Constitutional Law II
Howard University School of Law

Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Houston Hall 402
stevenjamar@gmail.com

Syllabus
Fall 2020

HU Course No. 621; CRN 88425,
(revised  20 October 2020)

http://sdjlaw.org/SDJ/ConLaw2/

Please note that although the syllabus shows what is planned, the course is unlikely to follow the schedule exactly. This syllabus is subject to change to address current events and ongoing developments in the law, and to meet the students' needs as perceived by the professor during the semester.
The 2020 Supplement is available for download in pdf form 2020 Supplement

Where: Online Zoom
When: M T Th 1:40-2:30 pm

Table of Contents

Course Overview

This course focuses on equal protection, substantive due process, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of religion. State action is covered briefly. Procedural due process, habeas corpus, freedom of contract, and takings may also be covered briefly as time allows. Fundamental constitutional principles including separation of powers, federalism, rights as limits on governmental power, and others are necessarily included. Methods of constitutional interpretion and some of the issues relating to the various approaches are also examined. 

The course is taught primarily using cases, Socratic questioning, and discussion. Some topics are presented by lecture and some are explored primarily through working through problems in skills workshops.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of the course, the student should demonstrate mastery of the following knowledge and skills:

  • Ability to analyze a new factual situation and to determine the relevant Constitutional law issues in it
  • Ability to state and apply the relevant Constitutional law doctrine, policies, and principles to the situation to reach a conclusion about the probable outcome of it
  • Knowledge of the standard of review relevant to each type of individual right and the ability to apply it in the appropriate setting
  • Understand the changes in Constitutional law doctrine over time and the causes of those changes
  • Knowledge of and ability to use various methods of constitutional interpretation

Course Materials

Required Book and Materials

Jamar, Constitutional Law: Power, Liberty, Equality (Aspen/Wolters Kluwer 2017) ISBN 978-1-4548-7032-6

Jamar, 2020 Supplement to Constitutional Law: Power, Liberty, Equality (pdf download)

Other supplemental materials to be provided by the professor from time to time.

Recommended Books

Additional Perspectives

Brian Landsberg and Leslie Jacobs, Global Issues in Constitutional Law (Thompson West 2007)

Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution:  Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It) (Oxford University Press 2006) (paperback edition 2007)

Study Aids

Allan Ides & Chistopher N. May, Examples and Explanations: Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (8th ed. Aspen/Wolters Kluwer 2019)

Professor Contact Information

Office:

402 Houston Hall

Phone:

202-806-8017

Email:

stevenjamar@gmail.com (I typically respond to email within 24 hours.)

Office Hours:

The times listed below may change. I will post up-to-date office hours online at http://www.sdjlaw/SDJ/

M

2:40 to 4:00 pm

T

2:40 to 4:00 pm

Th

2:40 to 4:00 pm


Occasionally I will not be able to keep these office hours because of other commitments. Later in the semester my office hours will be expanded.

If you need to see me at another time, please contact me by email so we can make an appointment.

I am often in my office at times not posted as office hours and during those times I am generally able to meet with students except in the hour before class.

Grade Components

Final Examination

100 pts.

 

 

Course Requirements

Online Etiquette
Keep your audio muted and video on.
Sign in by entering "here" in the chat section at the start of class.
Sign out by entering "bye" in the chat section at the end of class.
Send questions through the "chat" function. I may or may not respond to them at the time they are asked.

Class Structure and Teaching Methodologies
Most classes will be 30-40 minutes of lecture followed by student Q&A. I have not found an effective way to teach using the socratic dialogue I prefer. This puts more responsibility on each of you to really learn the material more on your own with my lectures being used to cover some basics and to show connections and deeper aspects. We will not get the repetitions in class that we did in Con Law 1 until the last 5 weeks nor that I usually plan into the course.
I will try to have several 2 hour workshops (12:30-2:30) which will allow break-out sessions for students to discuss the material and problems in smaller, manageable groups. It is not possible for me to actually moderate those groups due to the numbers involved. Nonetheless, I may visit a few of them during each workshop.
I strongly suggest students do all of the short hypos in the book and after we finish a unit look through past exams for questions on the topic and work through them. I strongly suggest you work in study groups to review exams and hypos. Due to the limitations of online teaching I will not be able to review as many draft exam answers as I normally do.
I will not have power point slides for each class. I will attempt to have power point slides for each week and for the most major topics, but I will not have them done as much as for when we went online in the spring.

