display Among Others: Van Orden v. Perry (2005) written 2023-03-02 (Need some concurrances and Stevens dissent)
  5. 1st Amendment, Establishment of Religion, Religious Display Beside Others: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) written 2023-02-27 (Need concurrances and dissents)
  6. 1st Amendment, Establishment of Religion, Lemon Test: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) written 2023-02-27 (Need concurrances) Overruled by Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.
  7. 1st Amendment, Establishment of Religion: Engel v. Vitale (1962) written 2023-02-xx (Need everything)
  8. 1st Amendment, Free Exercise Clause: Arc of 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause
  9. 1st Amendment, Free Exercise Closely Held Corporations are Individuals per RFRA : Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) written 2023-02-xx (Need summaries and dicta of Alito, Ginsburg
  10. 1st Amendment, Free Exercise" Specific Religious Practice Discrimination: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) Animus invalidates statute. written 2023-02-24 (Need Souter concurrance)
  11. 1st Amendment, Free Exercise, Employment:
  12. 1st Amendment, Free Exercise, Employment: Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) written 2023-02-26 "obligation to comply with a law that incidentally" [impacts a First Amendment right] compare Masterpiece Cakeshop
  13. 1st Amendment, Free Exercise, Compulsory Education: Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) written 2023-02-23 (Begun. Douglas dissent done. All else needs work. )
  14. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech: Arc of 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause
  15. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Fighting Words: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) written 2023-02-07
  16. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Forum, Time, Place, Manner:
  17. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Time, Place, Manner: Hill v. Colorado (2000) written 2023-02-05
  18. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Time, Place, Manner: United States v. Kokinda (1990) written 2023-02-06
  19. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Time, Place, Manner: Heffron v. Krisha Consciousness (1981) written 2023-02-05
  20. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Students: Arc of 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause
  21. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Students, Limits on Restrictions: Mahanoy Area School District v B.L. (2021) written 2023-02-12
  22. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Students, Illegal Drugs: Morse v. Frederick (2007) written 2023-02-09 (Need: Breyer, and Thomas responds to Tinker)
  23. 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Students, Substantial Disruption: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) written 2023-02-07
  24. 4th Amendment Arc of 4th Amendment Jurisprudence
  25. 4th Amendment, GPS Tracker: United States v. Jones (2012) written 2023-03-12 (Need concurrances)
  26. 4th Amendment, Infra-red Camera: Kyllo v. United States (2001) written 2023-0x-yy (Need everything)
  27. 4th Amendment, Aerial Observation: California v. Ciraolo (1986) written 2023-03-12
  28. 4th Amendment, Katz Test: Katz v. United States (1967) written 2023-03-12 (Need concurrances and dissent)
  29. 5th Amendment, Double Jeopardy: Palko v. Connecticut (1937) written 2023-0x-yy
  30. Due Process and Criminal Justice Miranda v. Arizona (1966) written 2023-0x-yy (Need everything)
  31. Equal Protection
  32. Equal Protection, Gender: Steve Vladeck Two Theories of Equal Protection
  33. Equal Protection, Gender: United States v. Virginia (1996) written 2023-04-30 (Need bulk of Scalia's dissent)
  34. Equal Protection, Gender: Craig v. Boren () written 2023-04-25 (Need concurrances)
  35. Equal Protection, Race:
  36. Equal Protection, Race, Education: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II) (2016) written 2023-04-19 (Need rest of Kennedy, Alito)
  37. Equal Protection, Race, Education: Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978) written 2023-04-19 (Need rest of Powell and all others) Diversity confirmed
  38. Equal Protection, Race, Education: Brown v. Bd. of Education (1954) written 2023-05-14
  39. Equal Protection, Race: Plessy v. Ferguson Excerpts on ELMS written 2023-0x-yy (Need everything)
  40. Equal Protection, Public Education:
  41. Reproductive Rights: Arc of Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence
  42. Reproductive Rights: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) written 2023-04-09 (Need rest of Alito and Dissent) changes from draft to opinion.
  43. Reproductive Rights: Texas SB8 (2021)
  44. Reproductive Rights: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) written 2023-04-09 (Blackmun and Scalia)
  45. Reproductive Rights: Roe v. Wade written 2023-04-02 (Need Burger concurrance)
  46. Reproductive Rights: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) written 2023-04-02 (Need Stewart dissent)
  47. Sex and Marriage:
  48. Sex and Marriage, Gay Marriage: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) written 2023-04-17 (Full opinion, dissents.)
  49. Sex and Marriage, Sodomy: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) written 2023-04-10 (Need everything)
  50. Sex and Marriage, Sodomy: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) written 2023-04-10
  51. Substantive Due Process
  52. (Non-)Incorporation, Right of Contract: Lochner v. New York (1906) written 2023-02-02
  53. Deprivation of Rights (42 U.S. Code § 1983
  54. Deprivation of Rights: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski (2023)
  55. Deprivation of Rights: Maine v. Thiboutot (1980)
  56. Deprivation of Rights: Edelman v. Jordan (1974)
  57. Deprivation of Rights: ()

