Political Science 354. Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights  3 hours. Civil rights, including religion, speech, assembly, press, and rights of the accused. Prerequisite(s): POLS 101 or consent of the instructor.

Instructor: Professor Kevin Lyles
Lyles@uic.edu
10:00-10:50, MWF, 120 Taft
Office: 1147 BSB, Phone: 996-3105
Fall 2024. Office hours are virtual (Zoom) by appointment and in-person by appointment
Teaching Assistant (RA/TA): 

Description: This course explores the role of the judiciary in the articulation, development, and enforcement of civil rights/civil liberties law in various issue areas including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the rights of persons accused of crime. These issues will be discussed in the overall framework of the role and participation of courts—primarily the U. S. Supreme Court—in the formulation and implementation of public policy, especially civil liberty/civil rights policies. This discussion should allow us to consider such factors as:

A. The nature, characteristics, and dynamics of the political system and the policy-making process, e.g., system features, values, structures, participants in the policy process, and the development and implementation of public policy.
B. The nature of civil liberty conflicts, including how and why such conflicts begin; the roles and participation of various actors in such conflicts; e.g., the participation of organized groups; the role of police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges.
C. The role of courts in dealing with civil liberty conflicts, especially the necessity and propriety of court action given the nature of issues submitted for judicial determination, the capacity and limitations of courts, and the judicial process in dealing with such issues.
D. The relation and interrelation of courts to other governing institutions in dealing with civil liberties; e.g., the role and participation of the Congress; the President, the executive and administrative agencies; and the role and participation of state and local governments.
E. The political and social impact of court determinations; law and social change; factors affecting compliance and non-compliance; and the consequences of court actions.

My Teaching Philosophy
Learning to teach at the highest levels of the academy is a never-ending process. It has been argued that the vast majority of professors lack basic communication skills; we are trained researchers, not trained teachers.  We often use the classroom to enact rituals of control that are rooted in domination and the unjust exercise of power (bell hooks. Teaching to Transgress, p. 5). I have spent much of my career trying to avoid this trap. I want my classroom to be an exciting place where students feel safe to express themselves, for it is only then that we can achieve higher learning. It is my goal to acknowledge everyone’s presence and I value everyone’s presence.

I am also acutely aware of the various and unique sensitivities that play out in classes that explore issues of race and gender. We are a diverse group (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, identity, etc.), and each of us has something to contribute to our community of learning. I want each of you to be engaged and active participants. To that end, the class wiki also serves as a voice for student expression and the free exchange of ideas—a safe environment sans the fear of expressing ourselves in class.

I find that many students would prefer “more lectures” and “less discussion” in my classes. I try to transgress traditional boundaries and to avoid “assembly-line” approaches to learning. I want to engage students and I take some non-traditional risks when I teach. As a research-trained academic, I am always looking for answers. We learn from each other. For example, part of my teaching style is to bring narratives of my limited personal experiences into the classroom—not only to personalize the material but to also show how our individual experiences (both yours and mine) can illuminate and enhance our understanding and deconstruction of academic material. Admittedly, I do most of the talking, but I want us to hear each other, to listen to each other, and to recognize that the work of learning and processing this material is different for each of us.

Most research concludes that there are two approaches to teaching constitutional law: (1) lectures and (2) the Socratic Method. Traditional lectures are a popular and the primary method of classroom instruction used in college today. I find that the lecture method, if done well, is an efficient system for delivering information to students. However, the lecture method of instruction has been widely criticized, “primarily on the grounds that it places students in a passive learning environment. It may also be less effective in developing analytic skills. The lecture method is weakest in helping students to develop their speaking abilities or critical thinking skills.” But, lecturing is also the easiest way for professors to teach. It requires the least amount of knowledge, effort, and risk; requires limited skill; and is extremely safe. It works very well in classes like POLS 101.

An alternative to the lecture method is the Socratic Method. This is a form of instruction that is popular—and probably predominant—in law school classes, and this method is also used in undergraduate classes, especially law courses. “Professors use the Socratic Method in a wide variety of ways, varying from posing a series of friendly questions to an intense grilling of students with difficult questions and abstract queries.” Debate exists in the political science literature over the benefits and disadvantages of the Socratic Method. “The Socratic Method forces students to think on their feet and to articulate their ideas orally. However, the Socratic Method may not be as efficient in transmitting basic knowledge as does the lecture method.” In my classes, I utilize a modified Socratic Method in a low-threat/discussion manner that does not penalize or humble students for poor responses.

However, even my low-threat Socratic Method can be frustrating if students have not read the assigned material, are not prepared for class, or do not attend class. It is frustrating (1) for me, (2) for the students who are prepared for class and want to engage, and (3) for students who are not prepared but who plan on taking detailed class notes to help them prepare for exams. To avoid this frustration, students must come to class prepared! Welcome to my class and I look forward to an exciting learning experience.

REQUIREMENTS

Required/Recommended books/readings:
1. Barker/Lyles. 

Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries, 9th edition (2011), 864 pp.

https://i-share-uic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_askewsholts_vlebooks_9781317349518&context=PC&vid=01CARLI_UIC:CARLI_UIC&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=LibraryCatalogPlus&query=any,contains,Civil%20Liberties%20and%20the%20Constitution&offset=0

This book should be in the UIC bookstore and is also available in electronic format. Limited excerpts from this book are provided on the WordPress pages below. This book is RECOMMENDED. The book is/was available for rent at Chegg for $14.99 (in 2023).

In addition to the required book above, students are also required to locate materials on:
1. Lyles WordPress
2. UIC Blackboard
3. Lexis Uni via the UIC Library

Course Format
The class will be conducted in a semi-formal seminar format utilizing the Socratic Method and team-based learning. This format lends itself to continuous active engagement and dialogue between the professor and students and among students themselves. Accordingly, students are required to attend and participate in class. For every required Supreme Court decision, every student should be prepared to summarize the competing arguments presented to the Court and to explain the Court’s rationales (reasoning, legal doctrines, use of precedent, etc.) for deciding the case. Meaningful participation, however, requires that students must come to class prepared. Should this occur the class can prove interesting, challenging, and exciting. A word of caution: it is important that students prepare for each class since the material is cumulative and the workload increases dramatically as the semester proceeds. Attendance in class and participation in discussion seminars is both mandatory and essential. I will randomly take attendance. Your attendance grade will be calculated based on the percentage of days you are present when attendance is taken. For example, if attendance is taken 10 times and you are present 8 of the 10 times, then your attendance is 80%. Lastly, students are REQUIRED to “brief” every required case and bring their written briefs to class.

COURSE OBJECTIVES
By the end of the semester, students should be able to:

• Explain many of the complex relationships between law and public policy.
• Utilize landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court as vehicles to survey and explain developments regarding the First Amendment.
• Apply the interaction of law and politics in discussing the boundaries and constraints of race, gender, violence, power, class, and political participation in defining citizenship in the United States.
• Relate the legal process and judicial policymaking to the larger American political process.

Assignments and Grading Policies
Students are required to attend class, take written examinations at the mid-term and final grading periods, and make daily wiki posts. Additionally, throughout the semester there may be several short out-of-class research assignments, required case briefs (turned in), and frequent review quizzes (both in-class and take-home). These will be discussed later. 

Computation of Course Grade

ATTENDANCE POLICIES


OPTION I  Attendance IS required.

Midterm Exam: 30%
Final Exam: 30%
ATTENDANCE: 30%
WordPress (case briefs comments): 10%
100%

OPTION II ATTENDANCE IS NOT REQUIRED.

YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND CLASS EXCEPT FOR EXAM DAYS. If you fail to attend class more than SIX times, you will be graded under OPTION II. There will be no exceptions.

Midterm Exam: 45%
Final Exam: 45%
ATTENDANCE: 0%
WordPress (case briefs comments): 10%
100%

SEMINAR SCHEDULE
Readings under the various topic areas are only suggestive of the vast and growing literature and case law available. All assigned cases must be read prior to the class session for which they are assigned. Be prepared to review and discuss all assigned cases and readings in class.

All students must utilize the UIC Blackboard System. You can enter UIC Blackboard from the UIC homepage, “learning at UIC,” then “Blackboard,” or go directly to https://uic.blackboard.com/ultra/

The tape recording of any part of my class (or the use of any other electronic recording device) is strictly prohibited. Students with disabilities who require accommodations for access and participation in this course must be registered with the Office of Disability Services (ODS). Please contact ODS at 312/413-2103 (voice) or 312/413-0123 (TTY). If you have a documented disability and wish to discuss academic accommodations (including electronic recording), please contact me immediately.

Students should be familiar with UIC’s policies regarding academic integrity. These guidelines can be found at the following URL:  https://dos.uic.edu/community-standards/academic-integrity/

From time to time you will be required to locate cases on your own online [Lexis Uni].

Not all required materials listed on the syllabus will be discussed in class; however, all required material—whether discussed in class or not—is appropriate for examinations. In other words, although we may not cover all required materials in class, it may still be on the test!

ICEBREAKER (comment before class on Monday, 8/26)

WEEK 1
Monday, August 26
Read the syllabus for PolS 354. Be sure to review all the course requirements.
Review the course requirements again, and then again.
Constitutional Law with Lyles
Extra Credit Guidelines
What is a Case Syllabus and/or Headnotes? 
Post HERE before the first day of class

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 28
Lyles, Barker, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition)
CHAPTER 1. Civil Liberties and the Constitution
A Framework for Analysis, pp. 1-2
Law and Courts in Political-Social Context, pp. 3-5 
Congress, the President, and Administrative Officials, pp. 5-8
Interest Groups and the Dynamics of Civil Liberties, pp. 8-9 
More on the Court: Inside the Marble Palace, pp. 9-13 
The Rules of the Game and American Political Values, pp. 13-16

FRIDAY AUGUST 30
Lyles, Barker, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition)
CHAPTER 2.  CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERALISM, pp. 17-19
The Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, pp. 19-23
State Constitutions, pp. 23-26 
State Judicial Selection, pp. 26-27
Conclusion, p. 27

WEEK 2
Monday, September 2, NO CLASS, National Holiday

WEEK 2 continued.  Wednesday, Sept. 4; Friday, Sept. 6; WEEK 3, Monday, Sept. 9; and Wednesday, Sept. 11.  All lecture days.

