SUNDAYS AT JASA FALL 2025 SEMESTER
The Supreme Court: When Law and Politics Collide
Mondays at 10:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.
Virtual Class on Zoom Beginning September 29
Instructor: Leora Harpaz
Email - lharpaz@lharpaz.com
Course Description:
This course will examine the Supreme Court's recent actions in
areas of political significance That was certainly true of many
of the cases the Court decided during its 2024-25 Term in which
President Trump scored major victories with the 6 conservatives
on the Court in the majority and only the 3 liberals dissenting.
Topping the list was the Court’s decision to severely limit the
ability of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions
rather than relief that only applies to the parties before the
Court, allowing the Trump administration to continue its
challenged actions in other parts of the country. In addition,
the Court decided cases that expanded religious liberty, limited
free speech, upheld a ban on gender-affirming medical care for
transgender teenagers, and allowed a state to end public funding
for Planned Parenthood. While the Term involved victories for
the President, there were also important cases where
conservatives joined with liberal justices to form a majority.
In addition to cases on the Court’s regular docket, the Court
decided many cases that came to the Court as emergency
applications, the Trump administration’s favorite method of
quickly reaching the Supreme Court when it loses in a lower
court. Finally, there are already major cases that the Court
will hear during the 2025-26 Term which will be discussed.
Instructor Bio:
Leora Harpaz is an emeritus professor of constitutional law
at Western New England University School of Law as well as
founder of the annual Supreme Court Conference where she was
a speaker for over 25 years. Since receiving emeritus
status, she has been an instructor in several senior learner
programs and taught undergraduate law courses in the
political science department at Hunter College. She received
her B.A. from Stony Brook University and has law degrees
from both Boston University and New York University.
Suggestions:
I welcome your suggestions for other subjects
you’d like to hear about. Please use the
following link if you would like to make
suggestions for topics you would like covered
in upcoming classes:
http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/JASA/suggestions/
Class 8 - Nov.17, 2025
SECTION
2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS
ACT
42 U.S.C. § 1973.
Denial or abridgement
of right to vote on
account of race or
color through voting
qualifications or
prerequisites;
establishment of
violation.
a) No voting
qualification or
prerequisite to voting
or standard, practice,
or procedure shall be
imposed or applied by
any State or political
subdivision in a
manner which results
in a denial or
abridgement of the
right of any citizen
of the United States
to vote on account of
race or color, or in
contravention of the
guarantees set forth
in subsection (b) of
this section.
(b) A violation of
subsection (a) of this
section is established
if, based on the
totality of
circumstances, it is
shown that the
political processes
leading to nomination
or election in the
State or political
subdivision are not
equally open to
participation by
members of a class of
citizens protected by
subsection (a) of this
section in that its
members have less
opportunity than other
members of the
electorate to
participate in the
political process and
to elect
representatives of
their choice. The
extent to which
members of a protected
class have been
elected to office in
the State or political
subdivision is one
circumstance which may
be considered:
Provided, That nothing
in this section
establishes a right to
have members of a
protected class
elected in numbers
equal to their
proportion in the
population.
Lindsay
Hecox photo- The Washington
Post
Classes 6 & 7 - Nov. 3 &
Nov. 10, 2025
No material posted for these
classes.
Class 5 - Oct. 27, 2025
Mahmoud
v. Taylor
Justice
Alito's
instructions
on remand:
“The
Board’s
introduction
of the
‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’
storybooks,
along with its
decision to
withhold opt
outs, places
an
unconstitutional
burden on the
parents’
rights to the
free exercise
of their
religion. The
parents have
therefore
shown that
they are
likely to
succeed in
their free
exercise
claims. They
have likewise
shown
entitlement to
a preliminary
injunction
pending the
completion of
this lawsuit.
