CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Law 590 §2 (Cohort B)
Spring 2017
J.F. Acevedo
Office Hours: M & W 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., and
2:00 to 5:00 p.m.; T 1:00-5:00 p.m. or by
appointment.
Office: 239
T & Th 9:00 – 11:30 a.m.
Room 217
(909) 460-2032
[email protected]
COURSE DESCRIPTION
The Constitution of the United States is the oldest written constitution still in use.
This course will examine the powers of the different branches of government as well as
the interaction between the states. The limits on each branch of government will also be
examined. In addition, the idea of equal protection under the laws will also be examined.
However, this course will not cover the First Amendment or the amendments related to
the rights of criminal defendants and criminal procedure.
TEXTBOOKS
Required Text
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2013. Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition. New York: Wolters Kluwer
Law & Business (ISBN: 978-1-4548-1753-6).
Recommended Text
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2015. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, Fifth Edition. New
York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business (ISBN: 978-1-4548-4947-6).
OFFICE HOURS
It is not necessary for you to make an appointment to see me during office hours,
but it is recommended. There will be a sign-up sheet posted on TWEN where you can
sign up for 30 minute slots. If you need more time, simply sign up for two slots. If the
sign-up system is abused I reserve the right to see students on a first come first seen basis.
If you wish to see me outside of office hours, you must contact me in advance to
make an appointment.
1
ABA ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT
Attendance is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to ensure a high mark in
participation. If you are not in class then you cannot participate. Furthermore, the ABA
and the law school require regular attendance in class. The following are the ABA
attendance standards in effect:
I.
Class attendance is mandatory; students are also expected to be in class on
time.
II.
If a student is absent for more than 20% of the total hours of a course during
the semester they will be automatically withdrawn from the course by the
registrar’s office.
III.
A student who is late for class or leaves class early may be counted absent
and/or dismissed from class for that day.
IV.
Students are required to track their own absences.
Any questions regarding attendance may be directed to the registrar’s office or the
Dean for Academic Affairs. Students who are absent should obtain notes from classmates.
Conflicting Appointments
Do not schedule any conflicting appointments; personal, professional, or school
related. Likewise, do not schedule an appointment with me that would cause you to miss
a portion of another class. If you need to change a meeting with me to avoid a conflict I
will be happy to alter the appointment time.
Attendance Roster
It is your responsibility to sign the attendance roster. I will not honor after-class
requests to mark the roster on a student’s behalf. With a large number of students in
class, I will not always have an independent recollection of your being present in any
particular session.
GRADING
Class Participation
DVS Assignments
Final Exam
Grade Breakdown
10%
25%
65%
Attendance
Attendance in class is essential. I will grant one absence for any reason what so
ever. After the first absence, your final grade will be deducted 0.5 points for each
additional day absent. Once you have missed 20% of the course then you will be
withdrawn from the course by the registrar in accordance with the ABA policy stated
above.
2
Class Participation
Attendance is a mandatory but insufficient requirement for participation. I expect
you to be prepared to discuss the material in each class session. This includes both the
material assigned in that day’s class and in all previous class sessions. I expect you to
participate in class. Please do not be concerned about volunteering simply because you
are unsure of your answer; it is better to speak and be incorrect than to not speak at all.
Your class participation grade will be based on your answering of questions during
our class session. Please be aware that I will be “cold calling” on students, which means
that I will call on students without advance notice to discuss and answer questions
regarding the assigned material. A student who is not prepared to answer a question can
“pass.” Students will be allowed one “pass” before their participation grade is negatively
affected. You do not need to explain why you are “passing” to me. You do not need to
inform me ahead of time.
Attendance is a necessary but not sufficient part of participation. If you are absent
and called on it will count as a “pass,” unless the absence is for a valid medical or school
related issue and you provide me with a satisfactory explanation by the next class session.
A student who in my opinion is not sufficiently prepared will be counted as having
“passed.”
Participation assessments will take into consideration: (1) the degree to which the
student’s responses reflect a working knowledge of the assigned reading, (2) whether the
student listened attentively to classmates or was merely reiterating previous
contributions, and (3) the degree to which the student’s expression of views evinces
respect for classmates with whom they disagree. Volunteering to contribute in class
discussion can help offset unpreparedness when called upon, but not completely.
Feel free to use commercial outlines if you do not understand a case or to prepare
for the exam, but do not simply read the outline in class in response to a “cold call.” I
want your summary of the case, not another law professor’s summary. Students who I
believe are simply regurgitating commercially prepared material will not receive
participation credit for their response.
