Moot Court #1 - Assignment

Although we will not have a lecture Thursday, I would advise each of you to read the excerpts from the Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) right-to-privacy case at the following link: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

These excerpts are only about 5 pages, but they present most of the legal issues that will be argued in moot court. I think this will help a lot in advancing your understanding of substantive due process.

Class 7 - Assignment

Tuesday, we conclude the first section of our course as we move from the vertical complexity and tensions of federalism to the horizontal complexity and tensions of the separation-of-powers doctrine.

Please read textbook pages 289-303 and 319-335. Since so far we have dealt at some length with the judicial and legislative branch, I will focus discussion on executive branch powers, including the controversial implementation of the "unitary executive theory" under former Pres. George W. Bush, which is not addressed in your textbook.

Also, I will take a few minutes to address moot court topics. Please see posts below for the tentative list of judges and basic rules of procedure. If you have questions, by all means ask me Thursday!

Moot Court - Judge/Adviser List

Moot Court #1 (October 27)

14^th Amendment - Substantive Due Process

Lawrence v. Texas (anti-sodomy case)

Bun Sokseila

Duan Xiu Li

Zhu Yan

Huang Meng Ting

Moot Court #2 (November 5)

14^th Amendment - Equal Protection

Grutter v. Bollinger (affirmative action case)

Ang Kimchou

Du Jin

Yang Yu Yan

Ge Guang Tao

Moot Court #3 (November 12)

1^st Amendment - Freedom of Speech

Morse v. Frederick (Bong Hits 4 Jesus case)

Bun Sokseila

Wang Ya

Ung Radsorin

Huang Meng Ting

Moot Court #4 (November 19)

1^st Amendment – Freedom of Press

NY Times v. Sullivan (libel case)

Sun Rui

Liu Ling

Belle Sopoirvichny

Truong Thu Ngan

Moot Court #5 (November 26)

1^st Amendment – Church/State Separation

Lynch v. Donnelly (Christmas tree case)

Duan Xiu Li

Nguyen Cam Ninh

Tran Ngoc Hoang Phuong

Tian Ming Xi

Moot Court #6 (December 8)

2^nd Amendment – Right to Bear Arms

DC v. Heller (handgun ban case)

Tran Anh Hien

Sanya Khamsone

Phan Thi Hong Hanh

Liu Ling

Moot Court - Basic Rules

MOOT COURT – BASIC RULES OF PROCEDURE

(Note: Amendments and modifications to these rules are inevitable, particularly as this is my first time using this teaching technique, but I wanted to lay out some structure for you to get started. By all means, let’s all try our best to make moot court work, rather than quibble over details!)

(1) Parties shall present oral arguments according to the following order and time constraints (however, time may be added or subtracted at Court’s discretion):

Petitioner opening statement – 10 mins

Respondent opening statement – 10 mins

Cross-party questions and debate – 15-20 mins

Recess (Break) – 5 mins

Judge questions and discussion – 15-20 mins

Petitioner closing argument – 5 mins

Respondent closing argument – 5 mins

Judge and jury deliberations – 10-15 mins

Verdict – jury followed by judges

(2) Parties shall focus arguments on questions of LAW, not FACT, and only on the law in the assigned subject area (e.g. substantive due process, First Amendment, etc.). Naturally, the significance of certain facts may be questioned and argued over, and other legal questions may get into the mix. Indeed at the appellate level, a party’s “summary of facts” can be a highly persuasive tool. But I do NOT want our moot court to get sidetracked by peripheral issues or unverifiable factual assertions/denials. Parties may raise objections to any off-topic or “out-of-bounds” material during oral argument.

(3) Parties shall provide to the Court (email at cdcole9@gmail.com) and to opposing parties a list of any authorities (cases, law review articles, etc.) that they intend to use during arguments NO LATER THAN 5pm on the day before the preceding day of argument. In other words, if argument is scheduled for a Thursday, the list of authorities must be submitted by Tuesday 5pm. If argument is scheduled for Tuesday, the list of authorities must be submitted by Sunday 5pm. Failure to comply with this deadline will result in automatic disqualification!