In the absence
of an
injunction,
the parents
will continue
to be put to a
choice: either
risk their
child’s
exposure to
burdensome
instruction,
or pay
substantial
sums for
alternative
educational
services. As
we have
explained,
that choice
unconstitutionally
burdens the
parents’
religious
exercise, and
‘[t]he loss of
First
Amendment
freedoms, for
even minimal
periods of
time,
unquestionably
constitutes
irreparable
injury.’
Furthermore,
in light of
the strong
showing made
by the parents
here, and the
lack of a
compelling
interest
supporting the
Board’s
policies, an
injunction is
both equitable
and in the
public
interest. The
petitioners
should receive
preliminary
relief while
this lawsuit
proceeds.
Specifically,
until all
appellate
review in this
case is
completed, the
Board should
be ordered to
notify them in
advance
whenever one
of the books
in question or
any other
similar book
is to be used
in any way and
to allow them
to have their
children
excused from
that
instruction.
The judgment
of the Court
of Appeals is
reversed, and
the case is
remanded for
further
proceedings
consistent
with this
opinion.”
Dissent by Justice
Sotomayor:
“Public schools, this
Court has said, are
‘at once the symbol of
our democracy and the
most pervasive means
for promoting our
common destiny.’ They
offer to children of
all faiths and
backgrounds an
education and an
opportunity to
practice living in our
multicultural society.
That experience is
critical to our
Nation’s civic
vitality. Yet it will
become a mere memory
if children must be
insulated from
exposure to ideas and
concepts that may
conflict with their
parents’ religious
beliefs.
Today’s ruling ushers
in that new reality.
Casting aside
longstanding
precedent, the Court
invents a
constitutional right
to avoid exposure to
‘subtle’ themes
‘contrary to the
religious principles’
that parents wish to
instill in their
children. Exposing
students to the
‘message’ that LGBTQ
people exist, and that
their loved ones may
celebrate their
marriages and life
events, the majority
says, is enough to
trigger the most
demanding form of
judicial scrutiny.
That novel rule is
squarely foreclosed by
our precedent and
offers no limiting
principle. Given the
great diversity of
religious beliefs in
this country,
countless interactions
that occur every day
in public schools
might expose children
to messages that
conflict with a
parent’s religious
beliefs. If that is
sufficient to trigger
strict scrutiny, then
little is not.
The result will be
chaos for this
Nation’s public
schools. Requiring
schools to provide
advance notice and the
chance to opt out of
every lesson plan or
story time that might
implicate a parent’s
religious beliefs will
impose impossible
administrative burdens
on schools. The harm
will not be borne by
educators alone:
Children will suffer
too. Classroom
disruptions and
absences may well
inflict long-lasting
harm on students’
learning and
development.
Worse yet, the
majority closes its
eyes to the inevitable
chilling effects of
its ruling. Many
school districts, and
particularly the most
resource strapped,
cannot afford to
engage in costly
litigation over
opt-out rights or to
divert resources to
tracking and managing
student absences.
Schools may instead
censor their
curricula, stripping
material that risks
generating religious
objections. The
Court’s ruling, in
effect, thus hands a
subset of parents the
right to veto
curricular choices
long left to locally
elected school boards.
Because I cannot
countenance the
Court’s contortion of
our precedent and the
untold harms that will
follow, I dissent.”
Class 4 - Oct. 20,
2025
No material used for
this class.
Class 3 - Oct. 13, 2025
The
International
Emergency
Economic
Powers Act -
IEEPA
50 U.S. Code §
1701
(a) Any
authority
granted to the
President by
section 1702
of this title
may be
exercised to
deal with any
unusual and
extraordinary
threat, which
has its source
in whole or
substantial
part outside
the United
States, to the
national
security,
foreign
policy, or
economy of the
United States,
if the
President
declares a
national
emergency with
respect to
such threat.
