Permoli is interesting for the politics of New Orleans but otherwise it is a reaffirmation of Barron, that the BoR does not apply to the states.
Paul Finkelman Quoting Mark Graber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Here is real trivia. What about Pernoli, the 1850ish case > holding taht > the federal government was not obligated to obey the first > amendment. > > Mark A. Graber > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/13/06 1:03 PM >>> > Here is a potential source of endless pointless debate. Two > professors > are working on a mathematical model to rank the importance of > Supreme > Court decisions. They want to test their model against the > subjective > assessments of con law professors. So they asked me and I > assume many > others to rank order the twenty most important cases on a > topic I knew > well. My caveats, and my list, are below. > > Douglas Laycock > Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law > The University of Texas at Austin > > Mailing Address: > Prof. Douglas Laycock > University of Michigan Law School > 625 S. State St. > Ann Arbor, MI 48109 > > [addressee deleted] > > I am at last responding to your letter of June 26, asking me > to > list the twenty most important cases in my field, in order of > importance. I have to emphasize that this is an essentially > arbitrary exercise, for many reasons. > > My topic is religious liberty. It is a tight knit area with > a > manageable number of Supreme Court cases. But it could be > divided > into three or four more homogenous subcategories, with some > overlap; > if I did that, we would of course get different results. > > How does the most important case in possible subcategory 1 > compare > to the most important case in possible subcategory 2? That > depends > in part on how I rate the importance of the possible > subcategories. > It also depends on the clarity of the rules in each category; > a > single case that clearly resolves an important issue is more > important than a case that introduces equally dramatic change > but is > unclear and leaves much unresolved. Citation frequency is > likely to > depend on the number of cases the Court reviewed in each > possible > subcategory. > > Some cases are of great symbolic importance but little > authority. > In this field, Everson v. Board of Education and Lemon v. > Kurtzman are such cases. They are famous and much cited but > control > almost nothing; Lemon does not make my top 20. For this and > other > reasons, citation networks may measure something different > from > authoritativeness. > > A case may be very often cited but now overruled. Lemon is > not > there yet, but it's close. So are Sherbert v. Verner and > Wisconsin v. Yoder. These three cases now stand for something > very > different from, and less than, what they originally stood > for. > > Cases are important for different reasons, which are often > incommensurable. Cantwell v. Connecticut is a confused > opinion on > its not very important facts, but it incorporates the Free > Exercise > Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment. How does that compare > to an > opinion that clearly resolves a dispute over a much more > important > and recurring fact pattern? > > West Virginia v. Barnette is important at least as much for > its > eloquence as for its rule, and cited mostly for its famous > quotations. How does that compare to authority on the > merits? > > How does a statutory opinion on important facts compare to a > constitutional opinion on less important facts? How does a > clear and > decisive statutory opinion compare to a muddled > constitutional > opinion? > > Some cases are very important to religious liberty but are > decided > on free speech, freedom of association, the scope of > Congressional > power, or some other related ground. > > And so on and on. You may hope that your mathematical methods > will > cut through all this qualitative uncertainty and reveal a true > order > of importance. Maybe it will. But it may also cumulate > distinct > reasons for citation that are not additive. > > Probably you have thought about these problems. But I had to > mention them before give you a list that, in my view, took > longer to > produce than it is worth. With those caveats: > > Topic: religious liberty > > 1. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) > > 2. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) > > 3. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of > Hialeah, 508 U.S. > 520 (1993) > > 4. School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) > > 5. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) > > 6. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) > > 7. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. > 624 (1943) > > 8. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do > Vegetal, 126 > S.Ct. 1211 (2006) > > 9. Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004 > > 10. Boy Scouts v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) > > 11. Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) > > 12. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 246 (1940) > > 13. Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 > (2001) > > 14. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) > > 15. Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct 2854 (2005) > > 16. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) > > 17. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) > > 18. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) > > 19. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) > > 20. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) > > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, > see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > 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. > Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law Univ. of Tulsa College of Law 2120 East 4th Place Tulsa OK 74104-3189 Phone: 918-631-3706 Fax: 918-631-2194 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw 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.
