AT: Schedule

Before Week 1 (before January 19th)

You will complete this deliverable by visiting the Before We Begin section of ShannonWeb.

Course Resources: Antitrust

Week 1, Class 1

During Class
  • Review the course requirements
  • Review current events

Week 2, Classes 2 & 3

Before Class
During Class
  • Review the CA projects
  • Discuss Antitrust History, Statutes & Enforcement etal
  • Review current events

Week 3, Classes 4 & 5

Before Class

During Class
  • Discuss Amazon and antitrust
  • Review current events

Week 4, Classes 6 & 7

Before Class

During Class
  • Discuss Facebook and antitrust
  • Review current events

Week 5, Classes 8 & 9

Before Class

During Class

  • Discuss Google and antitrust
  • Review current events

Deliverable(s)

  • Case Analysis #1 materials submitted via Teams no later than Sunday at 12n ET

Case Analysis Resources

Week 6, Classes 10 & 11

Team 1: SCOTUS: 1789-1870 (Monday)

  •  Prepare a comprehensive examination of the Supreme Court between 1789 and 1870.

Team 2: SCOTUS: 1871-present (Wednesday)

  • Prepare a comprehensive examination of the Supreme Court between 1871 and the present.

Case Analysis #1

Week 7, Class 12 & 13

Team 3: Free Exercise (Monday)

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,  No. 19–123, Argued November 4, 2020 – Decided June 17, 2021
  • Summary: Philadelphia contracts with private agencies, which certify prospective foster families under state criteria. Based on its religious beliefs, Catholic Social Services (CSS) will not certify unmarried couples or same-sex married couples. Other Philadelphia agencies will certify same-sex couples. No same-sex couple sought certification from CSS. Philadelphia informed CSS that unless it agreed to certify same-sex couples it would no longer refer children to the agency, citing a non-discrimination provision in the agency’s contract and its Fair Practices Ordinance. CSS filed suit. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary relief. The Supreme Court reversed.
  • Issue: Does the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples violates the Free Exercise Clause by requiring CSS either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples in violation of its religious beliefs?
  • Holding: Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 17, 2021. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined, and in which Justice Breyer joined as to all but the first paragraph. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
  • LexisNexis

Team 4: Voting Rights (Wednesday)

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 19–1257, Argued March 2, 2021 – Decided July 1, 2021 (Consolidated with: Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee)
  • Summary: Arizona voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence, may cast an “early ballot” by mail, or may vote in person at an early voting location in each county. Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address; if a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted. For Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona HB 2023 makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot. A suit under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. 10301, challenged Arizona’s refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection restriction. The Ninth Circuit invalidated both restrictions. The Supreme Court reversed, characterizing Arizona’s restrictions as “generally applicable time, place, or manner” voting rules and declining to apply the disparate-impact model to displace “the totality of circumstances.” The Court also rejected a “least-restrictive means” analysis as having “the potential to invalidate just about any voting rule.”
  • Issue: Does Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? Does Arizona’s ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?
  • Holding: Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and H.B. 2023 do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and H.B. 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting rules that discount the votes of those who vote at the wrong precinct and that make it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on July 1, 2021. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.
  • Lexis Nexis

Week 8 | No Classes: Spring Break

Week 9, Classes 14 & 15

Team 5: Disclosure Requirements for Tax-exempt Organizations (Monday)

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, No. 19–251, Argued April 26, 2021 – Decided July 1, 2021 (Consolidated with: Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta)
  • Summary: Charitable organizations soliciting funds in California generally must register with the Attorney General and renew their registrations annually by filing copies of their IRS Form 990, on which tax-exempt organizations provide the names and addresses of their major donors. Two tax-exempt charities that solicit contributions in California renewed their registrations and filed redacted Form 990s to preserve their donors’ anonymity. The Attorney General threatened the charities with the suspension of their registrations and fines. The charities alleged that the compelled disclosure requirement violated their First Amendment rights and the rights of their donors. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Attorney General. The Supreme Court reversed. California’s disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. Compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as other forms of governmental action. Exacting scrutiny requires that a government-mandated disclosure regime be narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest, even if it is not the least restrictive means of achieving that end.
  • Issue: The cases concerned governmental disclosure requirements for charitable organizations’ donor lists.
  • Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment, which vacated the district court’s injunction of California’s compelled disclosure of Schedule Bs as not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct, is reversed, and the cases are remanded.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on July 1, 2021. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the court’s opinion in full, Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined except as to Part II–B–1, and Justice Thomas joined except as to Parts II–B–1 and III–B. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.
  • Lexis Nexis

