The use of AI writing tools (including, but not limited to, ChatGPT, Bard, Sudowrite, etc.) are NOT permitted in my courses (356 and 358). Students who use these tools for class assignments (extra credit assignments, exam answers, WordPress comments, etc.) undermine the goals and learning objectives for my courses, reducing the effectiveness of my instruction. I will continue to submit your work to an AI writing detector (e.g., GPTZero) throughout the term. Any confirmed use of AI writing tools will be treated as cheating. Consult page 11 of UIC’s Student Disciplinary Policy, which provides information on Academic Integrity that I will apply to your usage of AI tools. Consider this the only warning I will announce.
11:00 – 12:15, T, TH
Student Drop-In Hours:by appointment only
Office: 1147 BSB
Lyles@UIC.EDU
TA: Sebastian Tobon Palma <stobon2@uic.edu>
Course Information and Catalog Description: Political Science 358 Constitutional Law: African-American Legal History. 3 hours. Multidisciplinary survey of the African-American constitutional experience from the 1600s to the present, focusing on landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Same as BLST 358.
BRIEF COURSE DESCRIPTION
Nineteenth century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote, “the degree of civilization in a society can be observed by entering its prisons.” So too, is the relationship between the African-American political-legal experience, and the realities of freedom, equality, civil liberties, and democracy in the United States. A critical analysis of the African-American political-legal experience provides a straight line of inquiry, a unique frame of reference, and a revealing lens through which to examine the interaction of law and politics. In short, this unique African-American legal experience has shaped, and continues to shape, the “degree of civilization” in the United States. At the same time, as others have stated previously, “no issue has dominated American constitutional law as much the question of race.”
“To put it in historical context, the first slaves were brought to his country in 1619, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were 1964 and 1965. And so there have only been 50 years in which black people have even had a semblance of legal and legislative freedom in this country. And for seven times longer than that — for 350 years prior — it was fundamentally legal to discriminate against, to dehumanize and to delegitimize the rights of black people in this country. And I don’t think we put it in that arc of time often enough.” (Clint Smith, 11/28/2016)
The African-American political-legal experience tells us who we are as a nation, and illuminates the limits and capacities of our political institutions and processes; this is especially true of the policy-making role and function of the United States Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, this course has two principal goals. On the one hand, the African-American experience vividly demonstrates the inextricable interactions of law and politics in the United States’ governing system. At the same time, this experience also reveals and explores the continuing quest of African-Americans to define and achieve full citizenship in the United States. In fact, appreciation and analysis of this quest is requisite to understanding American “citizenship” generally in the United States.
The intersection and interdependence of these goals cannot be understated. A cogent analysis of the African-American quest for citizenship, freedom, and equality under the law is required for all of us to understand who we are as a country. In a legally oriented nation, our ethnicity, our gender, our status with regard to wealth and education, acknowledgement of our disabilities, our sexual orientation, etc., is conditioned and defined in part by the African-American experience. Full participation for all in American politics and society has been, and continues to be, defined in large measure by the successes and failures of the African-American experience.
This class provides a survey analysis of African-American political-legal history through the lens of significant legal doctrines and court decisions, starting in the late 1600s to the present day. History shows these are pivotal decisions that have forged new tests and doctrines that reflect or portend major shifts and changes in law as it relates to the African-American quest for freedom, equality, and full citizenship. Significant decisions are defined as not only those cases that suggest new doctrines, major shifts, or new directions in the law; but, additionally these are cases that contribute to a deeper understanding of the enduring hardship of the African-American quest for freedom and equality in both a historic and systemic perspective. The richness and broad range of cases includes, for example, landmark decisions involving slavery, Jim Crow segregation, access to housing and public accommodations, interracial marriage and miscegenation, school segregation, voting rights, assembly and speech, interstate and intrastate travel, protest politics, the death penalty and other rights of persons accused of crimes, affirmative action, etc.
The central thrust of such cases, however, cannot be fully grasped unless viewed in broader political-social context, and that is one of the major objectives of this class. A political-social context influences, and is in turn influenced by, actions and policies that emanate from a myriad of interests, including elective political institutions (e.g., the president, Congress, governors, mayors, etc.), and from non-elective entities, including administrative agencies, federal and state courts, public opinion, and interest groups.
Though many leading constitutional law casebooks (e.g., Barker and Lyles, Civil Liberties and the Constitution, 9th edition) utilize a categorical or doctrinal approach, this class (PolS 358) is organized chronologically. A chronological approach enhances the use of political-social context analysis and allows the student to see more clearly the patterns and rate of change, the enduring permanence, the ironies, the dualities, the contradictions and continuities in the laws that have shaped—and have been shaped by—the African-American enduring quest for freedom and equality over several centuries. Finally, the fallacy of “white supremacy” is endemic to law, and therefore, to legal education.
COURSE FORMAT
The class will be conducted in a 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 students 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 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 in African American History, 1600-present day.
- 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 policy-making to the larger American political process and the Black experience in the United States.
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 and 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 you to be engaged and active participants. To that end, the 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 there are two approaches to teaching constitutional law: (1) lectures and (2) the Socratic Method. Traditional lectures are a popular and 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, risk; requires limited skill; and is extremely safe. It works well for me when I teach introductory 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 and seminars, I try to 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.
Additional Course Rules
All students must utilize the UIC Blackboard Learning system and WordPress (Lyles)
Students should be familiar with UIC’s policies regarding academic integrity. These guidelines can be found at the following URL: www.uic.edu/depts/sja/integrit.htm
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, please contact me immediately.