50 U.S. Code §
1702
The President
may:
(B) . . . regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void,
prevent or
prohibit, any
acquisition,
holding,
withholding,
use, transfer,
withdrawal,
transportation,
importation
or exportation
of,
or dealing in,
or exercising
any right,
power, or
privilege with
respect to, or
transactions
involving, any
property
in which any
foreign
country or a
national
thereof has
any interest by
any person, or
with respect
to any
property,
subject to the
jurisdiction
of the United
States;
Free
Speech
Coalition v.
Paxton
The
Unprotected
Speech
Category of
Obscenity:
As defined in
1973 by Miller
v.
California’s
three prong
test, to be
obscene
material must:
(1) be a work
that the
average
person,
applying
contemporary
community
standards
would find,
taken as a
whole, appeals
to the
prurient
interest and
(2) the work
must depict or
describe, in a
patently
offensive way,
sexual conduct
specifically
defined by the
applicable
obscenity law,
and (3) the
work, taken as
a whole, must
lack serious
literary,
artistic,
political or
scientific
value.
. . . .
We emphasize
that it is not
our function
to propose
regulatory
schemes for
the States.
That must
await their
concrete
legislative
efforts. It is
possible,
however, to
give a few
plain examples
of what a
state statute
could define
for regulation
under part (b)
of the
standard
announced in
this opinion,
supra: (a)
Patently
offensive
representations
or
descriptions
of ultimate
sexual acts,
normal or
perverted,
actual or
simulated; (b)
Patently
offensive
representations
or
descriptions
of
masturbation,
excretory
functions, and
lewd
exhibition of
the genitals.
Dissent by
Justice Kagan:
“A
law like H. B.
1181 might
well pass the
strict-scrutiny
test, hard as
it usually is
to do so. . .
.[E]veryone
agrees that
shielding
children from
exposure to
the sexually
explicit
speech H. B.
1181 targets
is a
compelling
state
interest. And
Texas might be
right in
arguing that
it has no less
restrictive
way to achieve
that goal: It
is difficult,
as everyone
also agrees,
to limit
minors’ access
to things
appearing on
the internet.
If H. B. 1181
is the best
Texas can
do—meaning,
the means of
achieving the
State’s
objective
while
restricting
adults’ speech
rights the
least—then the
statute should
pass First
Amendment
review. ¶But
what if Texas
could do
better—what if
Texas could
achieve its
interest
without so
interfering
with adults’
constitutionally
protected
rights in
viewing the
speech H. B.
1181 covers?
That is the
ultimate
question on
which the
Court and I
disagree.”
“The critical
question,
then, is
whether the
State can show
that the
proposed
alternatives
will not be as
effective as
the challenged
statute. If
the State
cannot, the
statute should
not take
effect,
because it
would limit
protected
speech
unnecessarily.
There would be
every reason
to make the
State switch
to a
less-speech-restrictive,
equally-or-more-effective
regulatory
mechanism. But
a State that
has closely
attended to
the speech
consequences
of its
regulation
might well
make the
required
showing in
this sphere.
Given how the
internet
works, no
court should
expect that a
law
effectively
shielding
children from
sexually
explicit
expression
could leave
adults wholly
unaffected. To
the contrary,
such a law
will almost
necessarily
impose
corollary
burdens. And
Texas may be
right that the
commonly
proposed
alternatives
to laws like
H. B.
1181—such as
content
filtering
technology—cannot
equal, or even
approach, age
verification
systems in
effectiveness.
In that event,
those
alternatives
will be
irrelevant to
the inquiry,
and a court
will explore
only whether
another,
equally
effective age
verification
mechanism will
place a lesser
burden on
protected
speech. Review
of that kind
should not be
the horror
show for Texas
and other
States that
the majority
maintains. It
is just what
they should
have to pass
before
implementing a
content-based
burden on
protected
expression.”
First
Amendment:
Congress shall
make no law
respecting an
establishment
of religion,
or prohibiting
the free
exercise
thereof; or
abridging the
freedom of
speech, or of
the press; or
the right of
the people
peaceably to
assemble, and
to petition
the Government
for a redress
of
grievances".
