To:
Teachers of Constitutional Law in
high school
From: Rich Kitchens,
Director, Constitutional Law Education Project (CLEP) (http://conlawed.com)
(Email us at: rich@conlawed.com)
Sub:
Newsletter
#413 (July 21, 2010)
This is an
occasional FREE newsletter for the teachers of Constitutional Law
(4th) and others interested in teaching such a
subject to high school students. Currently, it goes out to more than
160 teachers. It is organized to suggest strategies in each of
the five units in the Constitutional Law (4th)
text. Of course, you can use any of this information
without the text as well. More information can be obtained by using
the Teacher’s Guide to Constitutional Law (4th),
published by the CLEP.
If
you wish to be removed from this newsletter mailing list, please
reply with the designation “Remove” in the subject box.
Please
let us know what you would like to see in this newsletter as it
evolves. To view past issues of the newsletter, contact Rich
Kitchens at our email address. To see Rich Kitchens’ classroom,
check out: http://www.edutopia.org/room-learn-speak-your-mind
=====================================================
General
Articles, Hints and Reminders:
State
switch to U.S. school standards debated [SF Chron, 7/21/10]:
California typically lands at or near the bottom in virtually every
measure of public school performance nationally, but the academic
content taught to the state's schoolchildren is second to none,
according to a study released Tuesday.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/21/MN4E1EH5B7.DTL
Featured
eLesson - Supreme Court Decisions Wrap-Up [Bill of Rights Institute,
7/13/10]: The final Bill of Rights in the News eLesson for the 09-10
school year features a round-up of recent Bill of Rights-related
cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a landmark ruling, the
Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to state and local
governments in McDonald v. Chicago. The Court ruled in
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez on the question of
whether a public university could withhold funding from a student
group that barred gay and lesbian members. John Doe #1 v.
Reed involved the First Amendment rights of petition signers,
and the Court considered in Skilling v. U.S. whether the
former Enron CEO had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to
an impartial jury.
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Teach/FreeResources/Lessons/?action=showDetails&id=299&ref=showCatD&catId=6
CRF Announces
Launch of New Web Site: Celebrate America: Celebrating America's
Civic Holidays [Constitutional Rights
Foundation, 6/28/10]: The site is designed to give families and
classrooms content and activities for meaningful and fun
celebrations of America’s civic holidays. The first holiday
featured, appropriately enough, is the Fourth of
July.
http://www.crfcelebrateamerica.org/
I.
Introduction to Law, the Constitution, and the Supreme
Court
[See TOPICS
1-10 in the 4th edition of Constitutional
Law]
Some recent
articles that are relevant to this unit:
Thomas
Jefferson made slip in Declaration [MSNBC, 7/2/10]: Preservation scientists at the Library of Congress have
discovered that Thomas Jefferson, even in the act of declaring
independence from England, had trouble breaking free from monarchial
rule.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38062085/?GT1=43001
Schwarzenegger to pick
Cantil-Sakauye as chief justice [Sac Bee, 7/21/10]: Gov.
Schwarzenegger will nominate Tani Cantil-Sakauye, a Republican
appellate court justice with a reputation as a moderate, to be chief
justice of the California Supreme Court, The Bee learned Tuesday.
Cantil-Sakauye, a Republican appellate court justice with a
reputation as a moderate, to be chief justice of the California
Supreme Court. Cantil-Sakauye, 50, of Sacramento, is a former
prosecutor and Superior Court judge. She would replace Chief Justice
Ron George, who has announced he will retire Jan. 2. Cantil-Sakauye
has been on the 3rd District Court of Appeal since 2005.
If approved by a three-member commission and by voters in November,
she would start a 12-year term in January.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/21/2903895/schwarzenegger-to-pick-cantil.html
Vikram Amar, “How The
Aftermath of Senator Byrd's Passing Offers Constitutional Lessons
About the Senate and the Processes Used to Fill Senate Vacancies.”
Writ, 7/16/10: Professor Amar considers the constitutional
lessons we can learn from situations where a Senator passes away,
and the resulting Senate vacancy must be filled. Amar contends that
often, Senators facing terminal health issues may best serve their
constituencies by eventually opting to resign their seats. Amar
examines the example of Senator Robert Byrd as a case in point. He
describes the new status quo after Byrd, which has left Democrats
short of a filibuster-proof majority; describes the process and
political realities related to the selection of Byrd's successor;
and contends that this situation shows why temporary gubernatorial
appointments should be utilized, and should be made fairly quickly.