A. Readings/Case Law.
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.
Required Materials:
1. Kevin Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
2. UIC Blackboard: (https://Blackboard.uic.edu/) (required)
3. Film: “Amistad” 1997 directed by Steven Spielberg
4. Film: “12 Years a Slave,” 2013, directed by Steve McQueen
5. Nexis Uni (required). From time to time you will be required to locate cases on your own online, available online via the UIC library
6. WordPress. https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/
Optional Texts: DO NOT BUY THE OPTIONAL TEXTS
1. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement
2. Barker/Lyles. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition).
3. Baum. The Supreme Court, any edition, preferably 7th-10th
Book Review Essay Options (select one):
Keeanga-Yamahtta. Race for Profit
Paul Finkelman. Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court.
Erica Armstrong Dunbar’s Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow
Paul Butler. Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice
Peter Irons. Jim Crow’s Children
Fiscus. The Constitutional Logic of Affirmative Action
Kozol. Savage Inequalities
James W. Loewen: Sundown Towns
Lyles. The Gatekeepers
Jack Peltason. Fifty-Eight Lonely Men
Harriet Jacobs. The Life of a Slave Girl
Sowande’ M. Mustakeem. Slavery at SeaStephanie E. Jones-Rogers. They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South
Manisha Sinha. The Slave’s CauseJohn Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation
Dailey, Gilmore and Simon, editors. Jumpin’ Jim Crow
Thomas A. Foster. Rethinking Rufus: Sexual Violations of Enslaved Men
B. Assignments.
In addition to written examinations at the mid-term and final grading periods and wiki posts, students may choose to prepare a written book review for extra credit. 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.
C. Computation of Course Grade
| Midterm Exam | 35% |
| Final Exam | 35% |
| Attendance | 10% |
| Online Participation/WordPress | 10% |
| Critical Race Theory | 10% of your final grade |
SEMINAR SCHEDULE
Readings under the various topic areas are only suggestive of the vast and growing literature and case law available. These are the readings that I selected for my class. All assigned readings (and 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.
THREE WARNINGS:
- Everything on the syllabus (unless it is marked optional), is required. But, 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!
- What does [optional] mean in this class? Readings preceded or followed by [optional] are highly recommended but you are not required to read them before class. You are however responsible for the material to the extent I opt to discuss it in class. If I discuss it in class, its fair game for the test.
- Additional REQUIRED material can be added to the syllabus at any time. Like the Constitution, the syllabus can be amended.
WEEK 1
1/14
POST a comment here BEFORE the first day of 358
Post your preferred names and pronouns here before the first day of class
Read the syllabus for PolS 358. 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?
1/16
358 Ice Breaker prompt. ALL students are required to comment on this prompt BEFORE coming to class today
[skim/optional] Lyles, Barker, et. al. Civil Liberties and the Constitution: Cases and Commentaries (9th edition) CHAPTER 1. Civil Liberties and the Constitution, pp. 1-16. 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.
[skim/optional] 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
Civil Liberties in the Context of Federalism 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.
Lecture 1. Introduction to Courts and Law.
Start reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
WEEK 2
1/21
Continue reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
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)
[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
1/23
Today is an ASYNCHRONOUS day. We will NOT meet in Taft Hall. Watch the pre-recorded lectures (Parts I and II) for Marbury v. Madison and write your first brief
Continue reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
Marbury v. Madison [everyone should write their first brief AND post something on this page before class today
Skim: “A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court”
WEEK 3
1/28
Lyles, The Bork Confirmation Battle: A Case Study on Judicial Selection, Lyles, (1994) [optional]
[optional] Amicus Curiae (skim)
Assignment: The Danger of the Single Story All students are required to comment before class today, including former students not attending class today.1-21
Footnote 4 Stone
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
Watch and comment on The Supreme Court Visitor’s Film (C-Span, narrated by A.E. Dick Howard) before class today: Visitor’s Film [everyone must post a comment before class TODAY]
1/30
Continue reading Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-7
Last day of introductory lectures
[optional Extra Credit]. The Story of Marbury v Madison, by Michael W. McConnell
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 TODAY]
WEEK 4
2/4
Lyles: Chapter 1, Law and Politics in Black America.
African Enslavement: An Overview
The Trans-Saharan and East African Slave Trades
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
Enslaved Africans and Free Blacks in Colonial America
<Figure 1.1>
<Figure 1.2>
Why Virginia and South Carolina?
Colonial Virginia: a case study, 1619-1788
<Figure 1.3>
Anthony Johnson: From Captive African to Right-wing Talking Point [optional]
In Re Tuchinge 1624
Re Davis 1630
Re Sweat 1640
Re Negro John Punch 1640
Re Emanuel 1640
An Act Declaring that Baptisme of Slaves
Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Violence, and the Law
<Figure 1.4>
Sexual Violence and Enslaved Men
Extra Credit: Winthorp Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro 1550-1812, chapter 2, “Fruits of Passion”
In Re Warwick 1696
1691. Act XVI
John Locke and RAC
<Figure 1.5>
Act VIII (VA 1669)
