Dominion vs Fox Reading Materials

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News

Background

Issues for Discussion (selected)

  • Legal
    • Defamation
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Actual Malice
    • Election Interference
  • Journalism
    • Responsibility of News Organizations
    • Accuracy and Credibility
    • Ethics of Opinion Journalism
    • Press Freedom
  • Political
    • False Claims of Election Fraud
    • Political Bias
    • Freedom of the Press
    • Polarization and Political Discourse
  • Damages
    • Defamation
    • Lost Business Opportunities
    • Emotional Distress
    • Punitive Damages

Cases

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): This landmark case established the principle that public figures must prove actual malice in order to succeed in a defamation lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that a public official could not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he could prove that the statement was made with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.
  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990): This case clarified that opinions that imply false assertions of fact can be the basis of a defamation claim. The Supreme Court held that “statements of opinion may imply false assertions of fact and thus be actionable, whereas statements of fact may imply opinions yet not be actionable.” This case also established the principle that statements made in the context of a public controversy may be protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that “speech on matters of public concern occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
  • Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967): This case established the principle that a public figure who is not a public official may recover damages for a defamatory falsehood whose substance causes substantial danger to reputation by showing the defendant publisher acted with highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

News Reports (selected)

AT: Schedule

Before Week 1 (before January 15th)

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

Course Resources: Voting Rights

Familiarize yourself with the following so that you can use these sources throughout the course

Week 1, Class 1

During Class

  • Review the course requirements

Week 2, Classes 2 & 3

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events

Week 3 Classes 4 & 5

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events

Week 4, Classes 6 & 7

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events

Week 5, Classes 8 & 9

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events

Week 6, Classes 10 & 11

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events
Deliverable(s)
  • Case Simulation #1 Materials Available No Later Than Sunday at 1p ET
  • Case Simulation #1, Phase 1 Memo Due No Later Than Thursday at 11p ET; Submit Using Teams DM
  • ATP Status Report Due No Later Than Saturday at 1:12a ET, submit using Teams

Week 7, Classes 12 & 13

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

Week 8, No Classes | Spring Break

Week 9, Classes 14 & 15

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events

Week 10, Classes 16 & 17

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events
Deliverable(s)
  • ATP Portfolio Due No Later Than Thursday at 4:47a EDT, submit using Teams

Week 11, Classes 18 & 19

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
During Class
  • Discuss
  • Review current events
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

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

Week 13, Class 22

Before Class
Review the following in sufficient depth that you can participate in informed discussion
  • AT Projects
During Class
  • Discuss Voting Rights
  • Review current events
Deliverable(s)
  • CA Materials Due No Later Than Thursday at 2:18a EDT, submit using Teams

Case Analysis

Week 14, Classes 23 & 24

Team 1 –  Environmental Protection (Monday)

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) 20-1530, Argued February 28, 2022 – Decided June 30, 2022 (Consolidated with: Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, North American Coal Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency )
  • Summary: In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule, which addressed carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, citing Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,” 42 U.S.C. 7411(d). Although the states set the enforceable rules governing existing sources, EPA determines the emissions limit with which they have to comply by determining the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER). In the Clean Power Plan, EPA determined that the BSER for existing coal and natural gas plants included “heat rate improvements” at coal-fired plants and “generation-shifting,” i.e., a shift in electricity production from existing coal-fired to natural-gas-fired plants and from both coal and gas plants to renewables (wind and solar). An operator could reduce the regulated plant’s production of electricity, build or invest in new or existing equipment, or purchase emission allowances as part of a cap-and-trade regime. No existing coal plant could achieve the emissions performance rates without generation-shifting. The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in 2016. It was later repealed when EPA determined that it lacked authority “of this breadth.” EPA then promulgated the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, mandating equipment upgrades and operating practices. The D.C. Circuit held that EPA’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan rested on a mistaken reading of the Clean Air Act and vacated the ACE rule. The Supreme Court reversed. Congress did not grant EPA the authority to devise emissions caps based on the Clean Power Plan’s generation-shifting approach. Restructuring the nation’s mix of electricity generation cannot be the BSER under Section 111. Under the major questions doctrine, an agency must point to “clear congressional authorization” for such an unprecedented exercise of authority. On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it alone with balancing vital considerations of national policy. Issues of electricity transmission and distribution are not within EPA’s traditional expertise. The Clean Power Plan “conveniently enabled” EPA to enact a program, cap-and-trade, that Congress rejected numerous times.
  • Issue: Under a provision of the Clean Air Act, did Congress prohibit the EPA from issuing rules and standards of performance that could potentially reshape the country’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonize any sector of the economy?
  • Holding: Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 30, 2022. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