Amar also calls for further clarity in the relevant law and an
acceptance of vacancy-filling as an inherently political
process.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20100716.html
The U.S.
Supreme Court [TOPICS 7,
8, 9, 11, 12]
Analyze the
Supreme Court decision statistics from the October 2009
term:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/latest-stat-pack-6-26-10/
Almost
HALF of this term’s decisions were 9-0:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Preliminary-Stats-OT09_062610-2.pdf
Roberts Put His
Stamp on Supreme Court in Latest Term [NY Times, 6/29/10]: Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr. took control of his court this year, pushing hard on
issues of concern to him, including campaign finance and gun
rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30scotus.html?hp
Conservative
justices leave their mark [SF Chron, 7/3/10]: The winners in the
2009-10 U.S. Supreme Court term included corporate campaign donors,
gun owners and dealers, prosecutors - except for those in
white-collar crime and corruption cases - and
immigrants.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/03/MN5M1E8CDT.DTL
Kagan Hearings
Finished [Supreme Court blog, 7/2/10]: Yesterday the Kagan confirmation hearing drew
to a close, with testimony in the afternoon and evening from
witnesses brought by both major parties.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/07/friday-round-up-38/
See the videos from
C-SPAN:
http://www.c-span.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx
Fewer Than 1 in
5 Can Name Kagan as Supreme Court Nominee [NLJ, 6/28/10]: With
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation hearing set
to start today, she is still an unfamiliar figure to most Americans,
according to a poll released by C-SPAN. Only 19 percent of those
polled could name Kagan in response to an open-ended question about
the name of the current nominee. If the low level of Kagan awareness
can be read as a sign of public ignorance about the nation's highest
court, the poll also offers results indicating that the public does
not like what it does not know.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463025970
A ‘Kagan
Doctrine’ on Gay Marriage [Op-Ed in NY Times, 7/3/10]: Can the Supreme Court
protect civil rights and respect the majority? Elena Kagan uttered
neither the word “gay” nor “marriage” in her opening statement at
the Senate confirmation hearings on her nomination to the Supreme
Court, but she addressed the issue nonetheless. No, she didn’t say
how she will vote when gay marriage comes before the court, as it
may soon. What she did say was …
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/opinion/03rauch.html
In Justice
Confirmation Hearings, Echoes of the Tea Party [NY Times, 7/3/10]:
Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings this week were the first of the
Tea Party era. When Republicans pressed Ms. Kagan on the
Constitution’s commerce clause and whether she was a legal
progressive, they were speaking not just about academic
abstractions, but about the very ideas that animate the rebellious,
conservative movement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/us/politics/03constitution.html
Julie Hilden, “Elena Kagan
on the First Amendment: Evidence from Her Confirmation Hearings.”
Writ, 7/6/10: Hilden comments on the First-Amendment-related
views that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan voiced during her
confirmation hearings. The topics ranged from cameras in the Court,
to campaign-finance restrictions, to libel law, to the possible
intersection between antitrust law and the First Amendment.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20100706.html
Justice Thomas
often goes it alone for First Amendment [Analysis of David Hudson of
the First Amendment Center, 7/6/10]: Even when not filing solitary
dissents, Clarence Thomas provides a different constitutional
analysis from that of his Supreme Court
colleagues.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=23127
II.
Defining the Political System: Federalism and Checks and Balances
[See TOPICS
11-15 in the 4th edition of Constitutional
Law]
Some recent
articles that are relevant to this unit:
Michael Dorf, “Cases on
Arizona's Immigrant-Investigation Law and the Defense of Marriage
Act Show the Cross-Ideological Interplay Between Federalism and
Individual Rights.” Writ, 7/12/10: Professor Dorf comments on
recent two federal cases that address disparate subject matter --
immigrant rights, and same-sex marriage, respectively -- but both
shed light on issues of federalism and individual rights. As Dorf
explains, these two cases illustrate how federalism and rights
concerns do not always line up the same way ideologically, nor do
they always align with the same political party.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100712.html
Report: 3,100
firms, agencies involved in war on terror [MSNBC, 7/19/10]: Since
the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by
the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no-one
really knows what it costs and how many people are involved, The
Washington Post reported Monday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38304293/ns/us_news-security/
Joanna Grossman, “Is DOMA
-- the Defense of Marriage Act -- Valid? A Federal District Court
Judge Says No.” Writ, 7/19/10:
Professor Grossman analyzes a recent decision by Boston-based
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro regarding the federal Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). As Grossman explains, the Obama Administration
is seeking to enforce Section Three of DOMA, which provides that
marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman for all
federal-law purposes. Two cases that challenge the enforcement of
Section Three came before Judge Tauro. This is a two-part
article:
Part 1: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20100719.html
Part 2: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20100720.html
California voters back
abortion rights [SD Union-Trib, 7/21/10]:
A new Field Poll shows 71 percent of the state’s voters favor either
not making any change to the state’s abortion laws or making
abortions easier to obtain.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/20/california-voters-back-abortion-rights/
III.
