Oberlin College

Department of Politics

Politics 270

Law and the Supreme Court in American Political Development

King 101

Spring Semester, 2005

                                                                                                                       

Mr. Kahn                                                                                                Ronald.kahn@oberlin.edu

Office: Rice Hall, Room 232                                                                             Phone, (O) 775-8495

Office Hours: Wednesday: 1:30-4:00                                                                           (H) 774-1670

                                                                                                                              (Dept.) 775-8487

                                                                                                                       

The Syllabus

 

Politics 270 is a course about the place of law and the Supreme Court in American Political Development (APD).  About half the time we will read cases, discuss what the Justices are saying doctrinally, and explore their place in the history of constitutional law. On these days we will be reading key constitutional law cases on such topics as presidential war powers, Bush v. Gore and the 2000 presidential election, the civil rights of labor and African-Americans, racial discrimination in marriage, citizenship rights of Native Americans, homosexual rights and same-sex marriage, and affirmative action.  We will explore that these cases with the primary objective of what they can tell us about the nature of Supreme Court decision making, and the place of law and the Supreme Court in APD. Traditionally, some scholars, usually labeled legalists, have emphasized factors internal to the Court to explain the development of constitutional law. These include institutional and legal norms, such as stare decisis (the rule that the Court follows precedent); the view that the Supreme Court is a “legal” institution that is different from a politically accountable institutions such as Congress or the Presidency; the place of specific attitudes towards public policy in the decisions of the Justices; and the impact that constitutional law and doctrine itself has on the Court.  For scholars who concentrate primarily on internal factors, the Court is viewed as a cocoon which is relatively immune from outside or external influences.

A second group of scholars, usually called behavioralists, emphasize that Supreme Court decision making, the specific constitutional law cases, and the development of constitutional law itself, can be explained primarily by factors external to the Court, rather than internal institutional norms and doctrine. Depending on the scholar, these factors may include the interest group politics surrounding a case, the impact of a specific event or time period on the Court, such as “the Depression” or the Civil War, elections and political parties (such as the term the Court follows politics), and the changing social, economic, and political institutions within  society.

We shall explore what internalist and externalist scholars have to say about the cases, the constitutional issues which arise from them, and the development of constitutional law as an ongoing process. We shall also consider a third alternative, one that that respects the importance of both internal and external factors. This view constitutes the central premise of a book of original essays which I am co-editing and which will be published by the University Press of Kansas late this year or early in 2006. The title of the book is The Supreme Court and American Political Development. These essays, which are on Eres, are key required readings. This alternative view argues that the Supreme Court mutually constructs both these internal and external factors as it decides cases, and that this construction process is bi-directional, between the Court and the wider society. In an attempt to explain Supreme Court cases and the development of constitutional law, we shall explore the implications of resting such explanations of primarily internal or external factors, as well as what can be learned by viewing Supreme Court decision making as a mutual construction process. Most importantly, in this course we are interested in not only explaining the development of individual rights and the power of political institutions, as defined in the cases, but also in exploring the place of the Supreme Court in APD, as compared with that of other institutions, such as the Presidency and Congress. We ask what makes the Supreme Court and law different from the decision making and actions of more directly politically accountable institutions. What are the implications of the nature of the Court decision making and the overall process of doctrinal change for the Supreme Court as a component of a democratic political system? 

The primary objective in this new (experimental) course is not primary to learn the rudiments of constitutional law and doctrine, but rather to explain the development of constitutional law and place of the Supreme Court in that development as part of a wider process we have called APD. Through such an inquiry we can explore why at certain points in American history there is an expansion of individual rights and at other times the expansion of rights is thwarted.  We can focus on factors both internal and external to the Court, and their mutual construction, as a way to place the Court in a wider political, social, and economic context, while asking whether law and politics are different. We can also explore the way the “interpretive community,” consisting of scholars, jurists, and the informed public (which is both backward and forward-looking, inform the development of individual rights.

Such an inquiry will help us explain why the Supreme Court defines new rights, even in conservative eras such as today with regard to homosexual rights; it also helps us explore why the Court may reject new rights in periods of political transformation, such as occurred under FDR in the 1930’s. So we are trying to understand the nature of the “conversation” that the Supreme Court has with the social, economic, political, and interpretive world outside the Court, and how what this conversation can tell us about the Supreme Court in APD and the nature of our individual rights.