Act XVI
Multi-week Assignment
1. Before February 18, read The Trouble Teaching Rape/Slave Law and post a comment.
2. Before February 18, watch the film 12 Years a Slave and post a thoughtful comment.
1712 slave code
1740 slave code
Continental Congress
Declaration of Independence, or, “I’ll take six”
Jefferson’s Notes on VA
Higginbotham and Jacobs
Revolutionary War and the Book of Negroes
Alexis de Tocqueville
“Prime Healthy Negroes” 1760-1784
The Articles of Confederation 1871
The Somerset Case 1772
The Pennsylvania Gradual Abolition Act, 1780 [as discussed in class]
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Nathaniel Jennison (1783)
Slavery and the United States ConstitutionArticle I, Section 2, par. 3
Article I, Section 2, par. 3
Article I, Section 9, par. 1
Article IV, Section 2, par. 3
Article V
Federalist 42 [optional]
Judicial Cases Concerning Slavery [optional]
The Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Compromise
2/6
Lyles: Chapter 2 Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6
Selected topics include:
PART I. The New Supreme Court: An Overview
*Jurisdiction
The Origin and Evolution of Judicial Selection
Theories on Supreme Court Policymaking
Judicial Behavior
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Critical Race Theory, Lyles ch. 2
PART II. African-Americans and the New Supreme Court: Constitutionalizing White Supremacy
Founding Fathers
The Middle Passage
1790. The Naturalization Act of 1790
Bank of America 1791 [optional]
Militia Act 1792
1793 Fugitive Slave Act
<Figure 2.1>
Federalist 78 [optional]
Sidebar: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Enslaved
Review: Marbury v. Madison 1803
Judicial Review before Marbury v Madison
WEEK 5
2-11
1807 Slave Trade Act
<Figure 2.2>
The Domestic Slave Trade: Breeding Farms
[optional] Joel Kovel, The Fantasies of Race
[optional] Winthrop Jordan White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro, 1550–1812 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1968) pp. 4-11, 24.
War of 1812
1819 McCulloch v. Maryland
Missouri Compromise 1820
The Antelope 1825
Sidebar. Harriet A. Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself
State v. Mann (1829)
Nat Turner 1831
[optional] EXTRA CREDIT: The Birth of a Nation
Mississippi Constitution 1832
1833. [optional] Barron v Baltimore [Non-incorporation, Selective Incorporation and the Nationalization of the
Bill of Rights] Take PolS 353 and 354
The Domestic Slave Trade 1820-1839
Georgetown University 1838 [optional]
1800-1860. Black American Voting Rights in the NORTH (Lyles, ch. 2)
Groves v. Slaughter 1841
The Amistad 1841
Man overboard!
By the end of this week, everyone is REQUIRED to have watched the film: “Amistad” 1997 directed by Steven
Spielberg. Be prepared to discuss the film in class next week.
EXTRA CREDIT: Spielberg’s Amistad
2/13
A Black Feminist Analysis of Bridgerton [optional]
cont. Lyles: Chapter 2, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6.
Selected topics include:
President Obama’s comments last week on Christianity, slavery, and Jim Crow by Ta-Nehisi Coates
Hillary does Tubman
White Women Were Avid Slave Owners
Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842
The Trouble Teaching Slave or Rape Law: Pedagogical Approaches to the Intersectionality of Race and Gender Motivated Violence
Film discussion:12 Years a Slave 1841-1953
[optional] Reclaiming Intimate Histories in the Americas
The Auction Block
Roberts v. Boston 1849
Compromise of 1850
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
1850. Black Americans loose the vote in Michigan (Lyles, ch.2, p. 77)
Souther v. Commonwealth of Virginia 1851
1851. Delaware prohibits Black Americans from voting (Lyles, ch.2, p. 77)
Frederick Douglas 1852 [optional]
William Lloyd Garrison (1852) and other Abolitionist Writings [optional]
[optional] Domestic Slave Trade 1853
The Kansas-Nebraska Act
The Trial of Celia 1855
Fellow Servant Rule 1856
Extra Credit: The Imperial Scholar [optional]
WEEK 6
2-18
1857. Dred Scott 1857 [citizenship] (Lyles, ch.2) 1858.
John Brown 1859
(1) Georgia Slave Sale after Dred Scott 1860, and (2) Weeping Time
Penis size, castration, and the myth of race
The 1619 Project
Lyles: Chapter 3, Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6. Selected topics include:
Bailey v. Poindexter’s Executioner (1858)
Ableman v. Booth (1859)
The Wanderer 1858
The “First Thirteenth Amendment
Sidebar. John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry
Lincoln or the Red Pill (Lyles, ch.3, p. 8-9)
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: Lincoln in UIC PolS Dept and Yale Renames Calhoun College
Slave Auction Propaganda 1861
Enslaved at Currency [optional]
Harriet Ann Jacobs 1861
1862 DC Emancipation Act
The Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863
The Draft Riot in New York City, July 1863
Teaching the Emancipation Proclamation for the 100th time, the media, and Juneteenth
Gordon’s Whipping Scars 1863
Response to Emancipation Proclamation in the North
2/20
1865. Thirteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, p. 19-20).
The Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1865
[optional] Black Women and the Freedman’s Bureau
[optional] 1865. Elizabeth Cady Stanton to the Editor, This is the Negro’s Hour, National Anti-Slavery Standard,
New York, 26 December 1865, in Baer and Goldstein, 4th edition, pp. 34-36.