Team 2 – Free Exercise Clause, School Prayer (Wednesday)

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) No. 21–418, Argued April 25, 2022 – Decided June 27, 2022
  • Summary: Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach after he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet personal prayer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rejection of Kennedy’s claims against the school district. The Supreme Court reversed. The Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. The district acted on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. A plaintiff may demonstrate a free exercise violation by showing that a government entity has burdened his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not “neutral” or “generally applicable,” triggering strict scrutiny. Kennedy seeks to engage in a sincerely motivated religious exercise that does not involve students; the district’s policies were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The district sought to restrict Kennedy’s actions at least in part because of their religious character. Kennedy established a Free Speech Clause violation. When an employee “speaks as a citizen addressing a matter of public concern,” courts should engage in “a delicate balancing of the competing interests surrounding the speech and its consequences.” Kennedy was not engaged in speech “ordinarily within the scope” of his coaching duties. His prayers occurred during the postgame period when coaches were free to attend to personal matters and students were engaged in other activities. In place of the “Lemon” and “endorsement” tests, courts should look “to historical practices and understandings.” A rule that the only acceptable government role models for students are those who eschew any visible religious expression would undermine a long constitutional tradition of tolerating diverse expressive activities.
  • Issue: Whether a public school district had the constitutional authority to prevent a high school football coach from continuing his longstanding practice of leading student-athletes in midfield prayer immediately after games.
  • Holding: The free exercise and free speech clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.
  • Judgment: Reversed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 27, 2022. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett joined, and in which Justice Kavanaugh joined except as to Part III-B. Justices Thomas and Alito filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.

Week 15, Classes 25 & 26

Team 3 –  Second Amendment (Monday)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) No. 20–843, Argued November 3, 2021 – Decided June 23, 2022
  • Summary: The State of .New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists.” An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” New York residents who unsuccessfully applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense challenged the “proper cause” requirement. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the suit. New York’s “proper cause” requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. The “historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation, but none of these limitations on the right to bear arms operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from carrying arms in public for that purpose.” The Court stated that the “constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.
  • Issue: Does New York’s law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?
  • Holding: New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 23, 2022. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Team 4 –  Regulatory Authority (Wednesday)

Covid In The Workplace

National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, 595 U.S. ___ (2022) No. 21-A244, Argued January 7, 2022 – Decided January 13, 2022 (Consolidated with: Ohio v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration)
  • Summary: The Secretary of Labor, through OSHA, enacted a vaccine mandate, to be enforced by employers. The mandate preempted contrary state laws and covered virtually all employers with at least 100 employees, with exemptions for employees who exclusively work remotely or outdoors. It required that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine or obtain a medical test each week at their own expense, on their own time, and also wear a mask at work. Challenges were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, which allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. The Supreme Court stayed the rule. Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked the authority to impose the mandate. The rule is “a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees,” not plainly authorized by statute; 29 U.S.C. 655(b) empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures. Although COVID–19 is a risk in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 spreads everywhere that people gather. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization. The vaccine mandate is unlike typical OSHA workplace regulations. A vaccination “cannot be undone.” Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are permissible but OSHA’s indiscriminate approach fails to distinguish between occupational risk and general risk. The equities do not justify withholding interim relief. States and employers allege that OSHA’s mandate will force them to incur billions of dollars in unrecoverable compliance costs and will cause hundreds of thousands of employees to leave their jobs.
  • Issue: Did the Occupational Safety & Health Administration exceed its authority in promulgating a rule mandating that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine or else wear a mask and be subject to weekly testing?
  • Holding: The court grants the applications to stay the Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s challenged rule mandating that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine.
  • Judgment: Application granted in a per curiam opinion on January 13, 2022. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Covid in Health Care Facilities