DVS Assignment
There will be six DVS assignments throughout the term. The due date for each
assignment is listed both in the DVS Assignment Overview Schedule and on the Reading
Schedule below. All assignments must be turned in at the start of class in hardcopy
format on the Monday of the week they are due. Any assignment turned in late will be
deducted ½ a point for every day late. No assignment will be accepted more than one
class session late. The points available for each assignment are listed on the DVS
Assignment Overview Schedule below.
3
Due
Week 2
DVS Assignment Overview Schedule
Assignment Description
1. Case Brief
A full case brief of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
using the model brief including concurring and dissenting
opinions. This assignment is worth 3 points.
Week 6
2. Outline
Your outline for weeks 1 and 2 of the class. The outline should
be in its final version in accordance with our discussion the
week before. This assignment is worth 2 points.
Week 7
3. Practice
MBEs
You will answer 5 sample MBE questions and provide a
paragraph explanation of why you chose the answer you did.
This assignment is worth 5 points.
Week 8
4. Practice
MBEs
In Class 15 question quiz on the material covered up until this
point in class. This assignment is worth 5 points.
Week 9
5. Logical
Reasoning
Questions
You will answer five logic questions and provide a brief
explanation of your reasoning. The assignment is worth 5
points.
Week 15
6. Practice
Essay
In class timed practice essay exam question done in 1 hour. This
assignment is worth 5 points.
Final Exam
The exam will cover all material assigned or discussed during the duration of the
course. The final exam will consist of two essay questions and 30 multiple choice
questions. The multiple choice questions will be designed to replicate the MBE portion of
the bar exam. The multiple choice section will be worth 15 percent of your grade and each
essay is worth 25 percent. The exam is closed note and closed book.
The final exam is graded anonymously. Please be sure to accurately write your
exam number on your essay and multiple choice Scantron sheet. DO NOT put your name
or any other identifying information on any portion of your exam.
I do not expect you to cite to cases by name, but you must provide enough
information that I can identify to which case you are referring. I expect students to
identify the issues, state the appropriate rules or precedents, and analyze by applying the
rules and cases to the exam hypothetical. It is highly recommended that students
structure their answers in IRAC. Students should analogize or distinguish the exam
hypothetical from the existing precedent. Students will receive credit for identifying the
rules and cases only if they are relevant to the issues. Irrelevant discussions or recitations
of rules will not improve your grade.
I do not deduct points for misidentification of an issue, misstatements of rules or
cases or other errors, but you will gain no points. However, if two exams receive the same
score, the exam that contains fewer mistakes will likely receive a higher grade if doing so
4
is required to comply with the grade distribution. I will also not deduct for typos, spelling
or grammatical errors unless they are so severe as to make your answer unintelligible.
However, I do expect you to write in complete, grammatically correct sentences and not
in abbreviations: exam answers are essays not text messages or tweets.
Students are encouraged to spend at least 10 minutes outlining before they begin
to write an essay answer. Answers must be written only on the front side of each page of
the bluebook. Handwritten answers should be in ink, not pencil. No points will be
awarded for any portion of a handwritten answer that is illegible. If your laptop breaks
during the exam, you must immediately switch to handwriting your answer.
ADA POLICY
General
Students with documented disabilities may contact Student Affairs to arrange for
reasonable accommodations. Please do not request accommodation from me directly as I
do not have the authority to grant them and will simply refer you to Student Affairs.
Student Affairs can be reached by phone at (909) 460-2000.
Exam Accommodations
Students needing special accommodations should contact Dean Kevin Marhsall.
Students are encouraged to ask for accommodations early in the semester to allow
sufficient time for requests to be evaluated.
If an emergency occurs and affects your ability to sit for an exam, or you have
scheduling conflicts with other exams, please contact the Dean of Academic Affairs. In
order to maintain anonymity and integrity of the exam process, please DO NOT disclose
any information regarding your circumstances or accommodation to me.
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Law school introduces students to expectations of professional conduct. If an act
would be considered unprofessional in a legal setting, I ask students not to engage in it in
the classroom. If I determine that a student is acting in an unprofessional or distracting
manner I will ask the student to leave class and will mark them absent for the day.
At all times, students are expected to be respectful of different viewpoints.
Students need not agree with another’s opinion but must conduct themselves with
professionalism. Students should feel free to contribute to the class discussion without
fear of judgement in this course because a robust discussion enhances the material. I will
always give more points for the best argued answer, which may not be the view I agree
with. Argue logically from the law; do not engage in personal attacks, strawmen
arguments or other logical fallacies.
Cell phones, pagers, PDAs, iPads, tablets, Apple Watches, and all other electronic
communication devices, except laptop computers, must be turned off and put away
during class.