Introductory lectures for NEW students and optional reviews for previous students.
Lecture 1.  Introduction to Courts and Law. 


Lecture 2: The Federal Courts: Nature and Structure of the Legal and Political System.
Lecture 3: Courts as Policy-making Institutions.
Martin Shapiro v. Robert Dahl
Supreme Court Criticism (2023-2024)
[optional] Dahl, Robert. “Decision-making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law, vol. 6. (1957).
[optional] Casper, Jonathon D. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making,” American Political Science Review 70 (1970): pp. 50-63.
[optional] Barker, Lucius. “Third Parties in Litigation: A Systemic View of the Judicial Function,” Journal of Politics 29 (1967): pp. 41-69.
[optional] Funston, Richard. “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975): pp. 795-811.
[optional] Baum, ch. 4-6
[optional] Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Courts in the Political Process, ch. 1, pp. 1-9.
EXTRA CREDIT:  Kevin Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Court in the Political Process, chapter 3, Judicial Selection
Lyles, The Bork Confirmation Battle: A Case Study on Judicial Selection, Lyles, (1994) [optional]
[optional] Amicus Curiae (skim)
Footnote 4 Stone
Nature, Structure, and Operation of the Supreme Court
Skim: “A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court” 
[optional] The Constitution of the United States of America [pp. 807-817]
[optional] *Alexander Hamilton, et. al. The Federalist Papers, No. 78-81
[optional] “Understanding the Federal Courts
How and Why to Brief a Case
Marbury v. Madison    [everyone should write their first brief AND post something on this page before the next class]
Also, you are required to watch my Summer 2020 Blackboard lecture on Marbury v. Madison, also found HERE
Watch The Supreme Court Visitor’s Film (C-Span, narrated by A.E. Dick Howard) click here:  Supreme Court Visitor’s Film [everyone must post a comment]
Extra Credit: The Story of Marbury v. Madison, by Michael W. McConnell
Final introductory lecture and comments.  

WEEK 3. Friday, September 13 ALL STUDENTS ATTEND CLASS

Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights
Barron v. Baltimore (1833) skim (written brief not required for 354)
[optional] Hurtado v. California (1884) 
[optional] Twining v. New Jersey (1908)
[optional] Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
[optional] Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Cases Incorporating Provisions of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see 353)
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)  skim (written brief not required for 354)
Butchers’ Benevolent Association v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (The Slaughter-House Cases) 1873 (skim, written brief not required for 354)

WEEK 4 Sept. 16, 18, 20 


Freedom of Religion
The Emergence of Parochial Controversies; the Lemon Test Emerges
*“The First Amendment: The Establishment Clause.” Chapter 4 in Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard W. Levy.
Lyles, Part III, Freedom of Religion, p. 203
Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (1986). as discussed in class
The Establishment Clause: History and Context, pp. 203-206 
The Establishment Clause: Current Judicial Approaches, pp. 206-207  
Religious Schools and Public Money: Parochiaid, pp. 207-209
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Board of Education v. Allen (1968)
The Lemon Test and More Parochiaid, pp. 213-216 and Parochiaid and Higher Education, pp. 216-217
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
“The Lemon Test,” by Kermit L. Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 499-500.
Tilton v. Richardson (1971), p. 214, 217
Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist (1973)
Mueller v. Allen (1983)
[optional] Bowen v. Kendrick (1988)
Agostini v. Felton (1997)

WEEK 5 Sept 23, 25 and 27
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris et al. (2002)
[optional] Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)
Prayer and Religion in Public Schools, pp. 217-218
McColum v. Bd. of Education (1948)
[optional] Zorach v. Clauson (1952)
Engel et al. v. Vitale et al. (1962), p. 218
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963)  p. 223
Religion in Schools, The Debate Continues, pp. 228-233
[optional]  Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) [Lyles, 8th edition.

Wednesday Sept 25
OUT-OF-CLASS ASSIGNMENT
 due today
1. Reread your case brief for Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
2. Reread  “The Lemon Test,” by Kermit L. Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 499-500.
3. Each TEAM/TABLE is the SCOTUS.  Your SCOTUS (Team) will announce a “new” doctrine for class before Wednesday, Sept 21.  Your team will draft and present an alternative to the Lemon Test. Your team (your Court) is writing a judicial test/doctrine that can be applied in perpetuity to all future Establishment Clause cases. Each team must state the new test/doctrine AND provide an example that would fail their test, as well as one example that would pass their test. You must send your 3-part answer (1) the test, (2) a passing example, and (3) a failing example) to me via email, lyles@uic.edu, as 1-3-page POWERPOINT SLIDES before 10 PM TUESDAY.  Be prepared to present and defend your test in class today. 
4. Just before class on Wednesday morning, one person from your team should post your team assignment as a comment here. Only one person from each team, perhaps your chief justice if you have one.