The class will meet on Tuesday and Thursday, 11:00-12:15, for lecture‑discussions in King 123. Class attendance is central to the learning process in this course, as is active participation in class discussions. Finally, key to success is being prepared for each class by reading the assigned required material prior to class.

My office hours will be in Rice Hall, Room 232, on Wednesdays, 1:30-4:00, or by appointment. I can be reached at my office number, 775-8495 where you can leave a message. I also can be reached at home, 774‑1670, or by e-mail (Ronald.Kahn@oberlin.edu). I will have a sign-up sheet on my office door for office hours. Please sign up as early in the Office Hours as possible that fits your schedule.

Course Assignments

 

The first piece of written work required in the course will be a typed three-page response note/critique on a Supreme Court decision that we have studied in the first month of the course.  I will put a S+, S, S-, or U on this paper, with brief evaluative remarks. “S” stands for satisfactory. The response note/critique will not formally count in your final grade.

Grades will be based on the two essays of 8‑12 typed double-spaced pages. The first essay will count 35% of your grade; the second will count 40% of your grade. The quality and quantity of your class participation will count 35% of your grade.  Students will have a number of questions on which to write essays. The first essay, the mid-term essay, will be due Saturday, March 26, 2005, by 12:00 P.M., Noon, the Saturday prior to Spring recess. The second, or final essay, will be due at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, May 18, 2005, the time scheduled for this course’s final examination. Place the essays under my office door in Rice 232. I do not accept essays by e-mail. It is simply not possible to do so in a class of this size.

Preparation before class, class attendance, and participation are mandatory for success in this course because it is taught by the Socratic or case method, with constitutional law cases and the readings as the “cases” for discussion. Many times the difference in one’s grade depends on your class participation. This is not a course that one can take successfully as a correspondence course.

Required Readings

 

All required readings have an asterisk (*) by it on the Syllabus. I have placed on Eres additional materials, as listed on syllabus without an asterisk that you may wish to draw upon in writing the mid-term and final essays.

 

The following readings have been ordered by the Oberlin Bookstore for your purchase:

   

Thomas Keck, The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Activism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004)

 

Ken I. Kersch, Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

 

On Eres For Printing

 

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005) (All the chapters have been placed on ERes under the name of the chapter author(s).

 

It will help your learning to read the required readings in the order that I have listed them, which, at times, may be in a different order than they come in the texts. I have limited the number of books you are to purchase because you will have the expense for this course of printing the scholarly readings from ERes and Supreme Court cases from the Web. All required readings, except those required for purchase and the cases on Lexis-Nexis Academic, have been placed on ERes. I have underlined the last name of the author of each reading and the words from the title as they appear on the ERes list for each reading. Also, if you click on “instructor” at ERes, and put in “Kahn” you will see the ERes files for all the courses I have taught since ERes started; this may be needed for a reading that is cross-referenced in two courses).

 

 

 

 

Class Writing Tutors

 

We are fortunate to have class tutors for this course. Please visit with them when you are writing your papers, or at any time. They will hold group sessions during the two weeks prior to when essays are due. Tutors also will meet with students individually. I urge you to show drafts of your essays to a class tutor prior to your writing final drafts. Some students may also wish to visit a writing tutor when completing the ungraded response note/critique of a case. The Head Tutor is Sara Chatfield, who can be reached at Sara.Chatfield@oberlin.edu or at x6-2050. 

 

Sources of Full Texts of Supreme Court Cases

 

The essays will be based on the required reading material and class lectures and discussions. The cases are available on the Lexis-Nexus Academic Universe Computer‑based Legal Data Service, which can be accessed on the web by going to www.Oberlin.edu, click on Libraries, under find articles click on database cited by name, L-M. Click on Lexis-Nexus Academic, then the following: Legal Research, and “get a case.” Place the citation for the case as listed on the syllabus in the citation box. For example, place 5 U.S. 137 for Marbury v. Madison (1803), the first case we will explore together. Other web-sites on the Internet at which you can read the full Supreme Court cases and view other materials on the Supreme Court and constitutional law include the following: www.supremecourtus.gov, which is the official web site of the United States Supreme Court and www.findlaw.com. which is a particularly useful venue at which you can find all Supreme Court decisions, state and lower federal court opinions, as well as news about the Supreme Court and law. Not all web sites have 19th century cases.  http://oyez.nwu.edu is a site in which you can hear oral arguments on major Supreme Court cases.