The Political System: Voting and Campaigns
[See TOPICS 16-20 in the
4th edition of Constitutional
Law]
Some recent articles that
are relevant to this unit:
Democrats
engage in 'circular firing squad' [Wash Post, 7/18/10]: In a week
when Congress finally passed financial regulatory reform and the oil
finally stopped gushing in the gulf, Democrats spent much of their
time on an enterprise they can ill afford: arguing among
themselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/17/AR2010071700975.html?
Boren: The
humor of Brown, Whitman campaigns [Fresno Bee, 7/18/10]: Most of us
regularly complain about our candidates for governor in California,
but is there any state that offers more entertainment at election
time?
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/16/2009092/the-humor-of-brown-whitman-campaigns.html
Term limits
shift balance of power to special interests [SJ Merc, 7/18/10]: Like
all newly elected lawmakers, Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes arrived in
Sacramento needing two things to ensure his success: legislative
achievements and campaign money.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15517816
Read
Part One: How Laws are Really Made [SJ Merc,
7/11/10]:
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15452125
Tangled up in
blue
[Politico, 7/21/10]: The Republican path to a Senate majority runs
through a handful of hostile states, most of which are so deep blue
that they haven’t sent a member to the upper chamber in more than a
decade.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39999.html
Legislation
and the Legislative Process
(TOPIC 20)
Senate GOP
again kills extension of unemployment benefits [LA Times, 7/1/10]:
The bill is filibustered for a third time, but during this round,
the measure attracts two Republican votes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0701-senate-jobless-20100701,0,6274099.story
Sen. Scott
Brown of Massachusetts cuts backroom deals he campaigned against [LA
Times, 7/1/10]: Republican Sen. Scott Brown owes his election in
part to the public furor over the so-called "Cornhusker kickback,"
the backroom deal that Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska struck for his
vote to pass the healthcare bill. Now Brown is following Nelson's
example, winning concessions in the financial overhaul bill on
behalf of Massachusetts banks.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/06/sen-scott-brown-of-massachusetts-cuts-backroom-deals-he-campaigned-against-.html
Parental
notification measure cleared to circulate [CC Times, blog, 7/3/10]:
The proponent of a new proposed ballot measure to require parental
notification before a doctor can provide an abortion to an
unemancipated minor can start collecting petition signatures,
Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced
today.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/07/02/parental-notification-measure-cleared-to-circulate/
America Builds
an Aristocracy [Op-Ed in NY Times, 7/8/10]: Congress is feeling
pressure to deal with taxes on inherited wealth, which has fallen to
ZERO this year thanks to lawmakers’ inaction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/opinion/12madoff.html
IV.
Criminal Law and Procedure (4th, 5th,
6th, and 8th amendments)
[See TOPICS
21-28 in the 4th edition of Constitutional
Law]
Some recent articles that
are relevant to this unit:
DUI law among
those taking effect this week [Sac Bee, 7/1/10]: Convicted drunken
drivers in four California counties will have to prove they haven't
had a drink before they can start their vehicles, under one of
several laws taking effect Thursday.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/30/2861353/calif-dui-law-among-those-taking.html
V.
