Friday, May 11, 2018

Argument Video

Links to the argument video are below. You must log-in to access the videos.

Wachowiak v. Mann

Mann v. Wachowiak

Mann v. Palmerton Sch. Dist.

Friday, April 27, 2018

Younger and Trump

The district court dismissed Paul Manafort's attempt to stop the special counsel from pursuing criminal charges. Among the reasons was Younger abstention.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Oral Argument

Argument Schedule and Standing Order on Procedure

For Final Class on Monday

Thursday audio.

Read Chapter 9.B, then be ready to discuss equitable relief in connection with attorney's fees, including the assigned Problems.

Be sure to check the materials for Oral Arguments.

Friday, April 13, 2018

KKK Act in the news

A civil rights group sued an advocacy organization for its publications and public statements warning of illegal voting by immigrants. The first claim is conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), the civil conspiracy provision of the KKK Act.

Reading, the complaint, of course, the obvious defense will be that the warning, while shrill and perhaps false, were protected by the First Amendment. A good example of how the Constitution may be used as a defense, although the defendants do not act under color.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

For Thursday

Thursday audio. No class on Tuesday. Make-up at 9 a.m. on Monday, the 23d. Abstention Reaction Papers due next Thursday. Opinions are due on the last class, on Monday.

We turn to Remedies, with Damages and Attorney's Fees (we will circle back to Equitable Relief on Monday). Reconsider the "Private Attorney General" and how that explains attorney's fees and all other § 1983 remedies. What damages can a plaintiff recover? What are alternatives to the Common Law model? Review § 1988(b) and how the text and policy explains the scope of attorney's fees.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

For Thursday

Tuesday audio.

We will finish Abstention, covering Younger (including the Puzzles), Rooker-Feldman, and the Abstention Review Puzzle. We are going to spend a bit more time on the Puzzles than going through the cases, because it may be more helpful with this subject.

In addition, I believe we will have time to move to Remedies. Please prep Introduction and Damages and Retroactive Relief. That means Panel B (Julio and Elizabeth) should be ready for Thursday.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

For Tuesday

Thursday audio. Procedure Reaction Papers due on Tuesday.

No new reading, but review all of Younger. Be ready to discuss its evolution from civil to criminal and back in Jacobs. Prep the Younger Puzzles.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Summary Reversal on Qualified Immunity

SCOTUS on Monday summarily reversed the Ninth Circuit's denial of qualified immunity in Kisela v. Hughes, which resulted from an officer shooting a woman in the mistaken belief that she was threatening her roommate with a knife. Such summary reversals of denial of qualified immunity have become commonplace, as you recall. This one brought a dissent from Justice Sotomayor joined by Justice Ginsburg, who argued that, even if the lower court was wrong, it was not "so manifestly incorrect as to warrant 'the extraordinary remedy of a summary reversal.'"

Will Baude (who wrote the leading recent article, cited in your books, suggesting that qualified-immunity doctrine has gone off the rails) offers some comments. So does Orin Kerr, who offers an explanation for why the Court has gone down this road with immunity.

For Thursday

Tuesday audio. Procedure Reaction Papers due next Tuesday.

We continue with Pullman. Why abstain in deference to state-specific constitutional provisions but not parallel state constitutional provisions? What is certification and how does it relate to Pullman? Prep the Pullman puzzles.

Then prepare both Statutory Abstention and all of Younger Abstention, including reviewing all the relevant statutes assigned in both.

Saturday, March 31, 2018

Beckman v. Chicago Bears

Another take on the State Action Puzzle involving speech restrictions as Yankee Stadium.

Russell Beckman is a Green Bay Packers fan who bought season tickets to the Chicago Bears solely to attend the Bears-Packers game in Chicago each year; the Bears play in Soldier Field, a stadium owned by the Chicago Parks District. Season-ticket holders can purchase "experiences," including going onto the field for pre-game ceremonies. But Beckman was prevented from participating because he was wearing a Packers jersey.

The district court denied the Bears' 12(b)(6), finding Beckman had plausibly alleged state action, because CPD retained money from parking and certain season-ticket purchases (which might include Beckman's tickets) and the CPD retained authority to approve certain season-ticket-holder events, perhaps including this one.


Thursday, March 29, 2018

Entity Liability Reaction Papers

Here and here.

For Tuesday

Thursday audio.

We continue with Preclusion and whether Allen works in reverse (had the state court found a constitutional violation and suppressed the evidence). What arguments did Justice Blackmun make in dissent in Allen. Then move to Limitations and Accural. Parse Wallace v. Kato, which involves issues of accrual, limitations, and Heck--how did they all come together? Reaction Papers will be due on Tuesday, April 10.

Then move to Abstention (Chapter 8), covering Introduction to Abstention and Pullman Abstention (all of Chapter 8, Part A). Be sure to review Ex Parte Young and the materials on equitable relief and jurisdiction.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

For Thursday

Tuesday audio.

We continue with Vehicles. What is the logic of the exhaustion requirement and how does it relate to Sandra's mention of the "appellate process"? What are the other limitations on habeas review? How is habeas different from § 1983 and how does that explain Heck and its progeny? Prep the remainder of Procedure--review preclusion and then complete Accrual, including all assigned problems. What are the arguments against having ordinary preclusion rules apply to § 1983 actions and why did the Court reject them?

My hope is to complete Procedure by next Tuesday and move to Abstention next week.

Monday, March 26, 2018

For Tuesday

We continue with our discussion of Jurisdiction. Then move to the next two sections, Competing Vehicles and Preclusion.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Statutory Preclusion and Environmental Statutes

I missed this the first time around, but the Supreme Court this week denied cert in an action brought by victims of the Flint, MI water contamination. The Sixth Circuit held that a § 1983 claim for damages for Due Process and Equal Protection was not precluded by federal environmental statutes, which entailed different rights, different standards, and different remedies.

Mesa v. Hernandez on remand

A divided en banc Fifth Circuit held that there was no Bivens action available--this is a new context (transnational shooting involving a non-U.S. citizen) and special factors counseled hesitation, primarily national-security concerns.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

For Thursday

Tuesday audio. We will take two minutes at the beginning of class to discuss argument assignments.

We will finish Entity Liability, talking about the connection between supervisory and entity liability and recognizing who a policymaker works for. We then will do the two Puzzles. Reaction Papers on Entity Liability will be due on Thursday, March 29.

We then move to Civil Rights Procedure, Prepare Jurisdiction, Motions, and Appels, covering Part A of Chapter 7.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

For return from break

Thursday audio. During break, please look over the cases for argument to choose whether you want to be Chief and whether you want to argue petitioner or respondent.

We continue with Ex Parte Young and everything that follows from it. Is Young a fiction (or series of fictions)? If not, how is it consistent with the 11th Amendment? What did the Court do with Young's argument that he should be immune from suit? What is the connection between § 1983 and Young? How do you tell when relief is prospective or retroactive?

Also, here is the 8th Circuit decision holding that the federal hate-crimes statute is valid legislation under § 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, legislating against "badges or incidents of slavery."

Have a good break.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018