Team 6: Separation of Powers (Wednesday)

Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 19–422. Argued December 9, 2020 – Decided June 23, 2021 (Consolidated with: Yellen v. Collins)
  • Summary: The Federal Housing Finance Agency FHFA worked with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to change how private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensated when the companies make a profit. The shareholders sued, arguing that the change was beyond the powers of the FHFA and the Treasury and that the structure of the FHFA was unconstitutional.
  • Issue: Whether the FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers? Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.
  • Holding: Because the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not exceed its authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 as a conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the anti-injunction provisions of the Recovery Act bar the statutory claim brought by shareholders of those entities; the Recovery Act’s structure, which restricts the President’s power to remove the FHFA director, violates the separation of powers.
  • Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 23, 2021. Justice Gorsuch joined the opinion as to all but Part III–C, Justices Kagan and Breyer joined as to all but Part III–B, and Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I, II, and III–C. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined as to Part II. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined.
  • Lexis Nexis

Deliverable(s)

  • Case Simulation #1 Materials Available No Later Than Sunday at 1p
  • Case Simulation #1, Phase 1 Memo Due No Later Than Thursday at 11p; Submit Using Teams DM

Week 10, Classes 16 & 17

During Class
  • Case Simulation #1
    • Monday: Phase 1, discuss case simulation memos
    • Wednesday: Phase 2, team Q&A

Deliverable(s)

  • Case Analysis #2 materials submitted via Teams no later than Thursday at 9p EDT

Week 11, Classes 18 & 19

Team 7: Remedies Under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Monday)

Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), No. 19–71. Argued October 6, 2020 – Decided December 10, 2020
  • Summary: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) provides a remedy to redress federal government violations of the right to free exercise under the First Amendment. Practicing Muslims sued under RFRA, claiming that federal agents placed them on the No Fly List for refusing to act as informants against their religious communities. They sought injunctive relief against the agents in their official capacities and monetary damages against the agents in their individual capacities. The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit in holding that RFRA’s express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. RFRA’s text provides that persons may “obtain appropriate relief against a government,” including an “official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States,” 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–2(1). RFRA supplants the ordinary meaning of “government” with an express definition that includes “official[s]” and underscores that “official[s]” are “person[s].” Under RFRA’s definition, relief that can be executed against an “official . . . of the United States” is “relief against a government.” What relief is “appropriate” is context-dependent. In the context of suits against government officials, damages have long been awarded as appropriate relief. Damages are available under section 1983 for clearly established violations of the First Amendment; that means RFRA provides, as one avenue for relief, a right to seek damages against government employees.
  • Issue: Whether the RFRA allows individuals to sue for damages when government officials have interfered with their freedom to practice their religion.
  • Holding: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’s express remedies provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(c), permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities for violating litigants’ right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
  • Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on December 10, 2020. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  • Lexis Nexis

Case Analysis #2

Team 1: Copyright And Fair Use (Wednesday)

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 18–956. Argued October 7, 2020 – Decided April 5, 2021
  • Summary: Oracle owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform. Google acquired Android and sought to build a new software platform for mobile devices. To allow millions of programmers familiar with Java to work with its new platform, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from Java SE. The copied lines allow programmers to call upon prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs. The Federal Circuit held that the copied lines were copyrightable and reversed a jury’s finding of fair use.
  • Issue: Does copyright protection extend to a software interface and does petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use?
  • Holding: Google’s limited copying of the Java SE Application Programming Interface allowed programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a transformative program and constituted a fair use of that material under copyright law.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on April 5, 2021. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  • Lexis Nexis

Deliverable(s)

  • Case Simulation #2 Materials Available No Later Than Sunday at 1p EDT
  • Case Simulation #2, Phase 1 Memo Due No Later Than Thursday at 11p EDT; Submit Using Teams DM

Week 12, Classes 20 & 21

During Class
    • Monday: Phase 1, discuss case simulation memos
    • Wednesday: Phase 2, team Q&A