(4) Parties shall engage with each other during oral arguments in a spirit of forceful, vigorous, but mutually respectful advocacy. No party may speak until he/she has raised his hand and is recognized by the Court, or is otherwise responding to a question that is directed to his/her side by the Court. No party shall attempt to interrupt any question or comment being made by any member of the Court. Finally, parties shall address their arguments to the Court, not the jury.

(5) In our modified moot court format, verdicts will be rendered by both the Court (a panel of 4 senior students, who will serve as Associate Justices, and 1 professor, who will serve as Chief Justice) and the jury (composed of non-party junior students). Both the Court and jury shall reach their verdicts by majority vote, but the Court and jury shall deliberate separately. In the event of a split verdict, the deciding vote shall be cast by the Chief Justice.

Class 6 - Assignment

For Thursday, we will transition from discussion of Commerce Clause power to the Supremacy Clause and federalism.

Please read textbook pages 258-268; the Fordham Law Review article (emailed to each of you as a PDF file); and Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in the Lopez case.

Pay attention to the interplay -- which I previously mentioned in class -- between the principle of federalism and competing ideas of how to allocate power.

Class 5 - Assignment

For Tuesday, we are shifting from discussion of judicial branch power to legislative branch power under the Constitution's commerce clause. Please read textbook pages 207-234 and the majority opinion in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), available at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

In reading the case, focus your attention on the Court's version of the commerce clause history and the "test" it applies to finding an activity falls within interstate commerce.

See you next week!

Class 4 - Assignment

On Thursday, we will conclude our discussion of justiciability with review of ripeness, mootness, and political question doctrines.

Please read textbook pages 135-151 and the Supreme Court decision in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) at:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nixonvus.html

Do NOT attempt to read the decision in Bush v. Gore (2000). I've changed my mind and decided it will be easier to discuss this decision through my own presentation and lecture since, in actuality, it is an opinion where the political question doctrine was avoided.

Group Assignments (Updated)

Please look over the following group assignments, and inform me of any problems or requests for reassignment by the end of the week. Also, during Thursday's class, I will ask each group to present its "alpha-wolf," or leader, who will be my primary point of contact for group communications.

Group 1

ZANG Jiaqing

WANG Qiao (junior)

MA Fei

FANG Xiao

HOUN Vannak

PHETSAVONG Ninthasene

Group 2

DOAN Thi Thuy Trang

PHAM Tran Yen Anh

XU Jing

CHEN Xiaodong

SI Yangyang

PHAM Xuan Hoan

Group 3

NOUSOVATH Chanvatey

CHAN Sokunthea

CHAO Yan

LI Shuo

LE Viet Anh

SOY Kimsan

Group 4

ZHOU Ni

LAI Jiaying

ZHANG Xian

UK Kosal

VU Minh Tuan

RA Sophannarith

Group 5

SHI Lingting

MIAO Qing

LU Wei

DANG Van Vuong

Kyaw Win Khine

Group 6

WANG Qiao (senior)

LI Chengcheng

BUI Tien Long

ZHANG Hanhui

NARUPHAY Aroune

SIRIBULY Atsany

Class 3 - Assignment

Your reading assignment for Class 3 - Justiciability is textbook pages 97-114, 135-142.

Our principal case for Tuesday's class session is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Please read the edited (shortened) version of the opinion that is available at http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/editedCases/lujvdef.html.

PLEASE don't feel overburdened by all of the legal complexities in the opinion, such as the actual procedures of filing a lawsuit, burden of persuasion, etc. Disregard all that. I'll address the necessary elements of civil procedure myself through lecture.

Just try to determine the key facts (who are the parties? what is the dispute?) and the key elements of the "standing" test that Justice Scalia articulates. These will be the areas that I question you on. Also, read the dissenting opinion and try to identify the points of interpretive difference among the Justices.

See you next week!