Friday
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
[optional] Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 2.
Lee v. Weisman (1992)  p. 233
[optional]  Rosenberger v. The Rector of the University of Virginia (1995), pp. 231, 245
Curriculum, pp. 251-252 
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), p. 243  

WEEK 6 Monday, Sept. 30, October 2, and 4.

Before today, watch the short film “The Lord is not on Trial Here” that chronicles the McCollum v. Board of Education case. The film is available via UIC here: https://uic.kanopy.com/video/lord-not-trial-here-today After reading the film comment here before the start of class on Wednesday. There will be a short quiz at the start of class on Wednesday.

Good News Club v. Milford Central High School (2001)
Government-Sponsored Religious Symbols, Traditions, and Tax Exemptions, pp. 252-253 
Marsh v. Chambers (1983) [Lexis Uni]
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), p. 253 

[optional]  County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), p. 239
The Ten Commandments, Lyles, p. 259.
Van Orden v. Rick Perry (2005)
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

Tax Exemptions, p. 259
“Standing to Sue” O’Brien
“Standing to Sue” Lyles
Taxes and Churches: A Continuing Controversy
[optional]  Frothingham v. Mellon (1923)
[optional]  Flast v. Cohen (1968)
[optional]  Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York (1970) [Lyles 8th edition]


CHAPTER 7 THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
Early Free Exercise Jurisprudence, pp. 261-263, same page as the next reading 
The State, Religious Beliefs and Practices, and the Free Exercise Clause, pp. 261-263 
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002)
West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette (1943) [Lexis Uni, repeats later in semester]

WEEK 7,   October 7,  9, and 11
Sherbert v. Verner (1963), p. 263  
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), p. 268 
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida (1987)
[optional]  Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988)
[optional]  Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California (1990)
[optional]  Transcript: Smith, pp. 85-95 [MPC].
Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)
Post-Smith and R.F.R.A. pp. 281-282 
[optional]  City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) 
[optional] The Story of Al Smith: The First Amendment Meets Grandfather Peyote, by Garrett Epps, in Constitutional Law Stories, edited by Michael C. Dorf (New York: Foundation Press, 2004), pp. 477-503.  For extra credit (0-3 points) added to your first exam score, write a short essay/critique (about 3-4 typed pages) summarizing the main points in The Story of Al Smith (above). In addition to providing a complete summary of the reading, provide also your own assessment of the material covered; do you agree or disagree, why? Is this discussion relevant today, in 2015? Your extra credit essay is due by the end of the week.
[optional]  Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal [Lexis Uni]
Holt v Hobbs (2015)
Religious Liberty and Compulsory Military Service, pp. 282-283  
Welsh v. United States (1970), p. 284 
[optional] Jagannath Organization for Global Awareness, Inc. v. Howard County [Hindu temple case]
I Still Believe

WEEK 8 October 14, 16, and 18
[optional]  The Devil’s Playground (2002) Director Lucy Walker, documentary, 77 minutes. When Amish teens turn 16, they have the opportunity to venture out in the “Devil’s Playground” (the Amish’s term for the outside world) and indulge in 21st-century vices such as drinking and smoking — a period called “Rumspringa.” This documentary tracks 18-year-old Faron’s struggle to reconcile his drug addiction with his deeply ingrained desire to live his parents’ Amish life. But ultimately, committing to the church will be his decision. (Netflix summary)  For extra credit (0-2 points) added to your first exam score, rent this movie on your own and write a short essay/critique (about 3 typed pages) connecting the themes in the film to the legal issues discussed in class to date.  Your extra credit essay is due by the end of the week.
What is Religion? p. 289 
Be sure to read this! Religious Freedom, Contraception, Privacy, Abortion, and LGBT Rights
[OPTIONAL] Griswold et al. v. Connecticut 1965   [PolS 356] (to the extent discussed in class today)
[OPTIONAL] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), we will discuss Citizen’s United after the midterm. However, you should be familiar with the basic significance to better understand the Burwell case below.  I also cover Citizen’s United in PolS 359 when the topic is “Voting Rights and Election Law.”
Be sure to read this! The Demise of Roe v Wade Undermines Freedom of Religion
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 2014   Also covered in PolS 356
[OPTIONAL] Obergefell v. Hodges 2015  [see PolS 356]
University Holidays and Religious Observances
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)  Also covered in PolS 356 and in PolS 354 under Freedom of Association
They’re Coming for Birth Control (post a comment BEFORE the midterm)
Oklahoma’s State Superintendent Requires Public Schools to Teach the Bible

