Tuesday audio. RPI papers due at the beginning of class next Tuesday. Please take the time to work the puzzles before class--things go a lot more smoothly that way.
A quick note on Watts and the First Amendment claim. The plaintiff could try it. It seems problematic because it is not clear from the facts that he engaged in protected speech--making racist comments to players while working for the state as an athletic official probably does not enjoy constitutional protection. And, as I said, it is hard to disentangle those undefined comments from his bad calls. But yes, the argument that "the coach ordered two students to assault me because of my speech" is a fair framing for a potential 1st Amendment claim, subject to the court's (likely) finding the speech unprotected. And that forces you back into SDP.
We will begin Claims Against Federal Officials. As you read this, think about about Bivens in three time frames--its origins and through the 1970s; retraction from 1980 through 2017; and then the past seven years of Ziglar, Mesa, and Egbert. Prep the puzzles with care--the likely answer ("no Bivens") is obvious, but the question becomes why. Without Bivens, how can the federal officials or the federal government be held to account for constitutional violations?