Forty Acres and a Mule
1866. Voting Rights and the KKK (Lyles, ch.3)
[optional] The Mississippi Black Codes
The Civil Rights Act of 1866
SlaveVoyages, 1514-1866
1867. Military Reconstruction Acts (Lyles, ch. 3, p. 28-29).
1868. Fourteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 29-30)
1870. Fifteenth Amendment (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 30-32)
The Enforcement Acts, 1870, 1871
The Ku Klux Klan Act 1871
Blyew v. United States 1871
The Extraordinary Case of Kate Brown 1868
1873. Butchers’ Benevolent Association v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (The Slaughter-House Cases) (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 36-38)
Civil Rights Act 1875
WEEK 7
2/25
1875. Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett [disenfranchisement of women](Lyles, ch. 3, p. 42), add Baer.
1876. United States v. Hiram Reese [disenfranchisement of African-Americans] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 43-45).
1876. United States v. Cruikshank [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch. 3, pp. 45-48).
Warren Goodman Allen 1876-1954
1877. Hayes-Tilden Presidential Election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877 (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 48-51).
Hall v. DeCuir 1878
EXTRA CREDIT: Lincoln–The Movie [optional]
Multi-week Assignment
1. Before February 18, read The Trouble Teaching Rape/Slave Law and post a comment.
2. Before February 18, watch the film 12 Years a Slave and post a thoughtful comment.
2/27
Colonization v. Deportation or Dreamers and “A Dream Deferred” [extra credit opportunity]EXTRA CREDIT: Jim Crow: Promises Betrayed 1865-1896
Strauder v. West Virginia 1880
Ex Parte Virginia 1880 [optional]
Neal v. Delaware 1880 [optional]
Virginia v Rives 1881 [optional]
Pace v. Alabama 1883
United States v. Harris 1883
1883. The Consolidated Civil Rights Cases [private v. public discrimination] (Lyles, ch.3, p.57-59)
Henry M. Turner
[optional] 1884. Ex Parte Yarbrough [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 59-62) [optional
for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
“Race to Nowhere”
Mabel Perkins 1894-1973
1890. The “lily-whites” and the “black and tan” (Lyles, ch.3, p. 63-65).
Black American Disenfranchisement, e.g., the Grandfather Clause (Lyles, ch.3, p. 64-66).
Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway v. Mississippi (1890)
Re Green (1895) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 1886
1896. Plessy v. Ferguson [separate but equal] (Lyles, ch.3, pp. 67-75).
Thomas McKinley Lyles 1896-1969
Parilee Elizabeth (Evans) Allen 1887-1973
WEEK 8
3-4
Lyles: Chapter 4. Law and Politics in Black America, chapters 1-6
Introduction to Lyles, Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 4 pp. 1-4
1898. The Wilmington Riot 1898 [violence designed to intimidate voters] (Lyles, ch.4, pp. 5-6).
United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898 [optional]
Williams v. Mississippi 1898 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Cumming v. Board of Education 1899
Downes v. Bidwell (1901) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Giles v Harris 1903 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
United States v. Shipp (1906)
Hodges v. U.S. 1906
Argument for Defendant: Berea
Berea College v. Kentucky 1908
The Springfield Riots and the Founding of the NAACP
The Lynching of Laura Nelson
The Lynching of Will Potter, 1911
Bailey v Alabama 1911
McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company 1914 [optional]
1915 Guinn v. United States [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Buchanan v. Warley 1917
Texas Acknowledges Killing Hundreds of Latinos 1915-1919 [optional]
Mary Turner, Red Summer (1919) and Fighting Back
Elaine County Massacre (1919) / Moore v. Dempsey (1923)
The Chicago Race Riot of 1919
Newberry v United States 1921 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
<Figure 4.1 here> The Duluth Lynchings on June 15, 1920
The Tulsa Race Riots 1921
The Rosewood Massacre 1923 [skim]
Terrorism in the streets, 1900-1940
1911-1940 Riots, Lynchings, Domestic Terror, and Massacres. “Damn Lyles, enough is enough”
Women and Lynching
Corrigan v. Buckley 1926
Nixon v. Herndon 1927 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Gong Lum v Rice 1927 [optional]
Nixon v. Condon (1932) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
The Scottsboro Boys Cases, Powell v. Alabama, 1932 and 1935 [optional], this case is also covered in 354, “right to counsel”]
Norris v. Alabama (1935)
NAACP: “look at the seven WHITE children” 1935
EXTRA CREDIT: Critical Review of American Political Institutions Tate, Lyles and Barker
EXTRA CREDIT: Ida B. Wells: A Passion for Justice The Pioneering African American Journalist & Activist
Extra Credit Opportunity Today is National Anthem Day. “Fuck the National Anthem (Lyles, 2016).”
3/6
Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall (Sidebar: NAACP and Public Education)
Sidebar: W.E.B. Du Bois, Does the Negro Need Separate Schools? 1935
Time for a little more INTERSECTIONALITY. Asked to Resign in 1929
The New Deal or the Same Deal?