MATERIAL BELOW THIS LINE WILL NOT BE INCLUDED ON THE MIDTERM

---

Partial List of Speech Tests and Doctrines
PART II FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, ASSEMBLY, AND ASSOCIATION, p. 31 
CHAPTER 3 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, pp. 32-34 
Development of the Constitutional Law of Speech, pp. 34-35 
Core principles, Subversive Advocacy, and Clear and Present Danger, pp. 35-37 
Alan M. Dershowitz, “Shouting Fire”
Rationales for Free Speech
Schenck v. United States (1919), p. 37 

NEW Turning Point USA, is set up on campus in front of Student Center East today.
UIC Open Expression Policy/Freedom of Speech on Campus

Abrams v. United States (1919), p. 38 
Gitlow v. New York (1925), p. 42 
Whitney v. California (1927), p. 45 
[optional] The Story of Whitney v. California: The Power of Ideas, by Ashutosh A. Bhagwat, in Constitutional Law Stories, edited by Michael C. Dorf (New York: Foundation Press, 2004), pp. 407-431.  For extra credit (0-3 points) added to your second exam score, write a short essay/critique (about 3-4 typed pages) summarizing the main points in The Story of Whitney v. California: The Power of Ideas, by Ashutosh A. Bhagwat (above). In addition to providing a complete summary of the reading, provide also your own assessment of the material covered, do you agree or disagree, why? Is this discussion relevant today? This assignment is due today before the end of the week.
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) [Lexis Uni].
[optional]  The Story of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: The Pledge of Allegiance and the Freedom of Thought, by Vincent Blasi and Seana V. Shiffrin, in Constitutional Law Stories, edited by Michael C. Dorf (New York: Foundation Press, 2004), pp. 433-475. 
Dennis v. United States (1951), p. 49 
[optional]  Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) See PolS 358 (w/Lyles)
Public Peace and Order, pp. 61-66, same pages as immediately below
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, pp. 61-66, same pages as immediately above
Injunction, pp. 66-67  
Feiner v. New York (1951), [Lyles, pp. 32, 61, 63, 67, 72, 74] and the Feiner Cartoon

WEEK 9 Monday, October 21, 23, and 25
THE FALL 2024 MIDTERM
Your PolS 354 (Con Law: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights) midterm exam has THREE parts.

Monday, October 21
PART 1. Class does NOT meet in 120 Taft.  Students complete the 354 Midterm Exam, Part 1 during class time, 10 to 10:50  using Blackboard.  354 Exam Part 1 is worth 10 points (or 10%) of your midterm grade. Part 1 of the Midterm Exam is due by the end of the class period today at 10:50 AM. For PART 1, students will design and answer three objective questions and 1 essay question. Students provide the answers to ALL their questions.

Wednesday, October 23 
PART 2. Class does NOT meet in 120 Taft. You will complete the 354 Midterm Exam, Part 2 on Blackboard under 354 Midterm Part 2, 2024.  You will answer my essay question directly on Blackboard. You have 50 minutes to write your response, 10 to 10:50. PART 2 is worth 20 points (or 20%) of your midterm grade. The exam will close at 10:50.   Any answers submitted after 10:50 will not be accepted for any reason.

Friday, October 25
PART 3. Class meets per usual in 120 Taft Hall. YOU MUST BRING A LAPTOP.
 I highly recommend that students download LockDown Browser ahead of time via this link so that your test day runs smoothly: UIC LockDown Browser.
PART 3 of the PolS 354 midterm exam is on Blackboard under 354 Midterm Exam Part 3, 2024, and is a traditional objective style exam (multiple choice, true/false, matching, fill-in-the-blank, short answer). You have 50 minutes to complete the exam on Blackboard using your device.  PART 3 is worth 70 points (or 70%) of your midterm grade. The exam will close at 10:50. This is a CLOSED-NOTE exam.  

WEEK 10 Monday, October 28, 30, and Nov. 1
    [optional]  For extra credit (0-3 points) added to your second exam score, write a short essay/critique (about 3-4 typed pages) summarizing the main points in The Story of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, (above). In addition to providing a complete summary of the reading, also provide your own assessment of the material covered. Do you agree or disagree, and why? Is this discussion relevant today? Your extra credit essay is due (electronically) before the end of the week.
    [optional] Edwards et al. v. South Carolina (1963), p. 71-74 See PolS 358
    [optional] Adderly v. State of Florida (1966) See PolS 358
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), p. 57  
National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), p. 66 
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions, pp. 74-75
Public Forum, pp. 75-76
Permits and Licensing, pp. 76-77
Intrusion and Community Tranquility, pp. 77- 78
Private Property, pp. 78-79.
Frisby v. Schultz (1988), p. 79, take 356  

[optional]  Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 3
Overview of Current Doctrine, p. 84-86  
[Optional] Madsen v. Women’s Health Centers, p. 85, take 356  
[optional]  Hill v. Colorado (2000) p. 85, take 356 
Speechmaking, Solicitations, Demonstrations, and Related Problems
[optional]  Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980)
Ward, et. al., v. Rock Against Racism (1989) [Lexis Uni]