Preparation

Read the assigned material before class each day. Be prepared to brief the cases orally and to discuss the problems presented by the readings. Sometimes we will delve deeply into cases while other times we will discuss topics using the cases and other text the basis for topical discussion.  In addition, there will be several workshops in class during the semester, typically at the end of a unit.  Various structures are used for the workshops, but at least one will involve group work on analyzing a hypo and sketching an answer.

Pay close attention to the standard of review in each case.

Final Exam

The course will be graded on one final exam. It will be a 3 hour exam with 2 or 3 essay questions. Numerical grades will be given in accordance with the HUSL grade normalization policy. The exam will be open-everything. You may use any resources you wish other than each other or another person. No "calling a friend."

Attendance

The law school attendance policy will be enforced. Attendance means being present at the start of class and throughout the class period. Tardy students and students who leave class early or who leave and come back may be counted as absent. Please see full, official description of the attendance policy included toward the bottom of this syllabus.

SCHEDULE

Please note that this schedule identifies the topics to be considered in the order in which they will be considered and the readings for the topics. After the first class, the specific reading for the next class will be given. Thereafter most assignments will be given on a weekly basis. Be sure to check the Supplement to cover the material in the Supplement as it comes up. You are responsible for the assigned material in the book as well as inserts and replacements included in the Supplement.

Judicial Power

Constitution: Articles 1, 2, 3 & Amends. 1, 5, & 14. Jamar, Part I; Ch. 1; Ch. 2: Marbury v. Madison (1803) pp. 15-31

Part IV: Introduction to Liberty, Rights, and Equality, pp. 601-05

Equal Protection Foundations: Jamar, Ch. 2 Foundations §2.5, pp. 96-139 (read all of it, but study closely The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and The Civil Rights Cases (1883))

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) (read)
Dred Scott  v. Sandford (1857) (read)
The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) (study)
Cruickshank (1876) (read)
The Civil Rights Cases (1883) (study)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (read)

Equal Protection: Social and Economic Regulation/Rational Basis Review: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 605-26; Jamar 2020 Supplement pp. 1-3

Williamson v. Lee Optical, Inc. (1955) pp. 611-12
Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia (1976) pp. 613-16
City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center (1985) pp. 616-18

Equal Protection, Race, and Strict Scrutiny

Steven D. Jamar, A Brief History of Brown v. Board of Education

The Rise of Strict Scrutiny:  Korematsu, Brown, and the Early Application of Brown  Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 626-84

Korematsu v. United States (1944) pp. 627-29
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) pp. 631-38
Loving v. Virginia (1967) pp. 639-41

The Requirement of Intent: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 642-53

Washington v. Davis (1976) pp. 642-46
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development (1977) pp. 647-50
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) pp. 650-53

Affirmative Action on the Basis of Race: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 655-84

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peńa (1995) pp. 658-70
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) pp. 671-82

International and Comparative Perspectives: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 684-88

Gender Classifications: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 688-701; Jamar 2020 Supplement pp. 46-47

United States v. Virginia (1996) (VMI) pp. 688-98

Classifications Regarding Aliens: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 701-08

Graham v. Richardson (1991) pp. 702-03
Ambach v. Norwick (1979) pp. 704-06

The Personal Rights Strand of Equal Protection: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 708-33; Jamar 2020 Supplement pp. 47-48

Reynolds v. Sims (1965) (voting) pp. 709-713
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973)(education) pp. 719-25

Sexual Orientation and Equal Protection: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 726-33; Jamar 2020 Supplement pp. 46-47