Week 13, Classes 22 & 23

Team 2: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Authorized Access (Monday)

Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 19–783. Argued November 30, 2020 – Decided June 3, 2021
  • Summary: Former Georgia police sergeant Van Buren used his credentials on a patrol-car computer to access a law enforcement database to retrieve license plate information in exchange for money. His conduct violated a department policy against obtaining database information for non-law-enforcement purposes. The Eleventh Circuit upheld Van Buren’s conviction for a felony violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which covers anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,” 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2), defined to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”
  • Issue: Does a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violate Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose?
  • Holding: An individual “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer — such as files, folders or databases — that are off-limits to him.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Barrett on June 3, 2021. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.
  • Lexis Nexis

During Class (Wednesday)

  • Recap CA #1

Week 14, Class 24

Easter Monday: No Class

Team 3: Securities Fraud and Materiality (Wednesday)

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 20–222. Argued March 29, 2021 – Decided June 21, 2021
  • Summary: Shareholders of Goldman filed a class action alleging that Goldman and several of its executives committed securities fraud by misrepresenting Goldman’s freedom from, or ability to combat, conflicts of interest in its business practices. The district court certified a shareholder class, but the Second Circuit vacated the order in 2018. On remand, the district court certified the class once more. The court affirmed the district court’s order on remand, holding that the district court correctly applied the inflation-maintenance theory. The court explained that the inflation-maintenance theory did not require proof of fraud-induced inflation, and that the district court applied the correct standard in concluding that Goldman’s share price was inflated. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that Goldman failed to rebut the Basic presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Issue: Can a defendant in a securities class action rebut the presumption of class wide reliance, and does a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption have only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion?
  • Holding: The generic nature of a misrepresentation in connection with the sale of securities often is important evidence of price impact that courts should consider at class certification; defendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence at class certification.
  • Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Barrett on June 21, 2021. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting from the judgment.
  • Lexis Nexis

Week 15, Classes 25 & 26

Team 4: Antitrust And Amateur Athletics

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 20–512. Argued March 31, 2021 – Decided June 21, 2021 (Consolidated with: American Athletic Conference et al. v. Alston) (Wednesday)
  • Summary: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) limits how schools may compensate college-level “amateur” student-athletes. Current and former student-athletes brought suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits “contract[s], combination[s], or conspirac[ies] in restraint of trade or commerce,” 15 U.S.C. 1. The Ninth Circuit declined to disturb NCAA rules limiting undergraduate athletic scholarships and other compensation related to athletic performance but enjoined certain NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits, such as scholarships for graduate or vocational school, payments for academic tutoring, or paid post-eligibility internships.
  • Issue: Was the 9th Circuit’s holding that the NCAA eligibility rules regarding student-athletes’ compensation violate federal antitrust law in error, and does the Sherman Act authorize a court to subject the product-defining rules of a joint venture to full Rule of Reason review, and to hold those rules unlawful if, in the court’s view, they are not the least restrictive means that could have been used to accomplish their pro-competitive goal.
  • Holding: The district court’s injunction pertaining to certain NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits that schools may make available to student-athletes is consistent with established antitrust principles.
  • Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 21, 2021. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.
  • Lexis Nexis

Team 5: First Amendment

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 20–255. Argued April 28, 2021 – Decided June 23, 2021 (Monday)
  • Summary: B.L. failed to make her school’s varsity cheerleading squad. While visiting a store over the weekend, B.L. posted two images on Snapchat, a social media smartphone application that allows users to share temporary images with selected friends. B.L.’s posts expressed frustration with the school and the cheerleading squad; one contained vulgar language and gestures. When school officials learned of the posts, they suspended B.L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the upcoming year.
  • Issue: Do public schools have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, and are the special interests offered by the school sufficient to overcome B. L.’s interest in free expression in this case?
  • Holding: The school district’s decision to suspend student Brandi Levy from the cheerleading team for posting to social media (outside of school hours and away from the school’s campus) vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment.
  • Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 23, 2021. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
  • Lexis Nexis

