Lahore University of Management Sciences. Law 101 Introduction to Legal Reasoning

Transcription

1 Law 101 Introduction to Legal Reasoning Spring 2015 Instructor Khyzar Hussain Room No. 229-A Office Hours Mondays and Wednesdays at 3:00pm to 5:00pm Telephone 2277 Secretary/TA Maria Khan; Yumna Arshad; Hira Jaleel TA Office Hours TBD Course URL (if any) Course Basics Credit Hours 4 Lecture(s) Nbr of Lec(s) Per Week 2 Duration 1 hr 50 mins per session Recitation/Lab (per week) Nbr of Lec(s) Per Week None Duration None Tutorial (per week) Nbr of Lec(s) Per Week TBD Duration TBD Course Distribution Core Elective Open for Student Category Close for Student Category To be decided by Department or the Registrar s Office As Above As Above As Above COURSE DESCRIPTION This course aims to develop the cognitive, critical reasoning, analytical and legal discourse skills of students by exposing them to well-reasoned case law in a wide set of diverse legal disciplines in the backdrop of contemporary legal issues. The class will employ Socratic dialogue to understand and analyze the rulings; and, a great emphasis of class participation in placed. Students will be expected to isolate the legal rules from the cases, analyze the rule as applied to the given facts (and to in class hypotheticals), and reach reasoned conclusions. The course introduces students to case law from various jurisdictions to discuss the reasoning behind the rulings, and the policy implications stemming from the decisions. COURSE PREREQUISITE(S) To be determined by the Department, or the Registrar s Office, according to degree requirement. COURSE OBJECTIVES To familiarize students with the basics of legal reasoning in judicial decisions To teach students how to apply the law to a specific set of facts and undertake logical reasoning in reaching a conclusion To discuss and familiarize students with the basic understanding of fundamental rights Learning Outcomes

2 The students will be able to understand how lawyers and judges approach legal issues presented to them To familiarize students with contemporary legal issues and fundamental rights Grading Breakup and Policy Assignment(s): Home Work: Quiz(s): Class Participation: 20% Attendance: 10% Midterm Examination: 30% Project: Final Examination: 40% Examination Detail Midterm Exam Yes/No: Combine Separate: Duration: Preferred Date: Exam Specifications: Final Exam Yes/No: Combine Separate: Duration: Exam Specifications: Week/ Lecture/ Module Topics Recommended Readings Objectives/Application Session 1 Introduction Students will be able introduced the basics of logical reasoning. Students will be introduced to the IRAC method of case briefing. Session 2 Legal Reasoning Edward H. Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, 15 U. Chi. L. Rev. 501 (1948) In Class briefing exercise (handouts provided in class) Students will be able to brief a case, understand how to isolate legal issues and rules and apply them to a set of material facts. Session 3 Marbury v. Madison, 5

3 Judicial Review and Constitutional Limits on Power U.S. 137 (1803); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Pakistan Steels Mills Case Students will be familiarized with the concept of judicial review, and understand its genesis. Students will be able to understand the Political Question limitation on judicial review. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958); Session 4 Religious Freedom Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); LEYLA ŞAHİN v. Turkey, Application no /98 ECHR (2005); Ata Ullah v. The State, PLD 2000 Lahore 364. Students will be able to understand the policy restrictions applied to religious beliefs and freedoms in some legal regimes. S.M.C. No. 1 of 2014, PLD 2014 Supreme Court 699; Zaheeruddin v. State of Pakistan, 1993 SCMR 1718 Session 5 Freedom of Speech I Turner Broadcasting Systems v. F.C.C, 512 U.S. 622 (1994); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaf, 2014 PLD Supreme Court 367 High Court Bar Association v. Government of The origins and the utility behind the freedom of speech and the market place of ideas thesis will be discussed. Different forms of speech will be illustrated. Reasonable restrictions on speech, including content based restrictions will be looked into in depth.

4 Balochistan, PLD Vagueness and overbroad restrictions and their impact shall also be discussed. Session 6 Freedom of Speech II Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957); Haji Lal Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan, 2014 PLD 199; Sardar Zaheer Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan, 2011 PCrLJ 973; Ayub Masih v. The State, PLD Supreme Court 1048; Muhammad Mahboob v The State, PLD 2002 Lahore 587. Session 7 Right to Privacy Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979); United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (2010); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Muhammad Abbas v The State, 2005 YLR 3193; Muhammad Imran v. The State, 2005 PCrLJ Major discussion will focus on the State s interest in safety and security of its citizens versus the privacy interests of individuals. Search and seizure cases, where probable cause has not been shown by the state are also pertinent to the discussion. Session 8 Equal Protection and The Right to Vote Harper v. Virginia State Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); Province of Sindh v. MQM, PLD 2014 Supreme Court 531. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (Race and Redistricting); See also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) The purpose of the vote in the constitution and as a tool for aggregation of information shall be discussed. The issue of gerrymandering and redistricting shall be the major focus of this class.