The three volumes of the Encyclopedia of the U.S. Supreme Court (2001) are available at the Main Reference in Mudd at KF8742.A35 E53 2001. For excellent background reading on the Supreme Court decision-making process, see David O'Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics, which is on reserve.  Important reference information also may be found in Geoffrey R. Stone, Louis M. Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, and Mark V. Tushnet, Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2001): The Constitution of the United States, at lv-lxx and Biographical Notes on Selected U.S. Supreme Court Justices, at lxxi-lxxxviii, which is at the Reserve Room of the Library.  Of particular importance is “The Supreme Court Since 1789,” which is a chronological listing of justices and chief justices, along with dates of major cases, at xc-xcviii. If you want to find a where a case is referenced in the book look at Table of Cases, 1567-1579, where they are listed in alphabetical order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                           

                                              

 

 

                                               Schedule of Classes and Readings

           

Class 1 Organizational Meeting

 

I.          Does “Law” or “Politics” Explain Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

Class 2

           

*Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) (1803) (Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe)

(The Court opinion by Chief Justice Marshall is on PAGE 8-20 of the Lexis-Nexis File for this case.)

 

*Geoffrey R. Stone, Louis M. Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, and Mark V. Tushnet, Constitutional Law: Fourth Edition, (New York: Aspen Law & Business Publisher, 2001

 

The Basic Framework: Marbury v. Madison (1803), 30-35. (handout)

 

                                    Note: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 

*Ronald Kahn, “Marbury v. Madison as a Model for… Understanding Contemporary Judicial Review,” in Mark A Graber and Michael Perhac, Editors, Marbury Versus Madison: Documents and Commentary (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press):155-178.)

 

Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, “The Strategic John Marshall (and Thomas Jefferson),” in Mark A Graber and Michael Perhac, Editors, Marbury Versus Madison: Documents and Commentary (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press): 41-56.

   

II.        The Supreme Court in American Political Development

 

A.        What is American Political Development (APD)?

 

Class 3 *Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development (Cambridge, 2004)

                       

                        Chapter 1, “The Historical Construction of Politics,” 1-32.

                        Chapter 4, “Political Development: The Definition,” 120-142.

                       

*Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a New Institutionalism,” in Lawrence C. Dodd, and Calvin Jillson, The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches & Interpretations (Boulder, CO: 1994): 1-24.

 

*Hugh Helco, “Ideas, Interests, and Institutions, in Lawrence C. Dodd, and Calvin Jillson, The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches & Interpretations (Boulder, CO: 1994): 366-391.

 

Lawrence C. Dodd, “Political Learning and Political Change, Understanding Development Across Time,” in Lawrence C. Dodd and Calvin Jillson, The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches & Interpretations (Boulder, CO: 1994): 331-364.

 

                        B.  Studying the Supreme Court As An Institution Within American Political Development

Class 4

*Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)           

           

                        Chapter 1:  Introduction: The U.S. Supreme Court and American Political Development

                       

                  *Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development (Cambridge, 2004)

 

                        Chapter 5, “Political Development: The Issues,” 172-201.

 

III.       External Explanations of Supreme Court Decision-making:  The Supreme Court Follows Politics, Parties, and Elections

 

Class 5/6/7

            A.        The 2000 Presidential Election: The Supreme Court Decides Bush v. Gore (2000)

 

            The Decision

 

            *Bush v. Gore (2002) 531 U.S. 98 (Lexis-Nexis)

(Read majority opinion starts on p. 5-10, Stevens (Ginsberg and Breyer) dissent on p. 14-17, Souter (Breyer. Stevens, and Ginsberg) dissent, p. 17-20, Ginsberg (Stevens, Souter and Breyer) dissent, p. 20-23; Breyer (Stevens and Ginsberg) dissent, p. 24-29.)

 

Bush, Gore, & the Supreme Court, ed. Cass Sunstein & Richard A. Epstein (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2001)

                                   

                        *Chapter 1, Richard Epstein, “In Such Manner as the Legislature May Direct,” 13-31.

*Chapter 4, Pamela S. Karlan, “The Newest Equal Protection: Regressive Doctrine on a Changeable Court,” 77-98.