5
LAPTOP POLICY
I allow laptops in the classroom. I will not monitor what you are using your
laptops for, but expect you to engage in professional conduct as if you were in a law
office. A student who uses their laptop for inappropriate purposes in class (e.g. watching
movies, viewing pornography, viewing hate speech, etc.) will be reported for appropriate
disciplinary action. I reserve the right to ban all laptops for the entire class at any time. If
your classmates are engaging in behavior that is distracting or inappropriate please see
me after class or at the break to report the issue, not during class.
If you are distracted because of internet use and unprepared to respond when
called upon, it will be treated as a “pass” (see above discussion in participation section).
RECORDING CLASS
No portion of the class may be recorded by audio or video without my express
permission. Any student caught trying to record the class will be asked to leave. The only
exception made to this policy will be in accordance with an approved ADA
accommodation.
I will be recording class sessions and will edit and post them on TWEN. The
recording will be set to record my spoken word, the whiteboards, and any Powerpoint
slides; it will not be recording you.
CHANGES TO THE SYLLABUS
I reserve the right to change or amend the syllabus. Any changes will be provided
in writing by email and announced in class.
6
READING SCHEDULE
Some assignments are longer because the cases could not be logically broken up or
are better understood when read together. If I find that we need to slow the pace of class
down, I will do so.
An asterisk (*) indicates that you are not responsible for the dissenting opinion(s)
for that particular case. You are still responsible for any concurring opinions. It is highly
recommended that you read the unassigned dissents. However, if a dissent is marked as
unassigned you will neither be responsible for them on the exam nor cold-called on them
in class.
Week 1: Judicial Power and Justiciability
10 January: Authority for Judicial Review and Justiciability limits; pp. 10-12 and 35-65 [32
pages].
Cases: Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee; Cohens v. Virginia; Ex Parte McCardle; United
States v. Klein; Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society; Hayburn’s Case; Plaut v. Spendthrift
Farm Inc.; Nashville, C & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace; Allen v. Wright; Massachusetts v.
Environmental Protection Agency; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons; Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife*; United States v. Hays; and Federal Election Comm. V. Akins.
DVS: Review of Federalism and the Structure of U.S. Government and How to
Brief a Case; pp. 2-8 [6 pages].
Cases: Marbury v. Madison.
12 January: Justiciability Continued: Standing, Ripeness, Mootness and Political Question
Doctrine; pp. 65-74, 81-100 and 105-113 [39 pages].
Cases: Linda R.S. v. Richard D.; Warth v. Seldin; Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare
Rights Organization; Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc.;
Singleton v. Wulff; Barrows v. Jackson; Craig v. Boren; Gilmore v. Utah; United States v.
Richardson*; and Flast v. Cohen*; Poe v. Ullman, Abbott Laboratories v Gardner; United
Public Workers v. Mitchell; International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local
37 v. Boyd; Moore v. Ogilvie; Roe v. Wade; DeFunis v. Odegaard; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.
Laidlaw Environmental Services; United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty; Baker v.
Carr; Vieth v. Jubelirer*; Powell v. McCormack; Goldwater v. Carter; and Nixon v. United
States.
7
Week 2: Executive Power
17 January: Executive Power; pp. 318-338, 340-44, 354-358, and 419-425 [37 pages].
Cases: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer; United States v. Nixon; Clinton v.
City of New York; Morrison v. Olson; Myers v. United States; Nixon v. Fitzgerald; and
Clinton v. Jones.
DVS: Case Analysis: Rule Construction and Deconstruction
Assignment 1 Due: Case Brief of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
19 January: Separation of Powers and Foreign Policy; pp. 370-377, 381-392, and 411-418 [27
pages].
Cases: United States v. Curtis-Wright Export Corp.; Dames & Moore v. Regan,
Secretary of the Treasury; Hamdi v.Rumsfeld; and Ex Parte Quirin.
Week 3: Necessary & Proper Clause and Commerce Clause
24 January: Intro to Legislative Power and Necessary & Proper Clause; pp. 116-129, 152-162,
and 170-75 [31 pages].
Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland; United States v. Comstock; Gibbons v. Ogden; NLRB
v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.; and United States v. Darby.
DVS: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation; pp. 13-33
Cases: District of Columbia v. Heller
26 January: Commerce Clause; 175-207 [33 pages]
Cases: Wickard v. Filburn; Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc., v United States; Katzenbach
v. McClung Sr. & McClung Jr.; Hodel v. Indiana; Perez v. United States; Garcia v. San
Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority; United States v. Lopez; and United States v.