The Lynching of Claude Neal 1934
An Open Letter of Apology to my 358 students
Grovey v Townsend 1935 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Pearson v. Murray 1936
Brown v. Mississippi 1936 [optional]
Palko v. Connecticut 1937 [optional]
1937 Breedlove v. Suttles [Georgia poll tax] (chapter 4) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Alpha Phi Alpha [optional]
Jim Crow in the 20s 30s 40s 50s [optional]
Segregation is just one aspect of Jim Crow [optional]
United States v. Carolene Products 1938 [optional]
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada 1938
Lane v. Wilson 1939 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
“Without Sanctuary“
The controversy of the without sanctuary, museum exhibit [optional]
Sidebar: The NAACP and Criminal Justice (1940-1945) Chambers v. Florida 1940Hill v. Texas 1942
Lyons v. Oklahoma 1944
Screws v. United States 1945
Akins v. Texas 1945
Mitchell v. United States 1941
United States v. Classic 1941 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
WWII [as discussed in class]
Sidebar: Korematsu, Hirabayashi and the Origins of Strict Judicial Scrutiny [optional, take my PolS 353]
Smith v. Allwright 1944 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Executive Order 9981 – Establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces (1944)
Terry v. Adams (1953) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Morgan v Virginia 1946
Colegrove v. Green (1946) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Sipuel v. Board of Regents 1948
Residential Segregation, The NAACP, and the Battle Over Restrictive Covenants
Corrigan v. Buckley 1926
The North-South Split in the Democratic Party
Rice v Elmore 1948 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Shelly v. Kraemer 1948Hurd v. Hodge 1948
Pearson v. County Bd of Ed 1948 [optional]
EXTRA CREDIT: Legal Disfranchisement of the Negro [optional]
McLaurin v. Oklahoma 1950
MATERIAL ABOVE THIS DATE IS REQUIRED FOR THE MIDTERM EXAM, MATERIAL BELOW THIS DATE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED ON THE MIDTERM EXAM
WEEK 9
3-11
CHAPTER 5
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 5
<Figure 5.1> Educational Segregation in the U.S in 1950
Why the new Strategy?
<Sidebar. State of South Carolina, County of Clarendon. Petition>
Briggs v. Elliott 1950
<Figure 5.2> The Liberty Hill School for Black children
<Figure 5.3> The Clarendon County elementary school for white children
<Figure 5.4> The Clarendon County high school for white children
<Figure 5.5> Drs. Mamie and Kenneth Clark
<Excerpt of Judge Waring’s Dissent in Briggs v. Elliott> ONLINE
Brown v. Board of Education 1951
<Figure 5.6> Linda Brown
<Figure 5.7> and <Figure 5.8> NAACP Lawyers Robert Carter and Jack Greenberg
<Huxman, Circuit Judge in Brown v Board, 1951> optional
Davis v. Prince Edward County 1952
[optional] Beauharnais v Illinois 1952
Belton et al. v. Gebhart 1952
Bolling v. Sharp 1954
Playing with dolls
Intro to Brown pp. 26-28
Government’s Brief in Brown
3-13
REQUIRED: EVERYONE MUST WATCH THE FILM SIMPLE JUSTICE BY TODAY
“Your Mama“
NAACP Brief in Brown 1953
Terry v. Adams 1953 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Oral Argument: Brown I, Part 1
Deciding Not to Decide
Memo from Rehnquist
Chief Justice Vinson
Historical Research
The “Brown Cases” Timeline
Summary of Argument presented to SCOTUS, 1953: NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
Oral Argument: Brown I, Part II
Round Two (5 questions)
NEW The Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Re-arguments
Brown v. Board of Education I 1954
Bolling v. Sharpe 1954
Sidebar. Media Reactions to Brown I
Reactions to Brown I and the Coming Decree
Brown II. Oral Argument, Implementation and the Decree
Marshall’s Response: Anger and Resolve
Brown v. Board of Education II 1955
Barker and Lyles The Downfall of Separate But Equal: Brown v. Board of Education
WEEK 10
3/18 – 3/20
CHAPTER 6
Browder v. Gayle (1956) Rosa Parks
The Southern Manifesto 1956
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 6 (1955-1969)
Introduction
Emmett Till
Sidebar. Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott
The Southern Manifesto: A Declaration of Constitutional Principles
John F. Kennedy, President, 1961-1963. Civil Rights: An Overview
Implementation
President Johnson and Civil Rights [optional] no longer a separate sidebar in chapter 6
A. Public Accommodations, Demonstrations, Breach of Peace, and Sit-In Cases, 1956-1968
The Interstate Commerce Clause
EXTRA CREDIT: Freedom Riders: American Experience. The entire film is no longer available at this link, only clips. ]
President Kennedy and Civil Rights, ch. 6,
Morgan v Virginia 1946 [in chapter 5]
Greensboro Sit-Ins [optional, under construction]
<Figure 6.1> chapter 6
Boynton v. Virginia 1960
Burton v. Wilmington 1961
Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement assignments are due before April 18, 11:59 PM
MIDTERM EXAM Thursday March 20
WEEK 11 Spring Break 3/24 – 3/284
WEEK 12
4/1
There will be a required QUIZ on the Barbie movie at the start of class TODAY.
Sidebar: Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail 1963
Watson v. Memphis 1963
[optional] Edwards et al. v. South Carolina (1963), See PolS 354
Anderson v. Martin 1964 [optional, see ch. 6]
Title II of the CRA 1964
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. 1964
Katzenbach v. McClung 1964
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill 1964
EXTRA CREDIT: Four Little Girls [optional]
Adderly v. State of Florida (1966) See PolS 354
Walker v Birmingham (1967)
Johnson’s “Speech to the Nation on Civil Disorder (establishing the Kerner Commission) 1967
4/3
B. School Desegregation, 1955-1969
Desegregation does NOT equal Integration
Eisenhower’s Speech on Little Rock, AK [optional]
Cooper v. Aaron 1958
The Blossom Plan (Cooper v Aaron) chapter 6
Figure 6.4 Elizabeth Eckford chapter, 6
Ruby Bridges Figure 6.5 <chapter 6>
Eyes on the Prize, Fighting Back (1957-1965). Please comment ON THIS REQUIRED VIDEO BEFORE class.