Biden v. Missouri, No. 21-A240 595 U.S. ___ (2022) Argued January 7, 2022 – Decided January 13, 2022
  • Summary: In November 2021, the Secretary of HHS announced that, in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, participating facilities must ensure that their staff—unless exempt for medical or religious reasons or teleworking full-time—are vaccinated against COVID–19. Two district courts enjoined enforcement of the rule. The Supreme Court stayed the injunctions pending appeals in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. The rule falls within the Secretary’s statutory authority to promulgate regulations “necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which [he] is charged,” 42 U.S.C. 1302(a), including ensuring that the healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients protect their patients’ health and safety. Conditions with which facilities must comply to be eligible to receive Medicare and Medicaid funds have long included a requirement that certain providers maintain and enforce an “infection prevention and control program.” Vaccination requirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America.  The rule is not arbitrary. The Court noted the Secretary’s findings that in addition to the threat posed by in- facility transmission itself, “fear of exposure” to the virus “from unvaccinated health care staff can lead patients to themselves forgo seeking medically necessary care.” Nor did the Secretary fail to consider that the rule might cause staffing shortages. The Secretary’s finding of good cause to delay notice and comment was based on a finding that accelerated promulgation of the rule in advance of the winter flu season would significantly reduce COVID–19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.
  • Issue: Does the Department of Health and Human Services have the authority to enforce a rule requiring health care workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption?
  • Holding: The court grants the applications to stay the two injunctions barring the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ regulation requiring facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that their employees are vaccinated against COVID–19.
  • Judgment: Application granted in a per curiam opinion on January 13, 2022. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined.

Week 16, Classes 27 & 28

Team 5 –  Establishment Clause: Separation of Church and State (Monday)

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) No. 20-1088, Argued December 8, 2021 Decided June 21, 2022
  • Summary: Maine offers tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that neither operate a secondary school nor contract with a school in another district. Parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend; the school district sends payments to that school to defray tuition costs. To be eligible for tuition payments, private schools had to be accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges or approved by the Maine Department of Education. Since 1981, Maine has limited tuition assistance payments to “nonsectarian” schools. The First Circuit affirmed the rejection of constitutional challenges to the “nonsectarian” requirement. The Supreme Court reversed. Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause, which protects against “indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.” A state need not subsidize private education but if it does so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious. A law that operates in that manner must be subjected to “the strictest scrutiny.” A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause; a state’s anti-establishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.
  • Issue: Does a state law prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
  • Holding: Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2022. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

Team 6 –  Abortion Rights (Wednesday)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) No. 19-1392, Argued December 1, 2021 – December June 24, 2022
  • Summary: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act provides that “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed an injunction, prohibiting enforcement of the Act.  The Supreme Court reversed, overruling its own precedent. The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; the authority to regulate abortion belongs to state representatives. Citing the “faulty historical analysis” in Roe v. Wade, the justices concluded that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition; regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same “rational basis” standard of review as other health and safety measures. The justices analyzed “great common-law authorities,” concerning the historical understanding of ordered liberty. “Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ … could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.” Noting “the critical moral question posed by abortion,” the justices compared their decision to Brown v. Board of Education in overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, which “was also egregiously wrong.” Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference and produced a scheme that “looked like legislation,” including a “glaring deficiency” in failing to justify the distinction it drew between pre- and post-viability abortions. The subsequently-described “undue burden” test is unworkable in defining a line between permissible and unconstitutional restrictions. Traditional reliance interests are not implicated because getting an abortion is generally an “unplanned activity,” and “reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.” The Court emphasized that nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act is supported by the Mississippi Legislature’s specific findings, which include the State’s asserted interest in “protecting the life of the unborn.”
  • Issue: Is Mississippi’s law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks’ gestational age unconstitutional?
  • Holding: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
  • Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 24, 2022. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Week 17, Class 29

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 page 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.

AT Project

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

We will examine the case law, statutes and regulations surrounding voting rights and elections in the United States during the first thirteen weeks of the semester. We will discuss the different aspects of the constitutional, statutory and regulatory basis for voting including the right to vote, election administration, gerrymandering, redistricting and the Buckley Framework, among others. Your team will prepare an analysis, including text and multimedia, of a voting rights issue that examines the legal, ethical, social, cultural and political questions and perspectives related to your approved voting rights issue.