 

Explaining the Decision/ Assessing How The Supreme Court Responded

 

Howard Gillman, The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

 

“Chronology of Events,” x-xxiv.

 

*Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)

                       

                                                Chapter 3, Sanford Levinson, “The French Revolution, Bush v. Gore, and the Saga of American Political Development”

 

Cass Sunstein & Richard A. Epstein, editors, Bush, Gore, & the Supreme Court, ed. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2001)

                       

                        Chapter 2, Elizabeth Garrett, “Leaving the Decision to Congress,” 38-55.

                        Chapter 9, David A. Strauss, “Bush v. Gore: What Were They Thinking?,” 184- 204.

                        *Chapter 10, Cass R. Sunstein, “Order Without Law,” 205-222.

                        Chapter 11, John C. Yoo,  “In Defense of the Court’s Legitimacy,” 223-241.

 

Howard Gillman, The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

                       

                        *Introduction, “Courts and the Political Challenge of Election 2000,” 1-15.

                        Chapter 3, “A Shot Across the Bow: The U.S. Supreme Court Enters the Fray,” 73-96.

                        *Chapter 5, “The Dam Breaks: Five Justices Pick a President,” 123-171.

                        *Chapter 6, “The Politics Behind the Votes That Counted,” 172-206.

 

Read the Selections with the Asterisk (*) and any other three you wish to read:

 

Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary, ed. E.J. Dionne, Jr. & William Kristol (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 2001)

                       

In Dionne/Kristol, Commentary on Bush v. Gore

 

Commentary, November 7-21, 2000 (From Election to Florida Supreme Court Decision)

 

                                    E.J. Dionne, Jr., “Scrap This System,” 165-166.

                                    *David Tell and William Kristol, ”Gore’s Spoiled Ballot,” 166-171.

                                    *Akhil Reed Amar, “The Electoral College, Unfair from Day One,” 171-172.

                                    The Editors, Wall Street Journal, “A Gore Coup d’Etat?,” 173-175

                                    The Editors, The Washington Post, “A Time to Act Presidential,” 175-179.

                                    Jane Mayer, “Department of Close Calls: George W’s Cousin, 179-180.

                                    *E.J. Dionne, Jr., “Suddenly, Bush Likes the Lawyer’s,” 181-182,

                                    *David Tell for the Editors, “The Gore Coup,” 183-187.

                                    *Thomas L. Friedman, “Can Gore Ever Win/” 187-189.

                                    Richard Lowry, “Why the Restraint?, 189.

           

                        In Dionne Kristol Commentary, This Willful Court

 

                                    Commentary, November 22-December 9, 2000

 

            George F. Will, “This Willful Court,” 196-198.

            *Michael W. McConnell, “Supremely Ill-Judged,” 198-201

            *Jonathan Rauch, “Hands Off,” 201-204.

            Thomas E. Mann, “Gore Owes It to the Nation to Fight One,” 204-206

            Charles Krauthammer, “Our Imperial Judiciary,” 206-208

            William Kristol, “Crowning the Imperial Judiciary,”  209-210/

            Michael Kinsley, “Deadlines and Dishonesty,” 211-213

            Ramesh Ponnuru, “The Judicial Activist State,” 213-217

            *Ronald Dworkin, “The Phantom Poll Booth,” 217-222

            E.J. Dionne, Jr., Florida Fatigue,” 222-224

            John Yoo, “A Legislator’s Duty,” 224-227

            Peter M. Shane, “Rein in the Legislature,” 227-229

*John Mintz and Dan Keating, “Florida Ballot Spoilage Likelier for Blacks,” 229-234

            Noemie Emery, “First Principles in Florida,” 234-238

Thomas Oliphant, Gov. Bush’s Cynical End-Around the Florida Legislature,” 238-240

            Bob Herbert, “Keep Them Out!,” 240-242

            Harold Meyerson, W. Stands for Wrongful,” 242-245

            E.J. Dionne, Jr., 246-248

            Colbert I. King, “Ghosts in Florida,” 248-250  

 

Commentary December 10-13, 2000 (From oral argument before U.S. Supreme Court to Gore’s concession of election to “W” Bush.)