Daisy Bates v. Gov Wallace 1957 [optional]
Gov. George Wallace, Segregation Forever
The Cowboys: America’s Team [Jerry Jones was in Little Rock]
Dorothy Counts https://kevinlyles.digital.uic.edu/lyles/dorothy-counts-sept-1957/
1959: Emory University
Figure 6.6. James Meredith, 1962
Griffin v. Prince Edward County 1964
Extra Credit: The Reverend Francis Griffin [optional]
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County 1968
C. Employment Discrimination, Affirmative Action
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
D. Voting Rights, 1955-1969
1957 The Civil Rights Act of 1957 (Lyles, ch. 6)
1959 Lassiter v. Northamton County Board of Elections [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
1960 United States v. Raines [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
1960 United States v. Thomas [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
1960 The Civil Rights Act of 1960
Eisenhower’s Response the the Civil Rights Act of 1960 [optional]
1960 Gomillion v. Lightfoot [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
1962 Baker v. Carr [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
1964 Fannie Lou Hamer <image> chapter 6, lyles
1965 Black Women and the Right to Vote, by Darlene Clark Hine and Christine Anne Farnham [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
<Figure 6.9> Amelia Boynton was beaten unconscious on the Edmund Pettis Bridge by an Alabama State Trooper, Bloody Sunday, Lyles, ch. 6.
Required and EXTRA CREDIT: Bloody Sunday
WEEK 13
4/8
Gray v. Sanders, 1963 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Wesberry v. Sanders 1964 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Anderson v Martin (1964) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Reynolds v. Simms (1964) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Louisiana v. United States [interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch. 6) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
United States v. Mississippi [interpretation tests] (Lyles, ch. 6). [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
Required and EXTRA CREDIT: Bloody Sunday
Review\Revisit: Voting Rights (From U.S. v Reese to Terry v Adams) [optional for PolS 358, req’ PolS 359]
Malcolm X, The Ballot or The Bullet (1964)
1965 Voting Rights Act
South Carolina v. Katzenbach 1966
Harper V. Virginia Board of Elections 1966 (lyles, ch. 6) [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359
EXTRA CREDIT: King v Malcom X [optional]
Attempted Murder of James Meredith [“to encourage voter registration”] (Lyles, ch. 6, p. 66-67).
Bond v. Floyd (1966) (optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359)
E. Fair Housing, 1955-1969
Freshly Painted White Walls This reading is also under PolS 354 (speech) and 356 ( assembly)
1967 Reitman v. Mulkey
1968 Fair Housing Act
1968 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
F. Black Americans and Criminal Justice 1955-1969
1965 Swain v Alabama
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
G. Other Individual Rights: First Amendment Freedoms, Freedom of Association, and the NAACP Cases, 1955-1969The NAACP Cases, 1955-1969NAACP v. Alabama (1958) [Optional, see PolS 345]
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers (1964)
Shelton v. Tucker (1960)
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963)
Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP (1961)
Harrison v. NAACP (1959)
NAACP v. Button 1963 [Optional, see PolS 345]
Freedom of the Press
New York Times v. Sullivan 1964 [optional] See PolS 354 and/or PolS 359
Miscegenation and the Freedom to Marry
Sidebar. Selected Laws Criminalizing Interracial Marriage
Loving v. Virginia 1967
EXTRA CREDIT: The Loving Story [optional]
Shulltesworth v. Alabama 1969
CHAPTER 7: Burger, ’69-’86
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, chapter 7 (1969-1986)
A Review and Introduction to the Judicial Standards of Equal Protection
Table 7.1 Personnel Changes during the Burger Court
A. Demonstrations and Sit-In Cases, 1969-1986
Adickes v. S. H. Kress and Company (1971)
Griffin v. Breckenridge 1971 and [optional] Title 42 U.S.C., § 1983 and 1985.
WEEK 14
4/15
B. School Desegregation, 1969-1986
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education 1969
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 1971
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver Colorado 1973
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 1973
Milliken v. Bradley 1974
Runyon v. McCrary (1976)
Pasedena City Board of Education v. Spangler 1976
4/17
C. Public Accommodations, 1969-1986
Palmer v. Thompson 1971
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis 1972
Memphis v. Greene 1981
D. Employment Discrimination, Affirmative Action, Title VII, “Impact (Effect) v. Intent” 1969-1986
Repeat: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [see chapter 6]
Griggs v. Duke Power Co 1971 [as discussed in class]
Washington v. Davis 1976 [as discussed in class]
United Steel Workers of America v. Weber 1979
Fullilove v. Klutznick 1980
Warren Burger and the “Tests” for Fullilove
FINAL EXAM QUESTION: Who Invented White People?