Romer v. Evans (1996) pp. 726-733

The 13th Amendment and Equality: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 734-35; 351-58

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)  pp. 351-358

The 15th Amendment and Equality: Jamar, Ch. 13 Equal Protection pp. 735-38; 340-48; 2020 Supp. pp. 45-45, 2-13

Shelby County v. Holder (2013) pp. 340-348
Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) 2019 Supp. pp. 45-45, 2-13  (partisan gerrymandering)

Procedural Due Process: Jamar, Ch. 14 Procedural Due Process pp. 741-53

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) pp.744-49

Optional – Habeas Corpus: Boumediene (2008), Jamar, Ch. 10 Separation of Powers §10.6 pp. 458-66

Economic Rights: Jamar, Ch. 15 Economic Rights  pp. 753-71 Jamar 2020 Supp. pp. 48-52

Contract Clause: Jamar, Ch. 15 Economic Rights pp. 753-55, 759-61; Jamar 2020 Supp. pp. 48-52

Sveen v. Melin (2018) 2019 Supp. pp. 46-50

Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (1978) pp. 755-759 (optional)

Takings Clause: Jamar, Ch. 15 Economic Rights pp. 761-65

The Public Use Requirement
Physical Takings
Regulatory Takings
Just Compensation

Economic Due Process: Jamar, Ch. 15 Economic Rights pp. 765-69

Substantive Due Process (Liberty & Privacy) Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 771-896

Introduction to Substantive Due Process, Unenumerated Rights, and Incorporation, Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 771-74

Incorporation and Fundamental Rights  Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 771-94

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Introduction to Substantive Due Process Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 794-99

Privacy:  Autonomy of Physical Self  Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 799-63

Procreation and Abortion Rights Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 863-70; Jamar 2020 Supp. p. 52

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (note case)
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) (note case)
Jamar 2020 Supp. p. 52 June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) (note case)

Right to Die Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 826-33

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Consensual Intimate Sexual Relationships Between Adults Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 833-42

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Same Sex Marriage Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 842-60

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Test for Substantive Due Process Rights Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 860-63

Privacy:  Control over One’s Own Information Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 863-70

NAACP v. Patterson (1958)
Whalen v. Roe (1997)

Privacy:  Control over Private Acts with Public Attributes   Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 870-75

Michael H. v. Gerald D (1989)

Interrelationship of Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, and Personal Rights    Jamar, Ch. 16 pp. 875-91

Travel, Residency and Durational Requirements, and State Benefits Jamar, Ch. 16 Substantive Due Process pp. 877-90

Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)
Sosna v. Iowa 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (in notes)
Sáenz v. Roe (1999)

State Action: Jamar, Ch. 21 State Action pp. 1193-18
Court Enforcement of Private Rights as State Action Jamar, Ch. 21 State Action pp. 1196-02 
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
Evans v. Newton (1996)
Private Actors Performing Government Functions Jamar, Ch. 21 State Action pp. 1202-07
Terry v. Adams (1953)
Private Entities Treated as State Actors under the Nexus Doctrine Jamar, Ch. 21 State Action pp. 1207-16
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)
Regulated Industries and Licensees  Jamar, Ch. 21 State Action pp. 1216-18

Freedom of Expression: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression

ICCPR -- Sections 18, 19, 20, 22

Overview: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 897-901, Jamar 2020 Supp. p. 53

Regulation of Fully Protected Speech: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 901-943; Jamar 2020 Supp. pp. 53-74

Content-based restrictions:  Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 901-913; 2020 Supp. pp. 53-64

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (2015)
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) 2020 Supp. pp. 54-64

Replace §17.3.1.1 in the text on p. 913 with the material in the 2020 Supp. pp. 64-67

Time, place, and manner restrictions: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression (2015) pp. 915-28

Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)

Licenses, Pemits, and Fees: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 922-28
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969)

Facial or As-Applied Challenges: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 929-30

Content, Conduct, and Expressive Conduct: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 930-38

Cohen v. California (1971)

Public Forum Doctrine: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 939-40

Vagueness and Overbreadth: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 940-43