 

            William Kristol, “A President by Judicial Fiat,” 253-254

*Robert N. Hochman, “Our Robed Masters: What the Court Did Was a Power Grab, Pure and Simple,” 255-257

            E.J. Dionne, Jr., “Let the Voters Decide,” 257-259

*Michael Greve, “The Equal-Protection Card: The Worst Grounds May Be the Best,” 260-262

            Pamela S. Karlen, “The Court Casts Its Vote,” 262-263

Randy E. Barnett, “Left Tells Right: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose,” 264-266

Ronald Brownstein, “In Blocking Vote Count, High Court Shows Which Team It’s Rooting For,” 266-269

Nicholas Confessore, “Florida’s Silver Lining: For Gore and the Democrats, Losing Ugly Beats Losing Nicely,” 269-271

            *Jesse Jackson and John J. Sweeney, “Let the Count Continue,” 272-273

            Larry D. Kramer, “No Surprise. Its an Activist Court,” 273-275

            George F. Will, “Judicial Activism on Trial,” 275-277

                       

            Commentary December 14, 2000 On  (After Gore Concedes)

           

            Frank Cerabino, “A Place Forever Changed by Indecision 2000,” 281-284.

Richard A. Epstein, “Constitutional Crash Landing: No One Said It Would Be Pretty,” 284-287.

            *E.J. Dionne, Jr., “So Much for States’ Rights,” 287-289.

            *Michael W. McConnell, “A Muddled Ruling,” 289-292.

            Eric Foner, “Partisanship Rules,” 293-294.

            Mary McGrory, “Supreme Travesty of Justice,” 294-296.

            Linda Greenhouse, “Another Kind of Bitter Split,” 296-299.

            Anthony Lewis, “A Failure of Reason,” 299-301.

*Scott Turow, “A Brand New Game: No Turning Back from the Dart the Court Has Thrown,” 301-305.

            Lani Guinier, “A New Voting Rights Movement,” 306-307.

            David Tell, “The Bush Victory,” 308-311.

            *Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court Commits Suicide,” 311-316.

            The Editors of The New Republic, “Unsafe Harbor,” 317-318.

Nelson Lund, “An Act of Courage: Under Rehnquist’s Leadership, the Court Did the Right Thing,” 319-321.

John J. DiIulio, Jr., “Equal Protection Run Amok: Conservatives Will Come to Regret the Court’s Rationale for Bush v. Gore,” 321-323.

*Michael S. Grieve, “The Real Division in the Court: Neither the Conservative nor the Liberal Justices Were Hypocritical. The Just Have Fundamentally Different Views of Federalism,” 323-330.

            Hendrick Hertzberg, “Eppur Si Muove,” 330-332.

Stuart Taylor Jr., “Why the Florida Count Was Egregiously One-Sided,” 332-336.

            Randall Kennedy, “Contempt of Court,” 336-338.

The Chronicle of Higher Education,” “What We’ll Remember in 2050,” 339-341.

 

            Gregg Ivers and Kevin T. McGuire, Creating Constitutional Change: Classes Over Power and Liberty in the Supreme Court (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2004.

 

                        Howard Gillman, “Constitutional Law as Hardball Politics: Bush v. Gore (2000), 49-64.

Class 8

            B.        Should the Supreme Court Be Viewed as “Collaborating” With Political Parties and Other National Institutions?

 

            Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)

 

            *Chapter 5, Mark Tushnet, “The Supreme Court and the National Political Order: Collaboration and Confrontation.”

                       

                        *Chapter 6, Howard Gillman, Party Politics and Constitutional Change:

                       The Political Origins of Liberal Judicial Activism.

           

Marc C. Miller and Jeb Barnes, eds., Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2004)

 

            *Neal Devins, “Is Judicial Policymaking Countermajoritarian,” 189-202.

                       

 

IV.       Supreme Court, Congress, and Presidency: Presidential War Powers: A First Look at the (Law/Politics) “Mutual Construction” Process

 Class 9/10/11

A.        Supreme Court Decision-making--Can We Separate the Legal from the Strategic-Political?: Lincoln’s Use of War Powers in the Civil War?

 

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)         

 

                        *Chapter 2, Mark Graber, “Legal, Strategic or Legal Strategy:  Deciding to Decide During the Civil War and Reconstruction,” 1-69.  