Equality v Equity
OVERVIEW: Affirmative Action in Employment and Higher Education
“Bush style” affirmative action
Notes on Affirmative Action
Notes from Ronald J. Fiscus
Brief of the American Bar AssociationBoston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, NAACP [optional]
Memphis Firefighters Union No. 1784 v. Stotts 1984 [optional]
United States v. Paradise [optional]
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, CA [optional]
Not Today! K. Lyles
WEEK 15
4-22E. Voting Rights, 1969-1986
City of Richmond v. United States 1975 [358 and 359]
EXTRA CREDIT:Kevin Lyles, The Gatekeepers: Federal District Court in the Political Process, chapter 8, “Does Race Make a Difference?” [optional]
1982. The 1982 Amendments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (Lyles, ch. 7), Lexis Uni.
Thornburg v Gingles 1986 [required for POLS 359, optional for POLS 358]
Jericho Bernal’s Gatekeepers Analysis [optional]Thornburg v. Gingles 1986 [optional for PolS 358, required for PolS 359]
F. Fair Housing, 1969-1986
The Temptations, “Run Charlie, Run!” [for your listening pleasure]
Hills v. Gautreaux 1976
Village of Arlington Heights 1977
G. African-Americans and Criminal Injustice, 1969-1986
Gregg v. Georgia 1976 [optional] PolS 354
Batson v. Kentucky 1986 [354] [optional] PolS 354
H. Protecting Individual Rights and Other Issues, 1969-1986
Race isn’t biologically real
Bob Jones University v. United States 1983 and Letter from Bob Jones University [optional]
Palmore v. Sidoti 1984
April 24 to the Last Day of Class
Chapter 8. Rehnquist: 1986-2005
A. Public Accommodations, Demonstrations, Breach of Peace, and Sit-In Cases, 1986-2005
B. School Desegregation, Affirmative Action in School Admissions, 1986-2005
Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell (1991)
United States v. Fordice 1992
Freeman v. Pitts 1992
Grutter v. Bollinger 2003
Gratz v. Bollinger 2003 [optional]
Brief of the American Bar Association
Racial Transformation Orfield and Lee [optional]
Illinois School Funding Failure [optional]
C. Public Accommodations, 1986-2005
D. Employment Discrimination, Title VII, Affirmative Action in Employment, 1986-2005
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson 1988
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 1995
E. Voting Rights, The Rehnquist Court: 1986-20051989. [optional] EU v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee 489 U.S. 214, [associational rights], Lexis Uni1990 Georgia State Board of Elections v. Brooks [judicial elections] (Lyles, ch. 8).1990. [optional] Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni1990. [optional] Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, [campaign finance, limitations on expenditures] Lexis Uni1991. Chisom v. Romer 501 U.S. 380, [judicial elections, “standard practice or procedure”] (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni).1991. [optional] Houston Lawyers Association v. Texas Attorney General [judicial elections] (Lyles, ch. 8).
1992. Presley v. Etowah County Commission [redistributing power among officials] (Lyles, ch. 8) and 1992. Mack v. Russell County Commission [preclearance/redistributing power among officials] (Lyles, ch. 8).1992. [optional] Burdick v. Takushi [write-in voting, third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni1992. [optional] Burson v. Freeman, 505 U.S. 191, [at the polls, campaign-free zones around polling places], Lexis Uni
1993. Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. 630, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, and majority-minority districting], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.1994. Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, “standard practice or procedure”] (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni).1994. [optional] Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 [minority vote dilution], Lexis Uni1995. Miller v. Johnson 515 U.S. 900, [strict scrutiny, reapportionment, and majority-minority districting], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.1995. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, [term limits], Lexis Uni See also, PolS 3531995. [optional] McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, [anonymous campaign literature], Lexis Uni1995 [optional] United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, [political speech, public employees] Lexis Uni1996. Shaw v. Hunt. [majority-minority districts] (Lyles, ch. 8).1996. Bush v. Vera [majority–minority districts] (Lyles, ch. 8).1996. [optional] Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Colorado Republican I), 518 U.S. 604, [campaign finance, coordinated expenditures], Lexis Uni1997. [optional] Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, [multiple-party or “fusion” candidates, third parties, independent candidates and ballot access] Lexis Uni1997. [optional] Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 7, [remedying errors in elections, re-votes and the uniform date for federal elections], Lexis Uni1998 [optional] Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, [media coverage, debate exclusion], Lexis Uni1998 [optional] Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, [political speech, circulation of petitions] Lexis Uni1999. [optional] Lopez v. Monterey County, 552 U.S. 196, [preclearance], Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni1999. Hunt v. Cromartie [irregular district configurations], (Lyles, ch. 8 or Lexis Uni.1998 [optional] Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, [political speech, circulation of petitions] Lexis Uni2000. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, [counting votes, resolving disputed presidential election contests], Lyles, ch. 8 and/or Lexis Uni.2000. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board 528 U.S. 320 [preclearance/retrogression], Lexis Uni2000. [optional] California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, [associational rights of parties and the “blanket primary], Lexis Uni2000. [optional] Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, [campaign finance, limits on contributions] Lexis Uni2001. Easley v. Cromartie [irregular district configurations] (Lyles, ch. 8).2001. [optional] Cook v. Gralike 531 U.S. 510, [term limits, state] Lexis Uni2001. NAACP v. Harris [purging the rolls] (Lyles, ch. 8).1947. [optional] Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, [political speech, patronage] Lexis Uni2002. [optional] Republican party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, [political speech, judicial candidate’s speech] Lexis Uni2003. [optional] Georgia v. Ashcroft 539 U.S. 461, [preclearance/retrogression],Lyles, ch. 8, or Lexis Uni.2003 McConnell v. FEC (2003) (Required to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156)2010. [Money as speech] 540 U.S. 93, [campaign finance, limits on expenditures, reporting and disclosure] Lexis Uni2004. Vieth v. Jubelirer 541 U.S. 267 [political questions/political gerrymandering] (Lyles, ch. 8/ Lexis Uni).2004. [optional] Cox v. Larios 542 U.S. 947, [one person/one vote, mathematical equality], Lexis Uni
