C ONTEMPORARY S UPREME C OURT C ASES First Class: Administration & Introduction Spring 2016 MC375 Tonja Jacobi LM northwestern.edu

T ODAY ’ S A GENDA 1.Focus of the class 2.Assessment & responsibilities 3.Choosing cases 4.Assigning classes 5.Introduction to the literature

F OCUS & A SSESSMENT Focus: 1.Supreme Court agenda 2.Judicial politics & behavior 3.Advocacy Assessment: a)Paper on #1 or #2 or #3 – or by agreement b)Class participation c)Class organization & presentation Responsibilities for (c): 8 minute talk: no summaries links to both oral arguments, deal with any problems interesting short articles/blogs/podcasts * Useful websites: oyez.org, Scotusblog.com, Supremecourt.gov, newrepublic.com, fed-soc.org, volokh.com Cases: list = default…

P ROPOSED S CHEDULE January 11 — administration and introduction January 18 — no class, Martin Luther King Jr. Day January 25 — constitutional law and race Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Foster v. Chatman February 1 — elections Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Evenwel v. Abbott February 8 — criminal law and procedure Montgomery v. Louisiana Ocasio v. U.S. February 15 — separation of powers Bank Markazi v. Peterson Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle February 22 — labor law and First Amendment Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association Heffernan v. City of Paterson February 29 — constitutional criminal procedure: prosecution Luis v. U.S. Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle March 7 — no class, TJ in NY — to be made up on March 10… March 10, Thursday, 12PM – 1:20PM (Note there will be no break), in MC375 — statutory interpretation, IP & state power Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Taylor v. U.S. March 14 — death penalty: 3 possibilities Hurst v. Florida Kansas v. Carr Williams v. Pennsylvania March 21 — no class, spring break March 28 — constitutional rights Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole Wittman v. Personhuballah April 4 — constitutional criminal procedure: investigation Utah v. Strieff Birchfield v. North Dakota April 11— ACA & freedom of religion — 3 possibilities: Zubik v. Burwell Priests for Life v. Burwell Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell April 18 — state water rights (a.k.a. the cause of future wars) Florida v. Georgia Mississippi v. Tennessee

EQUALITY United States v. Windsor 5-4 The court struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples. Shelby County v. Holder 5-4 The court effectively struck down part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Subjecting states with a history of discrimination to federal oversight. Fisher v. Texas 7-1 The court let stand a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas but told a lower court to reconsider its constitutionality. PRIVACY Clapper v. Amnesty International 5-4 The court ruled that human rights groups, reporters and lawyers had no standing to challenge a government surveillance program. Maryland v. King 5-4 The court ruled that the police may collect DNA samples from arrestees. BUSINESS Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 9-0 The court limited lawsuits against corporations for human rights abuses abroad. American Express v. Italian Colors 5-3 The court ruled that companies can avoid class actions through arbitration agreements. PATENTS Bowman v. Monsanto 9-0 The court ruled that a farmer violated patent laws by saving seeds from genetically modified soybeans. Association for Molecular Pathology 9-0 v. Myriad Genetics The court ruled that isolated human genes may not be patented.

J UDICIAL V OTING B EHAVIOR The first Roberts Court in one dimension The second Roberts Court in one dimension *See: Supreme Court database: scdb.wustl.edu/ Martin & Quinn: Bailey & Chang: faculty/baileyma/ajps_offprint_bailey.pdfhttp://www9.georgetown.edu/ Judicial common space scores: 23 JLEO 303 (2007)

J UDICIAL DRIFT ?

F ISCHMAN & J ACOBI : 2D The first Roberts Court in two dimensions The second Roberts Court in two dimensions

R OBERTS C OURT ALTOGETHER

“L EGALISM ” AND “P RAGMATISM ” LegalismPragmatism Categorical application of rulesBalancing multiple interests Interpret rules broadly, few exceptionsParticularistic approach, more exceptions More concern about conformity with legal sources (statutory text and/or purpose) More concern about policy consequences Maximalism – create new doctrine in the form of broad rules Minimalism – narrow holdings, limited to facts of case

T HE C ASES

O THER I SSUES -Case choice -Selection bias -“Boring cases” -Avoidance -Judicial “self-restraint” -The role of advocacy -Other dimensions: -Judicial methodology -Federalism -Minimalism -Idiosyncracratic preferences