Week 16, Classes 27 & 28

Team 6: Jurisdiction

Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer, No. 19–368. Argued October 7, 2020 – Decided March 25, 2021 (Consolidated with: Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.) (Wednesday)
  • Summary: Ford, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, markets, sells, and services its products across the U.S. and overseas and encourages a resale market for its vehicles. Montana and Minnesota courts exercised jurisdiction over Ford in products-liability suits stemming from car accidents that injured state residents. The vehicles were designed and manufactured elsewhere, and originally were sold outside the forum states.
  • Issue: Do state courts have jurisdiction only if the company’s conduct in the State had given rise to the plaintiff’s claims?
  • Holding: The connection between plaintiffs’ product-liability claims arising from car accidents occurring in each plaintiff’s state of residence and Ford’s activities in those states is sufficient to support specific jurisdiction in the respective state courts, even though the automobiles involved in the accidents were manufactured and sold elsewhere.
  • Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 25, 2021. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
  • Lexis Nexis

Team 7: Statutory Interpretation

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. ___ (2021) No. 19–511. Argued December 8, 2020 – Decided April 1, 2021 (Monday)
  • Summary: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) restricts communications made with an “automatic telephone dialing system,” defined as equipment with the capacity both “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” and to dial those numbers, 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1). Facebook’s social media platform allows users to elect to receive text messages when someone attempts to log in to the user’s account from a new device. Facebook sent such texts to Duguid, alerting him to login activity on a Facebook account linked to his telephone number, but Duguid never created any Facebook account. Duguid tried, unsuccessfully, to stop the unwanted messages. He brought a putative class action, alleging that Facebook violated the TCPA by maintaining a database that stored phone numbers and programming its equipment to send automated text messages. The Ninth Circuit ruled in Duguid’s favor.
  • Issue: Whether the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” encompasses equipment that can “store” and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
  • Holding: To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a device must have the capacity either to store, or to produce, a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 1, 2021. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
  • Lexis Nexis

Week 16, Class 28

  • Course Wrap

AT: Deliverables

You are responsible for completing the following deliverables this semester.

Engagement

Success in this course will require you to do more than simply appear in class twice a week and answer an occasional question. I expect that all of my students will be prepared to actively participate in our in class discussions since that is a key way to take as much away from the course as possible. Please review the Engagement Rubric in the Engagement section of this site.

Our conversations are ongoing so you must engage your classmates with commentary, reaction and/or analysis both in class and online. Remember, conversation ” … is a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people …” and generally, ” … written exchanges are usually not referred to as conversations.” The good news is that Teams will allow us to engage in either synchronous or asynchronous written exchanges that will stand in for conversations.

Case Analysis

You will complete this deliverable by posting your materials to the appropriate channel in Teams.

We will examine/discuss the history of the Supreme Court and twelve cases decided by SCOTUS during the 2020/2021 term. These cases focus on constitutional law, voting rights, separation of powers, intellectual property, among others.

You will join one of seven teams that will be responsible for the management of all aspects of a case analysis. Each team will be responsible for the analysis of two cases as described in the Course Schedule. Each case analysis will be developed and shared in your team’s OneNote Notebook and will include three parts.

  • Case analysis narrative, in a minimum of 5,000 words. Each narrative will include the materials necessary to support the team’s analysis. The narrative, and materials, should include, but not be limited to (a) the basis of the case (including a review of lower court and related decisions) and, (b) a discussion that provides context for the case from a legal, ethical, social, cultural and political perspective.
  • A narrated, self-running Powerpoint presentation to share their analysis, allowing their classmates to be full prepared for each in-class discussion.
  • Moderation of the scheduled discussion of the case analysis.

You will use your Teams CA channel to collaborate with your team and memorialize your discussions and supporting materials including, for example, web sources, documents and multimedia content for each case. Be sure to carefully review the materials included in Writing on a Digital Platform and Writing and Research.

Case Simulation

You will complete this deliverable by posting your memo to the appropriate channel in Teams.

We will complete two case simulations this semester. Links to the materials related to each case simulations are in the Course Schedule.

Each case simulation requires two phases.

The first phase will require you to review materials in the text. You will also study a case that examines issues related to the simulation topic, focusing on facts, a statutory excerpt and case law. Based on your knowledge of the particular area of law as a whole, you will then compose a neutral memorandum (not to exceed 750 words) that outlines each legal issue present with a short explanation of the applicable legal rules or doctrine. The sources of law for this memorandum are the text’s chapter on the area of law as well as any applicable statutory and case law. Your perspective is not that of an advocate. Rather, your analysis is as objective as possible in spotting any and all potential issues that could arise in the case and opine as to the likelihood of success on each point. You will complete this phase of the assignment individually. Be sure to carefully review the materials included in Writing on a Digital Platform and Writing and ResearchNever post a Word or Google doc or pdf.