 

            The Cases (Lexis-Nexis)

 

            *Ex Parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. 243 (1863)

            *Roosevelt v. Meyer (1863) 68 U.S. 512 (1863)

*Ex Parte McCardle 74 U.S. 505 (1869)

 

Marc C. Miller and Jeb Barnes, eds., Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2004)

 

*Chapter 10, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin, “Constitutional Interpretation From a Strategic Perspective,” 170-188.

 

Michael Kent Curtis, Free Speech, “People’s Darling Privilege,” (Durham, NC:  Duke University Press, 2004)

 

*Chapter 14, “The Struggle for Free Speech in the Civil War: Lincoln and Vallandigham,” 300-318.

*Chapter 15, “The Free Speech Tradition Confronts the War Power,” 319-356.

 

B.        War Powers, Policy, and Law:  An Interbranch Perspective 

 

            Lewis Fisher, Presidential War Power,” (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1995)

 

                        *Chapter 1, “The Constitutional Framework,” 1-12.    

            *Chapter 2, “Precedents from 1789 to 1900,” 13-44.

*Chapter 9, “Restoring Checks and Balances,” 185-206.

 

                             Plus One of the Following Chapters:

            Chapter 3, “America Steps Out: 1900-1945,” 45-70.

            Chapter 5, “Taking Stock: 1951-1964., 92-113.

            Chapter 6, “Viet Nam and the War Powers Resolution, 114-133.

            Chapter 7, “Military Initiatives from Ford to Clinton,” 134-161.

            Chapter 8, “Covert Operations,” 162-184.

 

Marc C. Miller and Jeb Barnes, eds., Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective (Georgetown, 2004)

 

Jeb Barnes and Marc C. Miller, “Putting the Pieces Together: American Lawmaking from an Interbranch Perspective,” 3-12.

 

Robert A. Kagan, “American Courts and Policy Dialogue: The Role of Adversarial Legalism,” 13-34.

 

*Jeb Barnes, “Adversarial Legalism, the Rise of Judicial Policymaking, and the Separation-of-Powers Doctrine,” 35-49.

 

*Marc C. Miller, “The View of the Courts From the Hill: A Neoinstitutional  View,” 53-71. 

 

*Nancy Kassop, “The View from the President,” 72-89.

 

*Louis Fisher, “Judicial Finality or an Ongoing Colloquy?, 153-169.

 

R. Shep Melnick, “Courts and Agencies,” 89-104.

 

Thomas F. Burke, “The Judicial Implementation of Statutes: Three Stories About Courts and the American with Disabilities Act,”  123-140.

 

John Hart Ely, War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).

 

            Gregg Ivers and Kevin T. McGuire, Creating Constitutional Change: Classes Over Power and Liberty in the Supreme Court (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2004).

 

Maeva Marcus, “Presidential Power in Times of Crisis: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), 65-78.

 

C.       Constitutional Deliberation: The Impact of Judicial Review in a Separation of Powers   Political System           

           

J. Mitchell Pickerall,   Constitutional Deliberation in Congress: The Impact of Judicial Review in a Separated System ((Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004)

 

                        *Chapter 1, “Constitutional Deliberation in a Separated System,” 11-30.

                        Chapter 2, “Judicial Review: Roadblock, Speed Bump, or Detour? ,” 31-62.

*Chapter 3, “The Shadows of Uncertain Scrutiny: Legislating in a Period of Judicial Dualism,” 63-94.

                        *Chapter 4, “The Missing Constitution: Legislating in the Darkness of Judicial Deference,” 95-132.

Chapter 5, “The Nature of Things: Anticipation and Negotiation, Interaction and Reaction,” 133-154

 

V.    The Backward and Forward Effects of History and Politics—Why Individual Rights (and Supreme Court Cases) Change Over Time:  The 14th Amendment, Race, and Citizenship

 Class 12/13                

         A.     The Slaughter-House Cases: The First Interpretation of the 14th Amendment

 

Geoffrey R. Stone, Louis M. Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, and Mark V. Tushnet, Constitutional Law: Fourth Edition, (New York: Aspen Law & Business Publisher, 2001): 431-437; 692-698; 437-440.