FIND THE SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS FOR FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4 HERE

WEEK 11 Monday, November, 4, 6, 8
Symbolic Speech, Hate Speech, and Conduct That Communicates, pp. 86-89 
[optional]  Transcript: O’Brien, pp. 249-257 [MPC]
United States v. O’Brien (1968), p. 89 
Wooley v. Maynard (1977) [Lexis Uni]
Spence v. Washington (1974) [Lexis Uni]
Smith v. Goguen (1974) [Lexis Uni]
Texas v. Johnson (1989), p. 92 
United States v. Eichman (1990), p. 88, 139  
[optional] R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Minnesota (1992), p. 98 
[optional] Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)
[optional] Virginia v. Black (2003)
Freshly Painted White Walls   
[optional]  EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: CHIEF WAHOO

FLASH EXTRA CREDIT [ELECTION DAY]

NO CLASS ON WEDNESDAY, NOV. 6, GET SOME REST AFTER WATCHING ELECTION RETURNS ALL NIGHT

Wednesday. Everyone must watch 2+ films and submit an essay answer for the final exam.

First, watch Watch the film “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech – HBO Documentary”. The film is available Vimeo, YouTube and Prime Video.

Friday
Second, Watch the film No Safe Spaces. Here is the direct link to the film:
https://proxy.cc.uic.edu/login?url=http://uic.kanopystreaming.com/node/11445737

You can also discover the title through the Kanopy database on the Library website at https://researchguides.uic.edu/az.php?a=k

After viewing both films, post a 1-2 page comparative essay analyzing the films as a comment on the assignment page. Your comparative analysis is part of your FINAL EXAM for PolS 354 and you will earn 0-10 points for the essay. Therefore, the maximum points available on the final exam will be only 90 possible points. Post your 1-2 page comparative essay analyzing the films as a comment. Your comparative analysis is part of your FINAL EXAM for PolS 354 and you will earn 0-10 points for the essay. Therefore, the maximum points available on the final exam will be 90 possible points. DO NOT post your essay until immediately before class on Monday, November 11 between 9:55 and 10:05 am. Here is the assignment page

Obscenity and Related Problems [similar to coverage in 356 with Lyles]
CHAPTER 4 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN SPECIAL CONTEXTS, pp. 108-109
Obscenity; Sexually Explicit Expression; the Offensive, Indecent, Lewd, and Profane, p. 108 
Offensive and Profane Speech, p. 108-109 
Cohen v. California (1971), p. 109 
Obscenity, pp. 111-115 

WEEK 12, Monday, Nov. 11, 13, and 15
Possession in the Home, 114
Should Pornography Be Protected by the First Amendment?
Regina v. Hicklin, 3 Queens Bench 360 (1868). as discussed in class
Roth v. United States (1957) [Lexis Uni], as discussed in class
Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), as discussed in class
Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) [Lexis Uni], as discussed in class
[optional]  Transcript: Miller, pp. 153-161 [MPC].
Miller v. California (1973), p. 115  
[optional] Regulating “Indecent” Speech, pp. 124-125
[optional] Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, et. al (1978)
Movies and Censorship, pp. 132-133 
Zoning and Secondary Effects, pp. 133-134.
Nude Dancing, pp. 134-135 
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), p. 118  
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975), as discussed in class
New York v. Ferber (1982) [Lexis Uni] as discussed in class, and Child Pornography, Lyles, 114-115
[optional] Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
United States v. Williams (2008) [Lexis Uni], as discussed in class
[optional]  Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) [Lexis Uni] see above
Regulating “Indecent” Speech, pp. 124-125 
[optional]  Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation et al. (1978), p. 125
[optional]  Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) [Lexis Uni]
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991), p. 135 
[optional]  Sable Communications v. FCC (1989), as discussed in class
[optional]  City of Erie v Pap’s Kandyland (1999) [Lexis Uni], as discussed in class
Internet pp. 143-144 
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), pp. 108, 143-144, 180 as discussed in class
United States v. Playboy (2000) [Lexis Uni], as discussed in class
Harmful or Negative Effects of Porn 
Does Pornography Violate Equal Protection, Barker v Dworkin
[optional]  Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) and 542 U.S. 656 (2004)

WEEK 13 Monday, November 18, 20, and 22
PMRC–“Freedom of Speech” by Ice-T  Extra Credit
https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

Student Rights and Free Expression pp. 156-157  
[optional]  Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 4.
[optional]  Transcript: Tinker, pp. 233-243 [MPC]. 
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), p. 157  
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) 
[optional]  Transcript: Hazelwood, pp. 101-111 [MPC]. 
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 
Morse, et al., Petitioners v. Joseph Frederick (2007), p. 162  
The Trouble Teaching Rape Law
Lyles Lecture: The intersection of Free speech and Critical Race Theory Ignore for 2024