During the second phase you will prepare for an in-class Q & A discussion of the issues presented by the materials included in the first phase. You will be assigned to a team that will advocate for one side or the other during the discussion.

I will evaluate the following factors when I assess your contributions to the simulations:

  • Phase 1: Assessment will be based on the clarity of your writing, spelling and grammar, document appearance and satisfaction of form requirements; articulation of all potential issues presented and the quality and depth of analysis. You will complete Phase 1 individually. Your issues memorandum should reflect a thoughtful, substantive and well-reasoned summary; and
  • Phase 2: Assessment will be based on your mastery of the issues under consideration, contribution to the preparatory work of your team and participation in the give and take of the in-class discussion.

Grading

The following weights will be assigned to each component of your final grade:

  • Engagement (20%)
  • Case Analysis #1 (20%)
  • Case Analysis #2 (20%)
  • Case Simulation #1 (20%)
  • Case Simulation #2 (20%)

AT: Review This First

Stillman’s Mission

… is to enrich each student’s life through an ethics-centered education focusing on transforming concepts into business practice.

Welcome To The Course

Welcome to Advanced Topics. This is part of your course syllabus. We will meet remotely via Teams on Wednesday, January 19th, Monday, January 24th and Wednesday, January 26th at 330p. You will find links to our class meetings in Teams on your Teams or Outlook calendars.

Since we will meet remotely for our first three class sessions, please review the protocol necessary for all of our remote meetings before we meet on the 19th. Please see your Outlook or Teams calendar for links to our Teams class meetings. We will move to in-person class meetings on Monday, January 31st in JH112. I will update this syllabus if I add something to the course or if something unexpected intervenes … like a hurricane or blizzard. It is your responsibility to remain current on course assignments and materials by reviewing this syllabus regularly for updates.

You should review the entire course syllabuscalendar, deliverables, schedule and any other materials included in this course site carefully. You will find answers to any questions when you review the rest of the information included on this site. If you have any questions after you’ve reviewed this syllabus and the rest of the course site, you can DM me in Teams to contact me.

Before We Meet

Before we meet please click Before We Begin to complete some housekeeping items that include introducing yourself, agreeing to the learning contract and completing your O365 profile by adding a head shot as your profile picture.

Click here to join your Teams workspace. It is important that you complete your signup immediately since all of our course communication will be via Teams and I will not use email for our course communication in the future.

Introduction

Managers face a variety of legal challenges that can both help and hinder success. This course examines several advanced topics in the legal environment that will provide a foundation that will equip students to recognize the legal challenges they will encounter as managers. We will focus on current issues related to antitrust law during the first part of the course. We will then review the history of SCOTUS and then several of the cases decided during the 2020/2021 SCOTUS term. Those cases will examine issues touching on constitutional law, employment and labor law, patents and antitrust. While we will not turn students into lawyers, we will develop the legal knowledge and analytical skills that guide entrepreneurs in a complicated legal environment.

What Should You Expect?

The subject matter of the course is interesting, challenging and very timely. We will cover some very interesting topics that are particularly important in the economy of the 21st century. We will use a variety of digital platforms to interact with each other and the course materials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to use a fundamentally different set of delivery modalities, e.g., in-person, HyFlex, hybrid, remote, synchronous, or not, or some combination of approaches to teaching and learning. We have met remotely, when necessary, in order to accomplish our work over these last several years. The use of remote modalities demands that we adjust our understanding of acceptable protocols for attendance and participation, whether a meeting or course attendance, engagement and participation.

While working together using a digital platform, e.g., Teams, Zoom, Slack, etc. it is important that you join the session with a live camera and muted mic. A live camera helps to create a sense of community and will help all of us to engage effectively during our discussions. If you only unmute your mic when speaking we can avoid feedback, unsolicited input from family, pets and others as well as any random noise. If you cannot be seen or heard by your classmates it will be difficult to actively engage in course meetings. That will have negative implications for your grade results. Please review the Protocols for Online Meetings and Classes for more information.