You will join a team that will be responsible for the management of all aspects of your AT Project (ATP). Your ATP will be developed using the Adobe Portfolio app, and other resources as necessary, available through the Adobe Creative Cloud and shared in your Team’s ATP channel. This will allow your classmates to be fully prepared for our discussion of voting rights on Wednesday, April 12th. Your ATP will include, but not be limited to, the following sections:
  • Your AT Project Proposal, in a maximum of 500 words, will identify the primary issue you will investigate, the reason you have chosen it and any domains adjacent to your primary issue and will be due no later than Thursday, February 2nd at 10:42p ET.
  • Your AT Project Status Report will be due no later than Saturday, February 25th at 1:12a ET
  • Your final ATP, due no later than Thursday, March 23rd at 4:47a EDT, will include
    • ATP Proposal
    • ATP Status Report
    • Project narrative, in a minimum of 3,000 words. Each narrative will include the materials, including multimedia content, necessary to support your team’s examination. The narrative should include, but not be limited to,
      • An in-depth examination of the project issue(s)
      • A discussion of the issue(s) that provides context for the project from a legal, ethical, social, cultural and political perspective
      • A video sharing the team’s analysis in sufficient detail to allow your classmates to be full prepared for our discussion of voting rights generally during class on Wednesday, April 12th
      • A comprehensive source list that includes embedded, live hyperlinks to all sources (please see Professor Lucas’ Digital Citation for guidance)
    • You will prepare and share your analysis using the Adobe Portfolio app and other resources, as necessary, available through the Adobe Creative Cloud, allowing your classmates to be full prepared for our discussion of voting rights on Wednesday, April 12th
  • Participation in the discussion of voting rights generally during class on Wednesday, April 12th
Each team will develop and report their project in Teams using the Adobe Portfolio app, and other resources as necessary, available through the Adobe Creative Cloud. Each team must use their Teams channel for all brainstorming, communication, file sharing, etc. related to the ATP. Each team will be responsible for the preparation and posting of progress and content updates to their channel in Teams in accordance with the schedule. The use of Teams will provide full transparency as the project development process progresses. In other words, everyone involved in the course with access to our Teams workspace will have the opportunity to review and comment on the progress of each team’s project. Never post a Word or Google doc or pdf.

 Case Analysis

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

We will examine/discuss several cases decided by SCOTUS during the 2021/2022 term during the last three weeks of the semester. These cases focus on constitutional law, privacy, environmental protection, establishment and free exercise clauses and second amendment, among others. You will join one of six teams that will be responsible for the management of all aspects of a case analysis. Each team will be responsible for the analysis of one of the cases described in the Course Schedule. Each case analysis will be developed using the Adobe Portfolio app, and other resources as necessary, available through the Adobe Creative Cloud and shared in your Team’s CA channel. This will allow your classmates to be full prepared for our CA discussions. Your CA will include

  • Your CA 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
    • The basis of the case (including a review of lower court and related decisions)
    • A discussion that provides context for the case from a legal, ethical, social, cultural and political perspective
    • A comprehensive source list that includes embedded, live hyperlinks to all sources (please see Professor Lucas’ Digital Citation for guidance)
    • A video sharing the team’s analysis in sufficient detail to allow your classmates to be full prepared for each in-class CA discussion
  • Moderation of the scheduled in discussion of your 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, Digital Citation and Writing and Research. Never post a Word or Google doc or pdf.

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:

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 for the first time on Wednesday, January 18th at 330p 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. Please be certain to bring a mask to every class meeting since we will be wearing masks during class.

Click here to visit our Teams workspace. It is important that you visit 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 voting rights and election law during the first part of the course. We will then review several of the cases decided during the 2021/2022 SCOTUS term. Those cases will examine issues touching on constitutional law, privacy, environmental protection, establishment and free exercise clauses and second amendment, among others. 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 Casebook

Election Law: Cases and Materials, 7th Ed., Lowenstein, Daniel Hays; Hasen, Richard L., Tokaji, Daniel P. and Stephanopoulos, Nicholas, Carolina Academic Press 2022 ISBN# 9781531020811. You can purchase the ebook here.

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

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.