GVPT432 Hypothetical Cases

  1. Affirm || Reverse || CCLU and No Justice No Peace v. C-BART (HTML, PDF, Word). Questions. Proposed Resolution. Sample Judicial Opinion: (HTML, PDF, Word) Time, Place, and Forum
  2. Affirm || Reverse || Ted Laggard v. Pleasantville Township School District (HTML, PDF, Word), Social Media Guidelines (HTML, PDF, Word) Proposed Resolution. Student Speech
  3. Affirm || Reverse || Lochenloade v. State of Columbiana (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. 2nd Amendment
  4. Affirm || Reverse || Antonia Pagani v. State of Columbiana (HTML, PDF, Word), Case for the Plaintiff Case for the Defendant. State RFRA
  5. Affirm || Reverse || Columbiana Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) v. State of Columbiana (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. Establishment Clause -- New Monument
  6. Affirm || Reverse || Bruno Rostain v. State of Columbiana (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. Search by Technological Means
  7. Affirm || Reverse || John Roe v. State of Columbiana (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. Reproductive Rights
  8. Affirm || Reverse || Ellen Lawrence, et. al. v. County of Columbiana (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. Plural Marriage
  9. Affirm || Reverse || Hispanics Educators for Rewarding Opportunities and Parents of Minor Guerrero v. Board of Admissions of Columbiana University Prep School (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. Equal Protection, Admissions
  10. Affirm || Reverse || State of Columbiana v. Parents Against School Separation (PASS) (HTML, PDF, Word), Proposed Resolution. Equal Protection, Segregation
Hypothetical submitted in place of final exam. Most of the hypothetical cases presented this semester focus on individual rights. Those that do not focus on individual rights are: CCLU v. C-BART, CCLU v. Columbiana, and HERO v. CUPS. One case stands apart from the rest, Lochenloade. Lochenloade focuses on the penalty for commission of a felony and the duration of time that penalty can be imposed. Nine of fifty states prohibit felons from voting permanently. By comparision, a ten-year suspension of firearm ownership is a much less severe penalty. The constitutional question in Lochenloade is not one of individual rights, but one, if there is one, of the Eighth Amendment.

The other cases, not focused on individual rights, are focused on private communications networks, [dis]establishment of religion, and admissions policies. The equal protection issue in HERO v. CUPS depends upon whether the wait list of students is a queue or a pool. If a queue, then first-in first-out, is the proper model and the equal protection issue resolves in favor of the student. If a pool, then each student on the wait list has an equal "claim" to any openings that may arise, and the school prevails. The plaintiff (HERO) was not able to establish the nature of the wait list: queue or pool.

In the case of Ellen Lawrence (plural marriage), the inability to express a substantial limiting principle combined with the absence of plural marriage from the nation's history and traditions weigh against the petitioner.

All other cases (Laggard, Pagani, Rostain, Roe, and PASS) are cases of an individual right and an asserted governmental interest. In each case the individual right prevails. Among these cases, the most compelling governmental interest is that of John Roe v. State of Columbiana. Survival is an ultimate interest of both individuals and collections of individuals, the People of the State of Columbiana. Self-evidently, a state without a people does not survive. Columbian seeks to use this compelling, collective interest to abrogate a right of all citizens. While the statute under review applies to a minority of the population, males aged 13 to 63, the underlying principle and logic compel the expansion of the statute to include tubal ligation for females from ages 13 to 63, all fertile females within the state. The question then becomes one of may the state act to ensure it's survival by abrogating the rights of the majority of its citizens. The closest analogue is the Selective Service Act which abrogates the liberties of a portion of the population. A key difference in the instance case, is that the statute under review abrogates the liberties of all.

The unifying theme of the six affirmation and four reversals decided upon by this court, it to protect the rights of the individual against the actions of the state.