Request for Assistance -- O'Connor and Alito

Thu Apr 19 13:31:37 PDT 2007

I wonder whether Morse v. Frederick poses a threat to the continued vitality of Tinker v. Des Moines?  Not so much in terms of an overruling, but a narrowing of the protections afforded by a much greater deference to teachers' and administrators' assertion that disruption might have occurred but for the intervention to prevent the expression.

hs

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jamar <stevenjamar at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:25 pm
Subject: Request for Assistance -- O'Connor and Alito
To: ConLaw Prof <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>

>  
>  well, what would the effect be of the recent standing/environment  
>  case?  that might affect both Lane and Alaska v. EPA . . ..  I  
>  haven't really worked it through though.
>  
>  Steve
>  >
>  >
>  > On Apr 19, 2007, at 4:08 PM, marty.lederman at comcast.net wrote:
>  >
>  > Two years ago, when Justice O'Connor announced her retirement, I  
>  > compiled a list of precedents that I thought were most vulnerable  
> 
>  > to overruling.  Several folks on this listserv made very helpful  
>  > suggestions of deletions and additions.  I've now republished that  
> 
>  > list, since Stenberg v. Carhart was the first major overruling of  
> 
>  > an SOC-era precedent.  Several news outlets and others have asked  
> 
>  > me if they can use the list, and before I say yes, I was wondering  
> 
>  > if anyone here thinks there are any obvious mistakes or omissions  
> 
>  > on it -- particularly now that we know that Roberts and Alito are  
> 
>  > on the Court.  And of these precedents, which are the most  
>  > vulnerable?  Thanks very much in advance for any suggestions.
>  >
>  > My post from July 2005:
>  >
>  > These are among the cases in which Justice O'Connor's has been the  
> 
>  > decisive vote or opinion, and in which a more conservative Justice  
> 
>  > might well vote to overrule the governing precedent.
>  >
>  > Note: Because most Justices consider stare decisis a more serious  
> 
>  > obstacle in cases of statutory construction, those cases (e.g., the 
>  
>  > Davis and Jackson Title IX decisions) might be more secure, even if 
>  
>  > Justice O'Connor's replacement would not have agreed with her as a  
> 
>  > matter of first impression.
>  >
>  > McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) -- Ten Commandments displays
>  >
>  > Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Educ. (2005) -- Title IX Liability  
> 
>  > for Retaliation
>  >
>  > Rompilla v. Beard (2005) -- standard of reasonable competence that  
> 
>  > Sixth Amendment requires on the part of defense counsel
>  >
>  > Johanns v. Livestock Marketing (2005) -- assessments for government 
>  
>  > speech
>  >
>  > Smith v. Massachusetts (2005) -- double jeopardy
>  >
>  > Small v. United States (2005) - felon firearm possession ban  
>  > doesn't cover foreign convictions
>  >
>  > Tennessee v. Lane (2004) -- Congress's Section 5 power
>  >
>  > Hibbs v. Winn (2004) -- Tax Injunction Act
>  >
>  > Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) --  
>  > EPA authority under Clean Air Act to issue orders when a state  
>  > conservation agency fails to act
>  >
>  > McConnell v. FEC (2004) -- campaign finance
>  >
>  > Groh v. Ramirez (2004) -- sufficiency of non-particularized search  
> 
>  > warrant
>  >
>  > Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) -- affirmative action
>  >
>  > Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) -- no takings  
>  > violation in IOLTA funding scheme
>  >
>  > American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi (2003) -- presidential  
>  > foreign-affairs "pre-emption" of state law
>  >
>  > Stogner v. California (2003) -- ex post facto clause as applied to  
> 
>  > changes in statutes of limitations
>  >
>  > Alabama v. Shelton (2002) -- right to counsel
>  >
>  > Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran (2002) -- upholding state laws giving  
> 
>  > patients the right to second doctor's opinion over HMOs' objections
>  >
>  > Kelly v. South Carolina (2002) -- capital defendant's due process  
> 
>  > right to inform jury of his parole ineligibility
>  >
>  > FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) --  
>  > upholding limits on "coordinated" political party expenditures
>  >
>  > Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) -- prohibiting indefinite detention of  
>  > immigrants under final orders of removal where no other country  
>  > will accept them
>  >
>  > Easley v. Cromartie (2001) -- race-based redistricting
>  >
>  > Rogers v. Tennessee (2001) -- "judicial" ex post facto
>  >
>  > Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic  
>  > Association (2001) -- state action
>  >
>  > Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) -- "partial-birth abortion" ban
>  >
>  > Mitchell v. Helms (1999) -- direct aid to religious schools
>  >
>  > Davis v. Monroe County Board of Educ. (1999) -- recognizing school  
> 
>  > district liability under Title IX for student-on-student sexual  
>  > harrassment
>  >
>  > Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997) -- injunctions against  
>  > abortion-clinic protestors
>  >
>  > Richardson v. McKnight (1997) -- private prison guards not entitled 
>  
>  > to qualified immunity in section 1983 suits
>  >
>  > Camps Newfound/Owatonna v. Town of Harrison (1997) (dormant  
>  > Commerce Clause)
>  >
>  > Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) -- provisions of the  
> 
>  > Voting Rights Act are constitutional as applied to choice of  
>  > candidates at party political conventions
>  >>
>  >> Schlup v. Delo (1995) (habeas, actual innocence)
>  >>
>  
>  -- 
>  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
>  Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
>  2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
>  Washington, DC  20008                                                 
>                 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
>  
>  "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time  
> 
>  to pause and reflect."
>  
>  Mark Twain
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
>  To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>  
>  Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>  