 

            Reconstruction and Retreat

            Note:    The Work of the Reconstruction Congress

            Note:    The Judicial Reaction

                        The Slaughter-House Cases and the reassertion of federalism restraints

           

The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)

           

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

 

            For the brave see The Slaughter-House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) on Lexis-Nexis Academic)

(Majority opinion of Justice Miller p.11-22; Dissent by Justices Field (Swayne and Bradley) 22-33; Dissent by Justice Bradley, p 33-38; Dissent by Justice Swayne, p. 38-40)

 

*Michael Kent Curtis, “Free Speech, “People’s Darling Privilege,” (Durham, NC:  Duke University Press, 2004)

 

Chapter 16, “A New Birth of Freedom? The Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment,”

 

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)       

            

*Chapter 8, Wayne D. Moore, (Re)Construction of Constitutional Authority and Meaning: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughter-House Cases, 1-57.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.           Race Discrimination By Private Citizens and the Concept of State Action:

                  The Civil Rights Cases

         Class 14

         Geoffrey R. Stone, Louis M. Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, and Mark V. Tushnet, Constitutional  Law: Fourth Edition, (New York: Aspen Law & Business Publisher, 2001): 1501- 1506.

 

State Action, Federalism, and Individual Autonomy

 

            The Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

Note: Federalism and the Substantive Content of the State Action   Doctrine

 

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development   (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)         

 

                  *Chapter 9, Pam Brandwein, The Civil Rights Cases and the Lost Doctrine of State Neglect, 1-72.

  

   C.     Parties, Politics, and Courts in the Two Reconstructions: The Supreme Court and Black Enfranchisement

Class 15

Richard M. Valelly, The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement         (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

 

*Chapter 1, “The Strange Career of African American Voting and Office-Holding,” 1-22

*Chapter 10, “Institutions and Enfranchisement,” 225-250.

           

Plus, Chapter 6, 7, or 8, and report to class

 

*Chapter 6, “The Vortex of Racial Discrimination (Disenfranchisement),” 121-148.

            *Chapter 8, “The Coalition of 1961-1965,” 173-198.

            *Chapter 9, “How the Second Reconstruction Was Stabilized,” 199-224.

           

         D.       Legal Advocacy Groups and Court Action: Interracial Marriage; Native American

                    Citizenship 

 

         Race, Gender, Family, and Interracial Marriage

   Class 16                   

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)  

                                   

                        *Chapter 10, Julie Novkov,  Pace v. Alabama: Interracial Love, the Marriage Contract, and Post-bellum Foundations of the Family, 1-51.

 

                       

                         On Lexis-Nexis Academic

 

                        *Pace v. Alabama 106 U.S. 583 (1873)

                        *McLaughlin v. Florida 379 U.S. 1 (1964)

                        *Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

 

         Native-American Citizenship

Class 17

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development   (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)          

 

                        *Chapter 11, Carol Nackenoff, “Constitutionalizing Terms of Inclusion:

                        Friends of the Indian and Citizenship for Native Americans, 1880s-1930s.”

 

                        On Lexis-Nexis Academic

 

                        *Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883) 109 U.S. 556

                        *Matter of Heff (1905) 197 U.S. 488

                        *United States v. Nice (1916) 241 U.S., 591 (1916) (Heff overturned)

 

VI.      The Narrative of Constitutional Development—Questioning the Development of Individual       Rights as a March Toward Progress: Labor Rights and Civil Rights

Class 18/19

Ken I. Kersch, Constructing Civil Liberties:  Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

 

            *Chapter 1, “Introduction, “1-26.

            *Chapter 5, “Conclusion,” 338-361.

 

            *Chapter 3, “Reconstituting Individual Rights: From Labor Rights to Civil Rights,” 134-234.

OR

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)         

                    

Ken Kersch, Chapter 7, “The New Deal Triumph as the End of History?  The Judicial Negotiation of Labor Rights and Civil Rights.”

       

William E. Forbath, Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991)

 

         *Introduction: Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, 1-9.

         *Chapter 1, “Broad Contexts,” 10-36.

         Chapter 3, “Government by Injunction,” 59-97.

         Chapter 5, “The Language of the Law and the Remaking of Labor’s Rights

         Consciousness,” 128-166.

         *“Conclusion: Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement,” 166-173.

 

            George Lovell, Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

 

                        *Chapter 1, “Rethinking Judicial Policy making in a Separation of Powers System,” 1-41.

                        Chapter 2, “False Victories: Labor, Congress, and the Courts, 1898-1935,” 42-67.

            Chapter 5, “The Norris-LaGuardia Act, for Once: Learning What to Learn from the Past,” 161-216.

                        *Chapter 7, “Conclusion,” 252-265.