Regulation of Lesser-Protected and Unprotected Speech: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 943-1029

Incitement, Fighting Words, True Threats, Offensive Speech, Hate Speech: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 944-63

Incitement to illegal activity: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 945-48

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Fighting words: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 949-52

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

True threats, hate speech, and offensive speech:  Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 952-61

Virginia v. Black (2003)

Defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Privacy: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 963-87

Defamation: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 963-78

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Restricting Freedom of Speech through Tort Law: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 978-87

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Obscenity, Pornography, Child Pornography, Adult Entertainment, Secondary Effects, Violence Entertainment (especially video games): Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 988-1016

Obscenity: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 990-92

Miller v. California (1973)

Broadcast Media and the Governmental Interest in Protecting Children: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 992-99

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)

Child Pornography: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 998-1003

New York v. Ferber (1982)

Secondary Effects Doctrine: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1003-06

Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976) (note case)

Regulating Pornography Online: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1006-13

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

Violent video games: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1013-15

Commercial Speech: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression (2015) pp. 1016-1029; 2020 Supp. pp. 67-69

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Service Commission (1980)

Replace the introduction to the Sorrel case, §17.4.4.1 on page 1022 the revised section on 2020 Supp. pp. 67-68; Delete §17.4.4.2 from the text

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)

Renumber §17.4.4.3 to §17.4.4.2 and add two new paragraphs at the start of the Commercial Speech: Concluding Thoughts section: Jamar p. 1028; 2020 Supp. p. 68

Special Matters: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1029-1051

Prior Restraint or “Speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the government has the power to prevent”: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1030-34; Jamar 2020 Supp. p. 69

Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931)
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (note case)

Permission to Use a Public Forum pp. 1034

Campaign Financing: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1034-44

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

Government Speech and Regulating Speech of Public Employees: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1044-50

Carcetti v. Ceballos (2006)

Speech in Public Schools: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1048-49

Intellectual Property: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1049-1050 and 2020 Supp. pp. 69-74

    Iancu v. Brunetti (2019) 2020 Supp. pp. 69-74

Fraud & Crime: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1050-51

Race, Social Justice, and Freedom of Expression: Jamar, Ch. 17 Freedom of Expression pp. 1051-52

Freedom of the Press: Jamar, Ch. 18 Freedom of the Press pp. 1061-78
Reporter’s Privilege: Jamar, Ch. 18 Freedom of the Press  pp. 1061-65
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
Access to Governmental Proceedings–Fair Trial/Free Press: Jamar, Ch. 18 Freedom of the Press  pp. 1065-73
Richmond Newspapers, Inc., v. Virginia (1980)
Access to Information and Freedom of Press under the ICCPR: Jamar, Ch. 18 Freedom of the Press  pp. 1073-77

Tax Treatment of Press: Jamar, Ch. 18 Freedom of the Press pp. 1073-77
Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner (1983)

Freedom of Association: Jamar, Ch. 19 Freedom of Association pp. 1079-1102

Freedom of Association, Privacy, and Membership Lists: Jamar, Ch. 19 Freedom of Association pp. 1079-83

N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama ex rel Patterson (1958)

Freedom of Expressive Association and Non-discrimination Laws: Jamar, Ch. 19 Freedom of Association pp. 1083-90 
Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)

Freedom of Expressive Association and Private Clubs: Jamar, Ch. 19 Freedom of Association pp. 1090-1093

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Freedom of Expressive Association and the Limited Public Forum Doctrine: Jamar, Ch. 19 Freedom of Association pp.1093-1101

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)

Freedom of Expressive Association and Other Liberties: Jamar, Ch. 19 Freedom of Association p. 1101

Freedom of Religion: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1105-1193  Jamar 2020 Supp. pp. 75-76

Free Exercise: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1108-40 Jamar 2020 Supp. p. 75

Foundations: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1108-12

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

The Problem of Defining Religion: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1112-15

Laws That Are Neutral and Generally Applicable: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1115-24

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) 