I will actively engage you through the use of the Socratic Method, both in class and during our discussions outside class. You will have a better sense of my class sessions after you read my perspective on Teaching and Learning.

Learning Objectives

This course is an elective that is required for those students who have decided to pursue the Minor in Legal Studies. The course will help prepare students to meet the legal and regulatory challenges and opportunities they can expect to encounter as managers of private and public businesses. The course provides a conceptual framework for understanding the various legal tools available to managers engaged in evaluating and pursuing opportunities. This course will not make you a lawyer. It will, however, help you to develop insights into the law so you can handle the legal aspects of management with confidence.  This includes developing legal literacy and learning what to look for when selecting an attorney and then … knowing when to call one.

Required Course Text

Hunter, Shannon, Amoroso & O’Sullivan-Gavin. Law, Business and Regulation: A Managerial Perspective, CreateSpace (2017). Professors Hunter, Amoroso, O’Sullivan-Gavin and I have decided to provide a digital version of the text for your use this semester at no cost to our students. You will find the digital version here.

If you prefer to purchase a print copy of the text it is available for purchase from the SHU bookstore. You will need the text before our first class meeting to complete the assignments described in the Course Schedule.

N.B. Do not purchase, or use, The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial and Regulatory Perspective, 3rd Ed. CreateSpace (2011).

Additional Materials

All of the course materials are available as links that you will find at ShannonWeb. I may assign additional materials for use in our course. I will post links to those materials in advance in the Course Schedule. Please check the syllabus regularly for updates.

Technology

Since you have reviewed my Course Policies, you are already familiar with my expectations about the use of technology in my courses. Your participation in this course will require you to engage with a number of different digital platforms. Be sure to carefully review the materials included in Writing on a Digital Platform and Writing and Research. Our communication and collaboration platform will be Teams. If you need to reach me or have a question, please DM in Teams. We use Teams video for our virtual office hours. You will prepare your writing assignments using digital platforms that will allow you to incorporate multimedia that will enhance your text based content. You will use resources as varied as a search engine (GoogleDuckDuckGo or Bing) and also the resources available from our own Walsh Library.

You are responsible for “figuring it out” when it comes to the “how to” aspects of a project. If you don’t know how to do something … “search for it”!

Many of my students have told me that “figuring it out” was both an unexpected and beneficial experience and a critical learning outcome.

Course Policies

It is your responsibility to become familiar with my Course Policies including in class performance; attendance, preparation & participation; assignments; course communication; assessment and plagiarism. Please review them carefully.

As in the law … ignorance (of the Course Policies) is not an excuse.

Contact Me

Professor John H. Shannon

  • Office: 651 Jubilee Hall or Teams
  • Communications: Teams DM (preferred) or email at john DOT shannon AT shu DOT edu
  • Office Hours: Mon & Wed, 10a – 1130a (click here to join via Teams); also by appt, all office hours and other meetings will be held via Teams since it is impossible to observe social distancing rules in a small space

We can schedule an alternative meeting time if you are not available during my office hours. As you know, our course communications platform is Teams. Please DM me in Teams with some days/times when you are available and we can schedule a video conference in Teams.

I can be reached via any number of platforms … Teams (preferred), email, voice or video. As a general rule, I am available if I am online. You can DM me in Teams or, if you are already enrolled in one of my courses, post a question to the Course Questions channel in our course’s Teams workspace. I will try to reply to any communications as soon as possible but certainly no more than 24 hours after receipt. If you prefer a video conference (and who doesn’t?) please DM me with some convenient days/times and we’ll set it up.

My office hours are subject to change pretty much every semester so please check your course syllabus for my current office hours (see above). I have, in the past, generally scheduled at least one hour a week using Teams video to accommodate those who have a conflict with my scheduled office hours. Since we are conducting all office hours and other meetings via Teams and if you are unavailable to meet during my scheduled office hours, you can schedule an appointment for a video conference via Teams. I prefer video conferences because they give me more options when answering your questions.

That said, I do try to carve out some space for thoughtful consideration of life. The practical impact of that desire is to keep evenings and weekends clear for family, friends and other forms of social interaction. If you going to ping me late on a Friday then I will get back to you on Monday unless it is an emergency … a REAL emergency.

When communicating with me please include the following information: your name, the question or issue to be resolved, your course/section and any other necessary information.