Morrison.
Week 4: Court Observation Week
31 January: Court Observation – No Class (To be made-up on 17 April).
2 February: Court Observation - No Class (To be made-up on 2 May).
8
Week 5: 10th Amendment and Taxing & Spending Powers
7 February: 10th Amendment Limits on Commerce Power; 210-241 [31 pages].
Cases: Gonzales v. Raich; New York v. United States; Printz v. United States; and
Reno v. Condon.
DVS: Outlining Constitutional Law
9 February: Taxing and Spending Power; 241-266 [26 pages].
Cases: United States v. Butler; Chas C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis; Sabri v. United
States; South Dakota v. Dole; United States v. Morrison; Katzenbach v. Morgan & Morgan;
City of Boerne v. Flores.
Week 6: Sebelius, Preemption, and Dormant Commerce Clause
14 February: Protecting States from Congress’s Powers pp. 129-151 [23 pages].
Case: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius.
DVS: Multiple Choice Test Strategies
Assignment 2 Due: Outline of Weeks 1 & 2
16 February: Preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause; pp. 434-459 and 463-68 [32
pages].
Cases: Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly; Florida Lime & Avocado Growers Inc. v. Paul,
Director, Department of Agriculture; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources
Conservation & Development Commission; Arizona v. United States; H.P. Hood & Sons v.
Du Mond; Aaron B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia; South Carolina
State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., Inc.; and Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex
rel. Sullivan.
9
Week 7: Preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause
21 February: Monday Classes Meet – No Class (To be made-up on 25 April).
Assignment 3 Due: Practice MBE Questions (Turn in to Faculty Assistants)
23 February: Dormant Commerce Clause; 469-503 [34 pages].
Cases: City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey; Hughes v. Oklahoma; Hunt v. Washington
State Apple Advertising Commission; Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland; West Lynn
Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Food and
Agriculture; State of Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.; Dean Milk Co. v. City of
Madison, Wisconsin; Maine v. Taylor & United States; Pike v. Bruce Church Inc.; Bibb,
Director, Department of Public Safety of Illinois v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc.; Consolidated
Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Raymond Kassel; Western & Southern Life Insurance Co.
v. State Board of Equalization of California; Reeves Inc. v. William Stake; and South-Central
Timber Development Inc. v. Commissioner, Department of Natura Resources of Alaska*;
Week 8: Privileges & Immunities Clause and State Action Doctrine
28 February: Privileges & Immunities Clause of Article IV, Privileges or Immunities
Clause of 14th Amendment, and Incorporation pp. 506-516, 522-30, and 532-47 [34 pages].
Cases: Toomer v. Witsell; United Building & Construction Trades Council of
Camden County v. Mayor & Council of City of Camden; Lester Baldwin v. Fish & Game
Commission of Montana; Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Kathryn A. Piper; SlaughterHouse Cases; Saenz v. Roe; Palko v. Connecticut; Adamson v. California; Duncan v.
Louisiana; and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
DVS: In Class MBE Practice Questions
2 March: State Action Doctrine and Public Function Exception; pp. 548-580 [33 pages].
Cases: United States v. Stanley; Marsh v. Alabama; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison
Co.; Terry v. Alabama; Evans v. Newton; Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v.
Logan Valley Plaza Inc.; Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner; and Hudgens v. NLRB; Shelley v. Kraemer;
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.; Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.; Burton v. Wilmington
Parking Authority; and Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis.
Spring Interregnum
10
Week 9: Economic Substantive Due Process and Contracts Clause
14 March: Entanglement Exception to State Action Doctrine and Economic Substantive
Due Process; pp. 580-600 and 607-14 [28 pages].
Cases: Norwood v. Harrison; Rendell-Baker v. Kohn; Blum v. Yaretsky; Reitman v.
Mulkey; and Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association;
Allgeyer v. Louisiana; and Lochner v. New York.
DVS: Logical Reasoning/Thinking Like a Lawyer
16 March: Economic Substantive Due Process Continued: pp. 616-645 [30 pages].
Cases: Muller v. Oregon; Adkins v. Children’s Hospital; Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co.;
and Nebbia v. New York; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish; United States v. Carolene
Products Co.; Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc.; BMW of North America, Inc. v.
Gore; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell; and Philip Morris U.S.A. v.
Williams.
Week 10: Contracts Clause and Takings Clause
21 March: Contracts Clause and Takings Clause: pp. 647-657 and 660-682 [33 pages].
Cases: Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell; Energy Reserves Group, Inc.
v. Kansas Power & Light Co.; United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey*; Loretto v.
