PROPERTY A SLIDES 1 -24 -17 National Peanut

PROPERTY A SLIDES 1 -24 -17 National Peanut Butter Day

Music: Carole King, Tapestry (1971) (1971 Now on Course Page • • • Syllabus & Assignment Sheet Lunch Schedule Office Hours Slides from My Exam Tips Workshop 2014, 2015, 2016 Final Exams

TRANSITION TO SHACK (1/24) A. DQ 1. 05 -1. 06 B. • C. D. E. Why So Much Time on Shack? Overview of the Case Context of Case: 1971 Rights v. Interests

NECESSITY & Other Limits on the Right to Exclude (DQ 1. 05 -1. 06) DQ 1. 06. Doctrine of Necessity: The opinion in Shack correctly points out that traditionally, public and private necessity “justify entry upon the lands of another. ” • Defense to civil action for trespass. • I sue you for “unauthorized entry” onto my land. • You defend by saying, yes I entered, but my actions were justified by public or private necessity. Identify at least 3 different kinds of situations to which you can imagine a court applying this rule.

NECESSITY & Other Limits on the Right to Exclude (DQ 1. 05 -1. 06) DQ 1. 06: Doctrine of Necessity: The opinion in Shack correctly points out that traditionally, public and private necessity “justify entry upon the lands of another. ” • Common Examples: prevent harm to children/people/self; stop crime in progress; destroy diseased plants/animals; fight fires; avoid blocked road. • Most people would concede some of these examples, thus conceding that right to exclude should not be absolute. Now we just have to haggle over boundaries.

NECESSITY & Other Limits on the Right to Exclude (DQ 1. 05 -1. 06) 1. 05. In what circumstances would be appropriate for a court or legislature to place limits on the right to exclude? Or, to put the question another way, in what circumstances should a person be • allowed to enter someone else’s land without permission? • Examples other than necessity & facts of Shack? • Examples include ordinary gov’t activities (inspections; nonemergency police business, etc. ); anti-discrimination laws • We’ll return to this Q during the course.

TRANSITION TO SHACK (1/24) A. DQ 1. 05 -1. 06 B. Why So Much Time on Shack? • C. D. E. Overview of the Case Context of Case: 1971 Rights v. Interests

TRANSITION TO SHACK Why Extensive Coverage of Shack? 1. Subject Matter • First example of a limit on the right to exclude in particular circumstances • Unlike materials later in Chapter 1, farm here not generally open to public, so arguably bigger deal to interfere with right to exclude

TRANSITION TO SHACK Why Extensive Coverage of Shack? 1. Subject Matter 2. Technique: Making Arguments from Cases • Three Common Sources (Use for Problems Next Week) i. Facts/Holding ii. Specific Language iii. Underlying Policy • Shack is good practice: lot of useful language & complex rationales (NOT Tweetable) • Can usefully compare to statutory scheme (Florida)

TRANSITION TO SHACK (1/24) A. B. DQ 1. 05 -1. 06 Why So Much Time on Shack? C. Overview of the Case • D. Context of Case: 1971 E. Rights v. Interests

TRANSITION TO SHACK: Overview of Case A. Land in Q is in Deerfield Township: Agricultural area 30 miles due south of Philadelphia. (NJ is “Garden State”)

TRANSITION TO SHACK: Overview of Case B. Tedesco (O) owns farm on land; hires migrant workers (MWs) & houses them on land during employment. C. Legal servs. lawyer & health services worker (Ds) enter land (uninvited by O) to help particular MWs they know have problems 1. O asks Ds to leave; they refuse. 2. Ds arrested & convicted of criminal trespass – a. Statute as described in Note 4 after Jacque b. NJ statute requires refusal to leave when asked

TRANSITION TO SHACK: Overview of Case D. Novel case, so attorneys tried many theories (S 3 -4, S 6) E. Bottom Line : • NJSCt decides Ds (and others) are allowed on Tedesco’s land without his permission (with some restrictions) • To understand opinion, helpful to view in conext of time (1971)

TRANSITION TO SHACK (1/24) A. B. • C. DQ 1. 05 -1. 06 Why So Much Time on Shack? Overview of the Case D. Context of Case: 1971 E. Rights v. Interests

• Album of Year: Tapestry • Best Picture: The French Connection • Introduced to American Public: • Soft Contact Lenses & Amtrak • All Things Considered & Masterpiece Theatre • All in the Family & Jesus Christ Superstar • The Electric Company & Columbo

Nikita Kruschev; Thomas Dewey; Papa Doc Duvalier Louis Armstrong; Jim Morrison; Igor Stravinsky Ogden Nash; Crew of Soyuz 11; Coco Chanel

Shannon Doherty; Ewan Mc. Gregor; Winona Ryder Jeff Gordon; Pedro Martinez; Kristi Yamaguchi Snoop Dogg; Ricky Martin; Tupac Shakur; Mary J Blige

• Apollo 14: 4 th Successful Moon Landing • USSCt upholds busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance • Nixon Administration (Not Today’s Republicans) • In 1970 Gets Clean Air & Water Acts Enacted • Freezes Wages & Prices for 90 Days to Fight Inflation • • • Wall Street approves of this intervention in market Responds w biggest one-day gain in Dow Jones to date, 32. 93 pts Record volume of 31. 7 million shares. • Amicus Brief in Shack Favoring Workers on Anti-Federalist Theory • Focus: Rights of people trying to implement federal projects • Reliance on federal anti-poverty legislation