Out-of-class team/table assignment, due Sunday, Nov. 17, by 6 PM

Commercial Speech and Corporate Speech, pp. 151-153  
Valentine v. Christensen (1942)  (required to the extent discussed in pp. 151-153)
[optional]  Beard v. Alexandria (1951)
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) (required to the extent discussed in pp. 151-153)
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976)  (required to the extent discussed in pp. 151-153)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)  (required to the extent discussed in pp. 151-153)Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of NY (1980) (required to the extent discussed in pp. 151-153)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986)   (required to the extent discussed in pp. 151-153)
Money as Speech, pp. 153-156 (also in PolS 359)
Money As Speech: An Overview (1970s – 2010) 
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) [Lexis Uni] (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) [Lexis Uni](Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)
Federal Election Commission v. NCPAC (1985) [Lexis Uni](Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)  (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)2010.
Rights of Public Employees: Free Speech Issues
[optional] Connick v. Myers (1983)

WEEK 14 November 25, 27, 29
NO CLASS MONDAY, November 25 (LYLES is in D.C.)

Wednesday, November 27, is an ASYNCHRONOUS DAY
REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IN CLASS, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27 IS AN ASYNCHRONOUS DAY.  WE WILL NOT MEET FOR CLASS AT 10 A.M. INSTEAD, YOU WILL TRAVEL TO NYU LAW SCHOOL AND ATTEND THE PANEL BELOW.
2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 [campaign finance, limitations on expenditures, reporting and disclosure]. Everyone is required to view the NYU Law School panel on the Citizens United v. FEC case. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Aqp2s27kXg]. Floyd Abrams, who argued the Citizens United case before the Supreme Court, is scheduled to appear on the panel. Everyone is required to post a comment about the PANEL (not just the case) on the page, and there will be a quiz on the panel when we get back to UIC next week.

Friday, November 29
Thanksgiving break. PolS 354 will NOT meet today. Use this day to catch up on your briefs for the final exam.

WEEK 15
Monday, December 2

Corporate speech continued
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310, continued

CHAPTER 5 FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND ASSOCIATION, pp. 169-170 
Prior Restraint, p. 170 
Near v. Minnesota (1931) 
[optional] Transcript: New York Times v. the United States, pp. 185-198 [MPC].
[optional] New York Times v. United States [The Pentagon Papers Case] (1971), p. 170 [see PolS 353] This case is covered in my PolS 353 under Executive Powers.  Can the president prevent/restrain  the publication of certain information?
U.S. Reclassifies Documents
Wikileaks
The Various Media, p. 179
Is the Press Special?, pp. 180-182
[optional] Freedom of the Press and the Judicial Process, Fair Trial v. Free Press, pp. 182-185. (optional to the extent discussed in class)[optional]
[optional] Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)  (optional to the extent discussed in class)
[optional] Freedom of the Press and the Judicial Process, Confidentiality of News Sources, pp.185-186 (optional to the extent discussed in class) 
[optional] Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) (optional to the extent discussed in class)
[optional] The Press and Damage to Reputation, pp. 186-189  
New York Times v. Sullivan 354 and 358

Wednesday, December 4

Assembly and Association [take PolS 358 with Lyles]
Most of the assembly and association cases below are crosslisted with my PolS 358.  These are important First Amendment cases, but, I will not cover them this fall in 354 due to time constraints.  I strongly encourage you to take PolS 358.  You are still responsible for Boy Scouts of America v. Dale  At a minimum, you should read page 196 in our book for a general overview. 
Freedom of Association, p. 196
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958), p. 198 —for this case, take PolS 358 (optional to the extent discussed in class)
Adderly v. Florida (1966), as discussed class, covered in PolS 358, (optional to the extent discussed in class)
Walker v. Birmingham (1967) p. 66  covered in PolS 358 (optional to the extent discussed in class)
Shuttlesworth v. Alabama (1969), covered in PolS 358 (optional to the extent discussed in class)
    [optional]  New York State Club Association v. City of New York (1988) (optional to the extent discussed in class)
Chicago v. Morales (1999)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)  featured in 356.  See WEEK 8 before the midterm exam
    [optional]  Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 5.
Jericho Bernal’s Gatekeepers Analysis [optional]

The Second Amendment [the most recent INCORPORATION cases]
    [optional] District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Assault weapons, the Intent Doctrine, and the Second Amendment
Class comments on the Second Amendment

Friday, December 6

Lyles, Final Class

WEEK 16 (finals week)
The 354 final exam is on https://apps.registrar.uic.edu/current_students/calendars/final-exams.php

---

The material below on the RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM is NO LONGER included in Lyles’ PolS 354.