1st Amendment (Speech, Religion, Press and
Assembly)
[See TOPICS
29-33 in the 4th edition of Constitutional
Law]
Some recent articles that
are relevant to this unit:
First Amendment
Meant to Protect Religion, Kagan Says / [School Law Blog, 6/30]:
Questions relating to education have been few and far between at
Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing on her nomination to the Supreme
Court. Today, though, two Democratic senators broached the topic of
the U.S. Constitution's religion clauses.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2010/06/questions_relating_to_educatio.html
1 for All:
standing up for the First Amendment [First Amendment Center,
7/1/10]: Its freedoms are truly the cornerstone of democracy and
make America the special nation it is. It’s time we said
that.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23078
School that
prompted update to free expression law dismisses yearbook adviser
[SPLC, 6/30/10]: As an update
to the California student free expression law clears its most recent
hurdle, the California school at the center of the debate over
whether the state's law applies to charter schools has dismissed its
yearbook adviser.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=2114
5th Circuit
won't let Texas principals off hook in candy-cane case [AP, 7/2/10]:
Administrators
claimed courts hadn't extended free-speech protection to
'distribution of non-curricular materials' in elementary schools;
'They are wrong,' panel says.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23120
Blog:
Ruling in running for First Amendment decision of the year
[First Amendment Center, 7/13/10]: Federal judge finds teachable moment in Iowa
sheriff’s retaliatory act.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23151
Mont. schools
consider adopting restrictive publications policy [SPLC, 7/8/10]:
The Missoula
County Public Schools Board of Trustees is considering a new student
publications policy that it hopes will align the journalism programs
at all of its schools, but some worry the new policy too severely
limits students' work.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=2117
Court Backs
American Indian Student's Long Hair [School Law Blog, 7/11/10]: A
Texas school district violated the religious rights of an American
Indian student when it sought to restrict how he wore his long,
braided hair, a federal appeals court has
ruled.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2010/07/court_backs_american_indian_st.html
The case is A.A. v.
Needville Independent School District and the decision can be
found at:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-20091-CV0.wpd.pdf
When the First
Amendment doesn’t help, Texas will [Charles Haynes of the First
Amendment Center, 7/18/10]: State's religious-freedom act invoked to
uphold Native American school child's right to wear braids in the
way that reflects his faith. So if you are religious
and live in Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, Arizona,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Alabama, Idaho, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Missouri or Virginia, count yourself fortunate.
The First Amendment may not give you much protection, but your state
law restoring religious freedom will.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23163
Blog: 2nd
Circuit questions 'twin pillars' of Pacifica [David Hudson
of the First Amendment Center, 7/14/10]: Does second-class treatment
of broadcast medium make sense in new media
environment?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23156
VI.
14th Amendment, Discrimination, Privacy, Working,
Citizenship & Immigration
[See TOPICS 34-41 in the
4th edition of Constitutional
Law]
Some recent articles that
are relevant to this unit:
Prop 8
Plaintiffs See Crucial Language in Supreme Court's Law School Ruling
[The Recorder, 6/30/10]: Plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 may
have found treasure in Monday's Supreme Court ruling on a San
Francisco law school's discrimination policy. Lawyers for same-sex
marriage proponents told the judge in the Prop 8 trial Tuesday that
the majority in the high court ruling acknowledged that gays are a
protected class. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined Justice Ruth
Ginsburg's opinion in the case, is the crucial fifth vote that
same-sex marriage plaintiffs are counting on, should the challenge
to Prop 8 make it to D.C.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463150479
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=23113
Read Christian Legal
Society v. Martinez:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
See all of the supporting
documents, briefs, etc., relating to this case from the U.S. Supreme
Court wiki:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez#Decision
Vikram Amar, “What the
CLS Ruling Reveals About the Supreme Court's Processes.”
Writ, 7/2/10: Professor Amar comments on three interesting
insights that the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Christian Legal
Society provides, regarding the Court's processes. The
case pitted Hastings College of the Law -- a public law school that
is part of the University of California system -- against the
Christian Legal Society (CLS) group at Hastings. CLS sought funding
and affiliation from Hastings, but denied non-believers and gay
persons the ability to join. The Court held that Hastings could
constitutionally withhold affiliation and funding from CLS. Amar
explains how the Court's decision illustrates that, at the Court,
(1) doctrine truly matters; (2) the concessions parties make in the
course of litigation matter, too; and (3) the Court prefers to defer
to institutional judgment when it can, and perhaps especially when
the institution at issue is a university.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20100702.html
Marci Hamilton, “CLS v.
Martinez: The Supreme Court Rightly Holds that Public Law Schools
Can Deny Affiliation and Funding to Religious Groups that
Discriminate Against Gay Students.” Writ, 7/1/10: Professor
Hamilton comments on the Supreme Court's decision, issued this
Monday, June 28th, in the case of CLS v.