Near the End of Long Post-Depression Period of Great Faith/Belief In Gov’t • E. g. , Deaths of Ex-Presidents (Ford v. Truman/ Johnson/Eisenhower) • Shack: Example of strong confidence by courts & legislatures that they can determine what is in best interests of public • Might get same result now, but often much less sure of selves • Likely to be much more concern/rhetoric re O’s Property Rights

1. Vietnam War: • Troops reduced by about 200, 000 but still 184, 000 troops in SE Asia YE 1971 • US Voting Age lowered to 18 from 21 (old enough to die = old enough to vote) • Perceived fiasco in Vietnam (and evidence that both Johnson & Nixon administrations misled public) lowers confidence in Gov’t

2. Concerns About War Made Nixon’s Reelection Seem Problematic • 1971: White House staffers assemble key people to deal w election: CREEP • Yields Watergate break-in following spring • Scandal greatly undermines authority of govt

3. Pres. Nixon appoints William Rehnquist to US Supreme Court • Shack court in 1971 almost certainly sees itself as part of tradition of courts protecting rights of minority groups & disadvantaged folks • Appointment seen as outside mainstream of legal thought • BUT foreshadows change in both this self-perception of courts and in range of acceptable conservative thought.

TRANSITION TO SHACK (1/24) A. B. • C. D. DQ 1. 05 -1. 06 Why So Much Time on Shack? Overview of the Case Context of Case: 1971 E. Rights v. Interests

TRANSITION TO SHACK: “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • We’ll use “rights” to refer to what the legal system rights allows parties to do. • Need to point to specific authority for right asserted. • Thus, might say after Shack was decided: • Migrant workers on land now have right to access to certain outsiders. Shack. • Tedesco now has no right to exclude Ds. Shack.

TRANSITION TO SHACK: “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows parties to do. Rights • Don’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be: right Q: Why do you think Shack is wrongly decided? A: Owners have the right to exclude all. (But in NJ after Shack, they don’t have that “right. ”)

TRANSITION TO SHACK: “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows parties to do. Rights • Instead: Q: Why do you think Shack is wrongly decided? A: Owners should have the right to exclude all. (Which raises Q of why!!)

TRANSITION TO SHACK: “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows parties to do. Rights Owners should (or should not) have the right to exclude all, because … • Then need to talk about what we’ll call “interests” (= interests needs & desires of parties & state) E. g. , • Owner interests in privacy, security, operation of farm • MW interests in receiving helpful services & info

OUR COVERAGE of SHACK 1. Look at possible theories not relied on by NJSCt (Roads Not Taken) 2. Look at what court actually did. 3. Apply case to new situations.

Shack: The Roads Not Taken A. Necessity (DQ 1. 06 cont’d) B. Bargaining (DQ 1. 07) C. Constitutional Law (DQ 1. 08)

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ 1. 06: Necessity Ds going on the land here to: • Remove stitches • Discuss legal problem • Provide literature re fed’l assistance Are these facts similar enough to situations you have identified [as likely to constitute “necessity”] that they should fall within this rule? Why or Why Not?

Comparing Facts: Recurring Issues 1. Helpful to Articulate Characterizations that Facilitate Comparisons. E. g. , • Examples of Necessity mostly address Immediate • Shack Ds not addressing Immediate Threats to Persons or Property

Comparing Facts: Recurring Issues 1. Helpful to Articulate Characterizations that Facilitate Comparisons. 2. Level of Generality Affects Significance. E. g. , • “Provide Medical Treatment” v. “Remove Stitches” • “Provide Legal Advice” v. “Deliver Pamphlets”

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ 1. 06: Necessity Common error among past students: Saying necessity was basis of decision; it isn’t! What evidence can you find in the opinion that necessity was not the legal theory that formed the basis of the court’s decision?

DQ 1. 06: Evidence that necessity was not the basis of the court’s decision includes … • Generally: “We see no profit in trying to decide upon a conventional category and then forcing the present subject into it. ” (2 d para. on S 6) • Discussion of necessity (2 d para. on S 5) only refers to the existence of the doctrine and provides general cites. • “The subject is not static. ” (following para. ) doesn’t refer to necessity but to limitations on property rights generally. • Facts here & inclusion of press don’t look like necessity. How would opinion look different if necessity was basis?

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN: DQ 1. 06: Necessity If necessity were the basis of its decision, Court would almost certainly: • List/characterize examples of circumstances that had constituted legal necessity in NJ. • Compare circumstances here to those examples. “Necessity” is Helpful, Not Required: If a service really is necessary to MWs, rights under Shack probably apply, but case is clear that facts don’t have to fit into doctrine of necessity to trigger Shack rights.

Shack: The Roads Not Taken A. Necessity (DQ 1. 06 cont’d) B. Bargaining (DQ 1. 07) C. Constitutional Law (DQ 1. 08)

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ 1. 07: Bargaining Very important alternative almost always relevant in this course is bargaining (private agreement). • Let parties negotiate contracts; state just intervenes to enforce. • Generally good reasons to rely on private bargaining: i) Usually lower administrative costs than regulation. ii) Autonomy/clarity of interest: people better than the gov’t at identifying & articulating their own interests.

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ 1. 07: Bargaining 1. 07: Could we rely on bargaining to protect the interests of the workers in Shack? In other words, if these interests were sufficiently important to the workers, wouldn’t they insist on making provisions for them in their employment contracts? Clearly we could; interesting Q is should we?

SHACK: ROADS NOT TAKEN DQ 1. 07: Bargaining Should we rely on bargaining to protect MWs’ interests? Can break down into two Qs: 1. Are there reasons we might not want to rely on bargaining? 2. Are these reasons strong enough to outweigh reasons we like bargaining? Start with Q#1: Ideas from You or from Case