G. African-Americans and Criminal Justice, 1986-2005
McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987
EXTRA CREDIT 13th by Ava DuVernay [optional]
The Old and the New Jim Crow
Equal Justice Initiative: Slavery to Mass Incarceration Powers v. Ohio (1991)
Hudson v. McMillian (1992) [optional, CLJ]Sidebar. Rodney King (1992)
H. Individual Rights and Equal Protection, 1986-2005
R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul 1992 [optional, take PolS 354]Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) [optional, take PolS 354]How Racism Effects Your Health from Science As Fact [optional]
Remarks of Thurgood Marshall, 1987
L. Hanna, CCDOC [optional]
Chapter 9. The Roberts Court Nine: 2005-2025
Lyles: Law and Politics in Black America, Chapter 9 (2005-2025)
A. Public Accommodations, Demonstrations, Breach of Peace, and Sit-In Cases,
B. School Desegregation, Affirmative Action in School Admissions
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et. al (2007)
Schuette v. Bamn (2014)
Fisher v University of Texas (2016)
SFFA v. Harvard
C. Public Accommodations,
D. Employment Discrimination, Title VII, Affirmative Action in Employment,
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
E. Voting Rights, The Roberts Court 2005-present2005. [optional] Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, [independents and associational rights of parties], Lexis Uni2006. [optional] League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, [majority-minority districting], Lexis Uni2006. “The Constitutionality of Section 5 Revisited,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), p. 255.2006 [optional] Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, [campaign finance, limits on contributions] Lexis Uni2008. [optional] Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, [The People’s Choice Initiative of 2004], Lexis Uni2008. [optional] Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181, [at the polls, avoiding election fraud] (Lyles, ch. 9) and/or Lexis Uni2008. [optional] New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, [third parties, independent candidates and ballot access], Lexis Uni2009. [optional] Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act], Lexis Uni2009. [optional] Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder [preclearance revisited, Section 5, and bailout]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
2011 [optional] Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 [anonymous speech, petition signature disclosure and referendums], Lexis Uni 2011. [Money as speech][optional] Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, [campaign finance, government financing of campaigns] Lexis Uni [Money as speech]2012 [optional] United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, [political speech, defamation and false statements], Lexis Uni [Money as speech]
2013. The Sentencing Project, Losing the Right to Vote
2013. Shelby v. Holder 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2612, [preclearance revisited, Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965], Lyles, Chapter 9 or Lexis Uni
2014 McCutheon v FCC 2014 (Required only to the extent discussed in pp. 153-156) [campaign finance, limits on contributions], Lexis Uni [Money as speech]2015. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission [referendums, initiatives, and independent redistricting commissions] [Legislatures vs. Commissions]2015 [optional] Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 557 U.S. ___; 135 S. Ct. 1656, [political speech, judicial candidate’s speech] Lexis Uni2015 [optional] Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895, 575 U.S. ____, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015)2015. NPR Broadcast, Fresh Air, Monday August 10, 2015 The Voting Rights Act 1965 to 2013
Find an article on Felony Disenfranchisement, bring it to class and be prepared to discuss it in class today.
2015 “The Constitutionality of Section 5 Revisited,” Michael Dimino, Bradley Smith, and Michael Solimine, Voting Rights and Election Law (2015), p. 255.2016. Evenwel v. Abbott, Lexis Uni, [population]2017. “How Mass Incarceration Led Directly to Trump’s Win,” February 15, 2017, Vanity Fair 1985. [optional] Hunter v. Underwood 471 U.S. 222, [disenfranchisement of persons convicted of crimes], Lexis Uni.2017 [optional] Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1455
F. Fair Housing,
G. Black Americans and Criminal Injustice,Sean Bell, November 26, 2006Snyder v. Louisiana (2008)
H. Protecting Individual Rights and Other Issues,
EXTRA CREDIT: John Hope Franklin [optional]
Former-President Trump’s September 2020 executive order to eliminate “divisive concepts in schools and federally-funded entities” [skim]Critical Race Theory: An Introduction to my class, OR, the End of my Class?
Miseducating the Public [optional]
Ron DeSantis’s Attack on Black Studies is Textbook Proto-Fascism [optional]
White Like Me: Race, Racism & Privilege in America [optional]
Should Middle Eastern and North Africans STILL be WHITE? [optional]
Ryan M. Crowley, ‘The Goddamndest, toughest voting rights bill’: Critical Race Theory and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.’ Race Ethnicity and Education, Volume 16, 2013-Issue 5. [optional 358, required for 359]
The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates [optional, but a great read]
The State of Black America: Race and the Limits of Judicial Power, continued.
Why white Southern conservatives need to defend Confederate monuments
THE POLS 358 FINAL EXAM
Part 1. Who Invented White People? [0-5 points] Students posted a link to their essay on WP.
Part 2. Critical Race Theory Research: [0-5 points] Students posted their essay on WP as a file or a comment.
Part 3. Student-Generated Final Exam Questions: [0-5 points] Students posted their questions and answers on WP.
Part 4. Final Exam on Blackboard, [0-85 points] Monday, May 5. You have 2 hours (120 minutes) to complete the exam. You may only take the Exam once. The Exam will be available from 8:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on Monday, May 5. So, you must start the Exam anytime on Monday before 10 p.m. to enjoy the whole 2 hours. The exam is on Blackboard, and the format is similar to the midterm exam. You do NOT need to come to the classroom or even UIC. However, if you take the exam in a monitored UIC computer lab, you will have someone to corroborate if there is a system error. Conversely, if your internet connection fails in the middle of the Exam at home, you will be graded on the completed portion.
Recent Comments