INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW:
Part I: You must answer ONE in this Part.
1. Compare the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (an excerpt appears at pp. 7-9 in the textbook) with Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (at pp.10-11 in the textbook). Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinions in the Condon case and in the Lopez case five years earlier. The cases reach different conclusions about the power of Congress to pass laws under the Commerce Clause. Why? What is the difference between these two cases?
2. In Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (excerpted at pp.12-15), Justice Souter wrote the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court. The state of Massachusetts had a law restricting the authority of state agencies to purchase goods or services from companies doing business with the country of Burma (also called Myanmar). The state of Massachusetts had argued that nothing in the federal Constitution denies to the States the right to apply whatever moral standard they want to the state government’s own spending decisions. The state also argued that state spending decisions often might offend foreign countries, but state sovereignty should be respected and state choices should not be presumed to be disallowed, unless there was a express and valid preemption of state law by a law passed by Congress. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts “Burma Law” was preempted by implication under the Supremacy Clause of the National Constitution because it threatened to frustrate federal statutory objectives. What does Justice Souter’s opinion mean for the question of constitutional constraints on state and local laws that impacts foreign policy?
Part II: Choose TWO questions from below.
3. Review the case of J. E. B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (excerpt at pp.41-42), which discusses what is required for jury selection procedures that are fair and nondiscriminatory. If a jury does not contain people with a financial, family, or other previous relationship to a party, why is that not enough to ensure that each party will receive a “fair” trial?
4. Due process has been held to include “substantive due process,” namely the rights of “life, liberty, and property.” Due process therefore means that people have the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion. Substantive due process has evolved to mean individuals possess various rights against government action, and the courts—and the Supreme Court in particular—have assumed the responsibility of deciding which kinds of fundamental rights and liberties are entitled to due process protection and what kind of process is due. Fundamental rights are those that are included in the Bill of Rights, and others that are considered to be “essential to a system of ordered liberty” or which are “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.” These include such well-known rights as speech, press and religion, as well as more controversial ones such as the right of privacy, which includes the right to abortion and privacy in intimate personal relationships. When the Court believes a fundamental right is at stake, the government’s action in depriving someone of it is judged with what is called “strict scrutiny,” so the government’s action will only be upheld if it is found to be necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Look at the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (textbook, p. 98), and discuss how the Court decided that the Texas law against “sodomy” violated the due process rights of consenting adults.
5. Courts are still struggling with the limits of personal jurisdiction in the Internet age. Review the cases of Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) and Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) (pp.145-147 in the textbook). Assume you are counseling a non-American corporate client, and they to develop a website with promotional information and product reviews, but they want to avoid being sued in the United States. What would you tell them?
6. Using the legal research skills Prof. Lang has taught you, find the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), and compare it to the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (excerpted in the textbook at pp.120-122). In both cases the Supreme Court held that a neutral law of general effect which burdens a religious practice, it must only be supported by a rational basis, but that a law which is not neutral must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” In Smith, the Oregon state law was upheld, and in the Lukumi Babalu Aye case, the city ordinance was struck down. Explain the differences in the holdings in the cases.