Class 2 - Oct. 6, 2025
Fourteenth
Amendment
Section 1
All persons
born or
naturalized in
the United
States, and
subject to the
jurisdiction
thereof, are
citizens of
the United
States and of
the State
wherein they
reside.
Executive
Order 14160 -
Jan. 20, 2025
Protecting the
Meaning and
Value of
American
Citizenship
. . . .
Sec. 2.
Policy. (a) It
is the policy
of the United
States that no
department or
agency of the
United States
government
shall issue
documents
recognizing
United States
citizenship,
or accept
documents
issued by
State, local,
or other
governments or
authorities
purporting to
recognize
United States
citizenship,
to persons:
(1) when that
person’s
mother was
unlawfully
present in the
United States
and the
person’s
father was not
a United
States citizen
or lawful
permanent
resident at
the time of
said person’s
birth, or (2)
when that
person’s
mother’s
presence in
the United
States was
lawful but
temporary, and
the person’s
father was not
a United
States citizen
or lawful
permanent
resident at
the time of
said person’s
birth.
(b) Subsection
(a) of this
section shall
apply only to
persons who
are born
within the
United States
after 30 days
from the date
of this order.
The
International
Emergency
Economic
Powers Act -
IEEPA
50 U.S. Code §
1701
(a) Any
authority
granted to the
President by
section 1702
of this title
may be
exercised to
deal with any
unusual and
extraordinary
threat, which
has its source
in whole or
substantial
part outside
the United
States, to the
national
security,
foreign
policy, or
economy of the
United States,
if the
President
declares a
national
emergency with
respect to
such threat.
50 U.S. Code §
1702
The President
may:
(B) . . .
regulate,
direct and
compel,
nullify, void,
prevent or
prohibit, any
acquisition,
holding,
withholding,
use, transfer,
withdrawal,
transportation,
importation or
exportation
of, or dealing
in, or
exercising any
right, power,
or privilege
with respect
to, or
transactions
involving, any
property in
which any
foreign
country or a
national
thereof has
any interest
by any person,
or with
respect to any
property,
subject to the
jurisdiction
of the United
States;
Class 1 - Sept. 29, 2025
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside.
Executive Order 14160 - Jan. 20,
2025
Protecting the Meaning and Value
of American Citizenship
. . . .
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the
policy of the United States that
no department or agency of the
United States government shall
issue documents recognizing United
States citizenship, or accept
documents issued by State, local,
or other governments or
authorities purporting to
recognize United States
citizenship, to persons: (1) when
that person’s mother was
unlawfully present in the United
States and the person’s father was
not a United States citizen or
lawful permanent resident at the
time of said person’s birth, or
(2) when that person’s mother’s
presence in the United States was
lawful but temporary, and the
person’s father was not a United
States citizen or lawful permanent
resident at the time of said
person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section
shall apply only to persons who
are born within the United States
after 30 days from the date of
this order.
The International Emergency
Economic Powers Act -
IEEPA
50 U.S. Code § 1701
(a) Any authority
granted to the
President by section
1702 of this title may
be exercised to deal
with any unusual and
extraordinary threat,
which has its source
in whole or
substantial part
outside the United
States, to the
national security,
foreign policy, or
economy of the United
States, if the
President declares a
national emergency
with respect to such
threat.
50 U.S. Code §
1702
The President
may:
(B) . . .
regulate,
direct and
compel,
nullify, void,
prevent or
prohibit, any
acquisition,
holding,
withholding,
use, transfer,
withdrawal,
transportation,
importation or
exportation
of, or dealing
in, or
exercising any
right, power,
or privilege
with respect
to, or
transactions
involving, any
property in
which any
foreign
country or a
national
thereof has
any interest
by any person,
or with
respect to any
property,
subject to the
jurisdiction
of the United
States;