 

VII.     The Supreme Court in a Conservative Age: From the Warren to the Burger and Rehnquist Court Eras

Class 20

A.                 The Supreme Court, Doctrinal Change, and the Interpretive Community

 

Ronald Kahn, The Supreme Court and Constitutional Theory, 1953-1993    (Lawrence: The University Press of Kansas, 1994)

 

            Chapter 2, “Equal Protection on the Warren Court,” 30-66.

Chapter 3, “Misperceiving the Warren Court: The limits of Instrumentalism,” 67- 104.

            Chapter 6, “The Burger Court and Constitutional Theory,”

 

B.        Explaining the Expanding Right to Privacy, Sexual Intimacy, and Marriage on the Mature/Conservative Rehnquist Court

 Class 21

*Stone, Privacy and Gay Rights Package on Eres

                       

            Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

            Roe v. Wade (1973)

            Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

           Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey (1992)

            Romer v. Evans (1996)

            Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

 

            Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political           Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)         

 Class 22

*Ronald Kahn, Chapter 4, “Social Constructions, Court Reversals, and Path Dependence: Lochner, Plessy, Bowers, But Not Roe.

           

*Ronald Kahn, “Why Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Was Not Expected: A Critique of Pragmatic Legalist and Behavioral Explanations of Supreme Court Decision-making,”

In H.N. Hirsch, ed., The Future of Gay Rights in America (New York: Routledge, 2005).

Neal Devins and Davison M. Douglas, A Year at the Supreme Court (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004)

 

Chapter 1, Dahlia Lithwick, “A High Court of One: The Role of the “Swing Voter” in the 2002 Term,” 11-33.

Chapter 2, David G. Savage,  “Anthoney M. Kennedy and the Road Not Taken,” 33-54.

Chapter 3, David J. Garrow, “A Revolutionary Year: Judicial Assertiveness and Gay Rights,” 55-70.

Chapter 4, Jeffrey Rosen, “The Next Culture Wars,” 71-86.

 

             C.       Explaining Conservative Judicial Activism:  Affirmative Action Plus…

Class 23/24/25

            Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political           Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)         

 

*Tom Keck, Chapter 12,  “From Bakke to Grutter: The Rise of Rights-Based Conservatism               

 

Thomas M. Keck, The Most Activist Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2004)

 

                        *All:  “Introduction: the Supreme Court and Modern Judicial Conservatism, 1-17.

                       

                        Group 1:  1937-1969.

           

Part I: The Roots of Modern Judicial Conservatism, 1937-1969

Chapter 1, “The New Deal Revolution and the Reconstruction of Constitutional Law, 1937-1949, 17-37.

Chapter 2, “Frankfurter’s Failure: The Rise and Decline of Judicial Self-Restraint, 1949-1962, 38-66.

Chapter 3, “The Warren Court and Its Critics, 1962-1969, 67-103.

 

Group 2:  1969-1994

 

Part II. The Court and the Conservative Turn in American Politics, 1969-1994

Chapter 4, “The Nixon Court and the Conservative Turn, 1969-1980, 107-155.

Chapter 5, “The Reagan Court and the Conservative Ascendance, 1980-1994, 156-196.

 

*All:  1994-2003

 

Part III. The Rehnquist Court and the Splintering of Judicial Conservatism, 1994-2003.

 

Chapter 6, “Activism and Restraint on the Rehnquist Court,” 199-253.

Chapter 7, “Law and Politics on the Rehnquist Court,” 254-296.

“Conclusion: Modern Conservatism and Judicial Power,” 284-296.

                        Affirmative Action Cases on Eres

 

                                    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

                                    Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

 

Neal Devins and Davison M. Douglas, A Year at the Supreme Court (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004)

 

*Chapter 5, Stuart Taylor, Jr., “The Affirmative Action Decisions,” 87-112

Chapter 6, Carter G. Phillips,” Was Affirmative Action Saved by Its Friends?,” 131-150.

 

                                                Gregg Ivers and Kevin T. McGuire, Creating Constitutional Change: Classes Over Power and Liberty in the Supreme Court (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2004).

 

            Barbara A. Perry, “Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 312-325.

 

VIII.    Explaining the Role of the Supreme Court in American Political Development

Class 26

Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005)

 

Ronald Kahn and Ken Kersch, Chapter 13, “Conclusion.”