Martinez. As Hamilton explains, the case was brought by
the Christian Legal Society (CLS) against Hastings, a public law
school within the University of California system. CLS argued that
Hastings infringed the constitutional rights of students who
belonged to CLS's Hastings-based chapter when it denied the group
law-school affiliation and the same funding other student groups
enjoy.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20100701.html
Treatment of
Christian campus group doesn’t pass smell test [Analysis of Charlie
Haynes of the First Amendment Center, 7/4/10]: Beyond the setback for
religious freedom, the Court’s decision is a body-blow to freedom of
association.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23117
Sherry Colb, “An Oklahoma
Abortion Law Raises New and Different Rights Questions.”
Writ, 7/21/10: Professor Colb comments on the Supreme Court's
recent, end-of-Term decision in Ontario v.
Quon. Colb contends that the Court's outcome -- holding
that a public employer can, under some circumstances, read the text
messages an employee sends on an employer-owned pager that is meant
to be used for work purposes -- should have been unsurprising to
Court observers. She also explains that the case before the Court
was made easier by a number of facts -- such as the employer's
express warning to its employees that its policy was that it could
read their texts without prior notice.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20100721.html
The
Law of Working
[TOPIC 39]
Cal Supreme
Court: PERB Has Initial Jurisdiction Over Strikes [PERB
Blog, 7/2/10]: The California Supreme Court has just issued its
decision in City
of San Jose. The key holding agrees with the Court
of Appeal that PERB has initial jurisdiction over a claim by a
public entity that a strike by some or all of its employees is
illegal. http://caperb.blogspot.com/2010/07/supreme-court-perb-has-initial.html
The decision can be found
at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S162647.PDF
Are workplace
whistle-blowers protected in California? [California Watch,
6/25/10]: California whistle-blowers be wary. Cases where employers
allegedly retaliate against employees for reporting hazardous
conditions at work take the longest to resolve in this state,
according to a FairWarning report this week.
http://www.californiawatch.org/watchblog/california-whistleblowers-can-face-long-wait-retaliation-case-closure
Sherry Colb, “The Supreme
Court Denies A Public Employee's Privacy in Electronic
Communications: What's Next?” Writ, 7/6/10: Professor Colb
comments on the Supreme Court's recent, end-of-Term decision in
Ontario v.
Quon. Colb contends that the Court's outcome -- holding
that a public employer can, under some circumstances, read the text
messages an employee sends on an employer-owned pager that is meant
to be used for work purposes -- should have been unsurprising to
Court observers. She also explains that the case before the Court
was made easier by a number of facts -- such as the employer's
express warning to its employees that its policy was that it could
read their texts without prior notice. Much more surprising than the
outcome here, Colb contends, was the explicit decision by the Court
to refrain from interpreting what privacy rights mean in the area of
electronic communications, on the ground that the technology is in a
state of flux.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20100706.html
Pro-union law
struck down by appeals court [SF Chron, 7/20/10]: A state appeals
court struck down a union-backed California law Monday that allows
labor picketing on a store's parking lots and private sidewalks,
saying it unconstitutionally requires property owners to host
speakers with whom they disagree.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/20/BAK01EGQBI.DTL
President Obama to push
Congress on pay-fairness bill
[USA Today, 7/20/10]: President
Barack Obama will urge Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act,
which would make it easier for women to sue companies that pay them
less than men. Critics say the bill won't help women. "The bill is a
cruel hoax. It won't empower women who face pay discrimination, but
it will empower trial lawyers whose junk lawsuits will clog up the
courts and make it hard for businesses to grow and hire," says a
spokesman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-07-20-payequity20_ST_N.htm
International
Law, Citizenship and Immigration
[TOPIC 40-42]
Appeals Court
Sides With Detainee [NY Times, 7/3/10]: A federal court sided with
a Guantánamo prisoner whose case prompted major argument among Obama
administration advisers over how to define who can be detained
without trial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/us/04gitmo.html
Joanne Mariner, “Talking
to Terrorists: The Worst U.S. Supreme Court Decision of the Term.”
Writ, 7/7/10: Mariner discusses the Supreme Court's recent,
end-of-Term decision in Holder v. Humanitarian
Law Project. There, the Court held that peace and
human-rights activists could not legally advise and train militant
groups to use lawful means to achieve political ends. Specifically,
the groups had wanted to (1) train Kurdish nationalists in Turkey on
how to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully, and how
to petition “representative bodies such as the United Nations” for
relief; and (2) engage in political advocacy on behalf of the Kurds
in Turkey and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Mariner argues that the
ruling -- which held that the First Amendment did not protect the
activists' planned communications with the groups at issue from
being characterized as illegal "material support" to terrorist
groups under federal law--is among the top candidates for being the
Term's very worst.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20100707.html
=========================================================