PART IV THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, pp. 291-294  

CHAPTER 8 THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND OTHER FOURTH AMENDMENT CONTROVERSIES, p. 295 
Fourth Amendment Problems: The Exclusionary Rule Controversy, pp. 295-297  
Weeks v. United States (1914) 
Olmstead v. United States (1928) 
Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 
Mapp v. Ohio (1961), p. 297  
Katz v. United States (1967) 

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 

[optional]  Transcript: Terry, p. 199 [MPC]

The Most Dangerous Job in America  [optional]

EVERYONE/REQUIRED:  Listen to this 7:27 minute NPR story: “In Los Angeles, Piecing Together The Numbers on Police Shootings.”  All Things Considered. Nov 10, 2015. Go to: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/10/455502419/in-los-angeles-piecing-together-the-numbers-on-police-shootings   Listen to the story, and post a comment on this page. Click on the title of the story to get to the page. 

Today’s Quiz: List the Three Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The Fourth Amendment in Retreat? Expanding Warrantless Searches, pp. 301-311  
United States v. Jones (2011) [lexis]
United States v. Leon (1984) 
Evaluation of the Exclusionary rule,” by Michael Cooke
California v. Greenwood (1988), p. 342 (CL&C 8th edition)

[optional] Florida v. Meyers (1984) 

Florida v. Bostick (1991)

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)

[optional] Maryland v. Wilson (1997)

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), p. 311 

Kyllo v. United States (2001) 

[optional] Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

[optional] Virginia v. Moore (2008), p. 318 
[optional] District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne (2008)

Arizona v. Gant (2009), p. 323 

[optional] Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 7.

CHAPTER 9 PROTECTION AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, Lyles, pp. 336-339  
Rochin v. California (1952) 
Malloy v. Hogan (1964) 

[optional]  Powell v. Alabama (The Scottsboro Cases) (1932) (Take PolS 358)

Assistance of Counsel, Lyles, pp. 336-339 
Betts v. Brady (1942) 

[optional]  Transcript: Gideon, p. 185 [MPC]

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), p. 339  
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), as discussed in class

[optional]  Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 8.

From Coerced Confessions to Miranda Warnings, lyles, pp. 349-351  

[optional]  Transcript: Miranda, p. 213 [MPC]

Miranda v. Arizona (1966), p. 351  


Developing Miranda Jurisprudence in the Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts, pp. 357-361  

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), as discussed in class
New York v. Quarles (1984), p. 361 
Illinois v. Perkins (1990), p. 367 
Davis v. United States (1994) 

[optional] Dickerson v. United States  (2000) 
[optional] Wiggins v. Smith (2003)
[optional]  Indiana v. Edwards 

Strickland v. Washington (1984), p. 343 
Vermont v. Brillon (2009), p. 371

CHAPTER 10 OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS: TRIALS, SENTENCING, AND INCARCERATION, p. 377 

Trials, Jury Selection, and Sentencing Problems, pp. 377-381  

[optional]  Maxwell v. Dow (1900)
Norris v. Alabama (1936), take PolS 358 with me

Swain v. Alabama (1965), only to the extent discussed in class, also take PolS 358

[optional]  Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), take PolS 358 with me
[optional]  Batson v. Kentucky (1986), p. 382 
[optional]  Apodoca v. Oregon (1972), as discussed in class

Hernandez v. New York 1991 [LexisNexis], take PolS 358

[optional]  Georgia v. McCollum (1992)
[optional]  Blakely v. Washington (2004)
[optional]  Kimbrough v. United States (2007)

[optional]  Snyder v. Louisiana (2008), p. 388 

Double Jeopardy
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
[optional]  Benton v. Maryland (1969) [LexisNexis]

The Death Penalty Controversy, Lyles, pp. 395-401  

[optional]  Louisiana ex. rel. Francis v. Resweber (1947)

Furman v. Georgia (1972) 

[optional]  Transcript: Gregg, p. 229 [MPC]

Gregg v. Georgia (1976), p. 401 
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), p. 406 
Stanford v. Kentucky/Wilkins v. Missouri (1989) 

[optional]  Calderon v. Thompson (1998)

Payne v. Tennessee (1991), p. 415 

[optional]  Hill v. McDonough (2006)

[optional]  Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)

Mark Stevens, “Victim Impact Statements Considered in Sentencing: Constitutional Concerns,” Cal.Crim.L.Rev 3, 2 (2000), as discussed in class.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Ewing v. California (2003) 
Bail and Preventive Detention, pp. 422-423  

[optional]  United States v. Salerno (1987), p. 422 

Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) 

Confrontation and Cross-Examination, p. 423 
Coy v. Iowa (1988) 

Giles v. California (2008) 

Prisoners’ Rights, pp. 423-428  
Wilson v. Seiter (1991) 
Hudson v. McMillian (1992), p. 428 
Johnson v. California (2005) 

[optional]  Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 9.
[optional]  Lyles, The Gatekeepers: ch. 10.

Miller v Alabama (2012) (Lexis-Nexis)
Juvenile Rights, pp. 434-435  [4]

[optional]   In Re Gault (1967), p. 435
[optional]   Roper v. Simmons (2005) 
[optional]   Atkins v. Virginia (2002)