5 Session 9 Status Based Classifications I (Race) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880) Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) Plessy v. Ferguson, 63 U.S. 537 (1896) cf. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) See also Province of Sindh v. MQM, PLD 2014 Supreme Court 531 Session 10 Status Based Classifications II (Gender) Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Danishmand v Chairman, BISE, SWAT, 2012 YLR 80. Race, gender, and alienage as a suspect class for regulation shall be the focus. The standard of review employed by the court system where a law is discriminatory (either prima facie or in its application) is what students are encouraged to ascertain. Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981). Session 11 Status Based Classifications III (Alienage and Profiling) Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) Farag v. United States, 587 F.Supp.2d 436 (2008) Taaba v. Chertoff, 509 F. 33d 89 (2 nd Cir. 2007)

6 Session 12 The Writ of Habeas Corpus and Detention Liaqat Ali Khan v. District Coordination Officer, Bahwalpur, PLD 2012 Lahore 336; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) Boumedine v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008); Al-Bahani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (2010) Discussion of whether the Habeas Corpus is a right or a privilege. The privilege of Habeas Corpus, its origins, and the set legal standards to rightfully detain a person shall be focused upon. The necessary showings to justify preventive detention shall be understood, and looked at in depth. Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (2009) ; See also Korematsu v. United States (Discussed in Session 9 Session 13 Coercive Interrogation and Prosecuting Accused Terrorists in Criminal Courts Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 599 (2009); Darwesh v. The State, 2014 YLR 2223; United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 189 (2000); United States v. Moussaoui; 365 F.3d 292 (2004) United States v. Ghailani, 743 F.Supp 2d 261 (2010) Students will discuss due process considerations in relation to evidence collected through enhanced interrogation techniques. Students will be introduced to the concept of prosecuting terrorism suspects in criminal courts; and, whether there is need for further procedural review of existing procedures. Session 14 Trials by Military Commissions Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) Military Order of November 13, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 (Nov. 13, 2001); United States of America v. Mohammed Jawad, United States, Military Commission, Sept ; United States of America v. Omar Ahmed Khadr, Military Commission, Aug An investigation of whether suspects in terrorism cases ought to be tried by time tested and fair tribunals set up under a military code of justice; or, by use of military commissions. Due process and procedural concerns for fairness in military courts and tribunals shall be discussed. Standards the courts will use to ascertain the procedures set up by the military commissions shall be focused upon.

7 Session 15 Mid Term Exam Session 16 Session 17 Session 18 Doctrine of Necessity I Doctrine of Necessity II Rationality and Natural Justice Dosso v. Federation of Pakistan Nusrat Bhutto Case Hans Kelsen: Pure theory of Law Zafar Ali Shah Case PCO Judges Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889); Re Sigsworth, Ch 98; D v. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1978 AC 171; Hennigsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc., 161 A.2d 69 (N. J. 1960) The students will study the legal reasoning in cases involving the Constitution, politics, and society. How these have an effect on existing constitutional doctrine. Students will investigate rationality and policy considerations in decision making by judges. Session 19 Session 20 Introduction to the Law of Contracts I Introduction to the Law of Contracts II Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Factory, [1892] EWCA Civ 1; Lucy v. Zehmer, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) Foakes v. Beer, [1884] UKHL 1; Hammer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891) Mills v. Wyman, 20 Mass. 207 (1825) cf. Webb v. McGowin, 22 Ill.232 Ala. 374, 168 So. 199 (1936); Lawrence v. Ellen, PLD 1950 Privy Council 36; Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd. V. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 22 Ill.190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) Students should be able to identify the issue, the applicable rules, analyze it and provide conclusion in various types of Cases. This segment will give the students an idea as to the differences between, for example, civil, criminal, and constitutional Cases. Session 21 Law of Torts I (Negligence) United States v. Carroll Towing Co., AC 605; Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 AC 562

8 Caparo v. Dickman, [1990] UKHL 2 (1990) Session 22 Law of Torts II (Defamation) Youssopoff v MGM Pictures; Syed Mehmood Ali v. Network Television Marketing, 2005 PLD 399; Bonnard v. Perryman; [1891] 2 Ch 269; Hakim Ali v. Messrs Pakistan Herald Publications, 2007 PLD 415 Session 23 Criminal Law I R v Cato, (1976) 62 Cr App R 4 R v Kennedy, [2007] 3 WLR 612; R v Evans; [2009] 2 Cr App R 10 Session 24 Criminal II R v. Cunningham, [1957] 2 QB 39; Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525 (1963); R v EB, [2006] EWCA Crim 2945 Qurbanali v. Sheroo Machi, 1991 SCMR 2339; ShamRoz Khan v. The State, 1984 PCrLJ 2599 Session 25 Session 26 Session 27 International Law I International Law II International Law III AG of the Government of Israel v. Eichman; Congo v. Belgium; Case concerning the Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India); ICJ advisory Opinion on the Construction of the Israeli Wall; Nicaragua v. US; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) McCann v. United Kingdom Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel A basic introduction to international law reasoning and underlying doctrine. The jurisdiction of international tribunals and the reasoning and policy considerations behind international legal regimes will be focused upon. Students should focus on how to isolate rules, and apply them to certain facts. The specified topics on the prohibition of assassination, and targeted killings will be considered in depth. The prohibition of assassination in US domestic law by executive order, and the US drone program will be reconciled.

9 Executive Order 12,333 and Assassinations Session 28 Review Session Textbook(s)/Supplementary Readings Other reading materials may be additionally prescribed