Laws Targeting Religious Exercise  Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1124-33
Jamar 2020 Supp. pp. 75-76

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993)

Jamar 2020 Supp. pp. 75-76

RFRA. Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1133-37

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) (note case)

International and Comparative Perspectives  Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1138-40

Establishment Clause: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1140-89

The Lemon (1971) Test Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1144-50

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Aid to Schools: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1150-58

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

School Prayer: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1158-63

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Religious Speech by or from the Government: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1163-64

Displays of Religious Symbols on Public PropertyJamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion:  pp. 1164-79

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005)

Teaching Creationism in Public Schools: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1179-81

Establishment and Freedom of Expression in a Designated Limited Public Forum: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1181-87

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)

Coercion, Endorsement, Neutrality, Accommodation, and Separation: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1187-88

§20.4.9 The Religious Freedom Clauses Working in Combination Jamar 2020 Supp. p. 76

Race, Politics, and Religion: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1188-89

Social Justice and Freedom of Religion: Jamar, Ch. 20 Freedom of Religion pp. 1189-91

Final Exam   Tuesday December 1, 2020

HU and HUSL Policies

Seriousness of Academic Purpose: To achieve its educational purposes, HUSL must maintain an environment conducive to learning and to scholarly endeavors of both faculty and students.  Seriousness of academic purpose requires students to prepare daily, to do assignments in a timely fashion, to attend class regularly, to be punctual, and to participate in class in meaningful way.

Attendance Policy (effective August 20, 2018): Regular and punctual attendance is an important part of a student's legal education.    In addition, a student's participation in class affects other students.  As a prospective attorney, a student should develop strong habits of regular attendance.  For these reasons, the American Bar Association and the Howard University School of Law require regular and punctual class attendance.    In addition, some Bar examiners require the Dean to certify that a student has regularly attended classes before they allow a graduate to sit for a bar examination.  

“Regular attendance” in a course means attending at least 85 percent of scheduled classes during the course of the semester.  The percentage of absences is intended to account for the range of minor illnesses, family obligations, interviews, and unplanned events that occur.

Clinics and externships may define “regular attendance” as requiring more than 85 percent of scheduled classes if that definition is clearly set forth in the course syllabus.

Absences due to curricular and co-curricular requirements will not be counted if the absence is due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict which neither the professor nor the student controls and the notice requirements set forth below are satisfied.  Examples of curricular and co-curricular requirements that might cause the type of conflict to which this provision applies include, inter alia, emergency court appearances, moot court competitions, and mock trial competitions.  If an absence is due to a scheduled curricular or co-curricular requirement, then the student must ask the professor of record for the class with the curricular or co-curricular requirement to notify the professor of record for the missed class in writing before the absence.  If an absence is due to an unscheduled or emergency curricular or co-curricular requirement, then the student must ask the professor of record for the class with the curricular or co-curricular requirement to notify the professor of record for the missed class in writing within 48 hours of the absence. http://law.howard.edu/content/attendance-policy

Academic Offenses: All students should note that cheating and plagiarism are academic offenses that violate the Howard University Student Code of Conduct and the Howard University School of Law Student Handbook.  Students are also expected to be familiar with the Academic Code of Conduct found in the H-Book. 

Howard University Statement of ADA Procedures: Howard University is committed to providing an educational environment that is accessible to all students.  In accordance with this policy, students in need of accommodations due to a disability should contact Director of Student Affairs Adrienne Packard regarding disability verification and determination of reasonable accommodations as soon as possible after admission to the School of Law, and at the beginning of each semester.  Ms. Packard can be reached at 806-8006 or adrienne.packard@law.howard.edu. 

"Writing Matters"
Writing is an essential tool for thinking and communicating in virtually every discipline and profession. Therefore, in this course I expect you to produce writing that is not only thoughtful and accurate, but also organized, clear, grammatical, and consistent with the conventions of the field. If your writing does not meet these standards, I may deduct points or ask you to revise. For assistance with your writing, go to the student section of the Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) website, http://www.cetla.howard.edu/wac/students.aspx.