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; Miller v. Schoene;
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City; Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council;
and Dolan v. City of Tigard.
DVS: Essay Writing- Reasoning from Analogy
23 March: Takings Clause Continued, pp. 682-710 [29 pages].
Cases: Palazzolo v. Rhone Island; Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency; Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff; Kelo v. City of New
London; and Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington.
11
Week 11: Equal Protection- Race and National Origin
28 March: Equal Protection; pp. 711-740 [30 pages].
Cases: Romer v. Evans; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York; New York City
Transit Authority v. Beazer; U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno; and City of
Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center Inc.
DVS: Essay Writing- Common Logical Fallacies
30 March: Race and National Origin; pp. 740-771 [32 pages].
Cases: Dred Scott v. Stanford; Korematsu v. United States; Loving v. Virginia;
Palmore v. Sidoti; Plessy v. Ferguson; Brown v. Board of Education; and Johnson v.
California.
Week 12: Equal Protection- Neutral Laws and Remedies
4 April: Facially Neutral Laws and Remedies; 771-791 and 794-804 [32 pages].
Cases: Washington v. Davis; McCleskey v. Kemp; City of Mobile v. Bolden; Palmer v.
Thompson; Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney; Village of Arlington
Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.; Brown v. Board of Education; Swann
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education; and Milliken v. Bradley.
DVS: Essay Writing- Issue Spotting
Assignment 5 Due: Logical Reasoning Questions
6 April: Remedies; pp. 806-824, 827-33, and 838-46 [35 pages].
Cases: Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell; Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.; Richmond v. J.A. Croson
Co.; and Grutter v. Bollinger*.
12
Week 13: Equal Protection- Classification Benefiting Minorities, Gender, and
Alienage Classifications
11 April: Race Classification Benefiting Minorities and Gender; pp. 855-866 and 870-89 [32
pages].
Cases: Gratz v. Bollinger; Easley v. Cromartie; Frontiero v. Richardson; Craig v.
Boren; United States v. Virginia; Geduldig v. Aiello; Orr v. Orr Mississippi; and University
for Women v. Hogan.
DVS: Essay Writing- Facts to Law
13 April: Gender Classifications Continued and Alienage; pp. 889-905 and 907-21 [32
pages].
Cases: Michael M v. Superior Court of Sonoma County; Rostker v. Goldberg;
Califano v. Webster; Nguyen v. Immigration & Naturalization Service; Graham v.
Richardson; Foley v. Connelie; Ambach v. Norwick; and Plyler v. Doe.
Week 14: Equal Protection- Other Classifications, Family Autonomy, and
Reproductive Autonomy
18 April: Non-marital Children, Age, and Family Autonomy; pp. 922-928, 939-67, and
Obergefell Handout [35 pages].
Cases: Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia; Loving v. Virginia; Zablocki v.
Redhail, Obergefell v. Hodges; Stanley v. Illinois; Michael H. v. Gerald D.; Moore v. City of
East Cleveland, Ohio; Meyer v. Nebraska; Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names
of Jesus & Mary; and Troxel v. Granville.
DVS: Essay Writing- In Class Practice Essay
20 April: Reproductive Autonomy; pp. 967-1000 [33 pages].
Cases: Buck v. Bell; Skinner v. Oklahoma; Griswold v. Connecticut; Eisenstadt v.
Baird; Roe v. Wade; and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
13
Week 15: Government of Regulation of Abortion and Other Liberty Interests
25 April: (Presidents’ Day Make-up) Government Regulation of Abortion; pp. 1000-1030
[30 pages]
Cases: Gonzales v. Carhart; Maher v. Roe; Harris v. McRae; Planned Parenthood v.
Danforth; Planned Parenthood v. Casey; and Bellotti v. Baird.
DVS: Essay Writing- Outlining your answer under exam conditions
27 April: (Court Make-up Day 1) Medical Care Decision, Sexual Orientation, and
Education; pp. 1030-1058 and 1135-1141 [35 pages].
Cases: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health; Washington v.
Glucksberg; Vacco v. Quill; Lawrence v. Texas; and San Antonio Independent School
District v. Rodriguez.
Week 16: Procedural Due Process
2 May: (Court Make-up Day 2) Procedural Due Process; pp. 1144-1151, 1154-60, 1161-1163,
1165-68, 1179-86, and 1189-1194 [36 pages].
Cases: Daniels v. Williams*; County of Sacramento v. Lewis*; DeShaney v.
Winnebago County Department of Social Services*; Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales*;
Goldberg v. Kelly*; Board of Regents v. Roth*; Sandin v. Conner; Mathew v. Eldridge*; and
District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne*.
14