Best Selling Books by Erwin Chemerinsky

From the same author of the highly successful Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, a leading casebook in the field, The First Amendment by Erwin Chemerinsky provides a comprehensive and accessible review of speech and religion jurisprudence under the First Amendment (Chapters 9 and 10 of Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition). With its concise, yet comprehensive presentation, The First Amendment presents the law solely through case excerpts and the author’s own essays, which make the law more readily understood through context and background information. The text’s flexible organization accommodates a variety of course structures so that no chapter assumes that students have read preceding material. New to the Second Edition: Important new free speech cases, especially Janus v. American Federation and NIFLA v. Becerra Updated with cases through the October 2019 Term, including Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue Professors and student will benefit from: Concise, yet comprehensive presentation Annual case supplement Leading text by a prominent scholar Flexible organization—no chapter assumes students have read other chapters, which allows for a variety of course lengths and structures Distinctive approach using only case excerpts and author’s own essays Context and background material to make the law more readily understood

This review of the Supreme Court''s October 2021 Term looks back at the major cases addressed by the Court and provides a valuable focus on the implications of these decisions. Written by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, the book takes a neutral tone, neither praising nor criticizing the decisions, and organizes the case essays by topic.

"This review of the Supreme Court''s October 2022 Term looks back at the major cases addressed by the Court and provides a valuable focus on the implications of these decisions. Written by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, the book takes a neutral tone, neither praising nor criticizing the decisions, and organizes the case essays by topic." --

Federal Courts deservedly has the reputation of being an exceptionally difficult course, and this book is designed to make it accessible to students by providing the context of cases and doctrines, as well as explaining their relevance to the issues being litigated in the 21st century. Federal Courts in Context supports what pedagogic research calls “deep learning.” It does so by framing federal jurisdiction and structural constitutional law using clear, concise explanations of the social and historical context of canonical cases to reveal the concrete stakes of traditional debates about federal judicial power. The result is an engaging, accessible, and richly textured account of the subject supporting not only more sophisticated doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis, but also the necessary foundation for inclusive pedagogy in the training of diverse 21st century lawyers. The focus is on canonical cases and their context rather than notoriously dense treatise-like material common to other books in the field. The book is also organized to dovetail with Erwin Chemerinsky’s Federal Jurisdiction to maximize the accessibility of the casebook content and learning outcomes. Benefits for instructors and students: Structured to pair with the most commonly used secondary reference in the field, Erwin Chemerinsky’s Federal Jurisdiction Focuses on canonical cases and excerpts rather than long, dense notes and treatise-like material Directly addresses the structural constitutional significance of the Civil War, Reconstruction Amendments, and the retreat from Reconstruction for federalism, the modern Court’s federalism revival, and separation of powers Makes explicit the influences of Indian Removal, allotment, and the late nineteenth century extension of American empire on doctrines of sovereignty, jurisdiction, plenary power, and non-Article III courts Provides interdisciplinary contextualization of the labor movement, the New Deal, and the reproductive rights movement to enrich analysis of reverse-Erie cases, the rise of the administrative state, agency adjudication, and standing Marries doctrinal and theoretical precision about the course’s core concepts (federalism, separation of powers, the Supremacy Clause, and jurisdiction) with legal realist sensibilities and attention to how ordinary people are affected by structural constitutional law, rather than abstractions, Socratic questions without answers, or other pedagogic techniques divorced from the research on deep learning

This is the 2013 case supplement to accompany Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition by Erwin Chemerinsky. Summary of Contents Preface Chapter 1.The Federal Judicial Power Chapter 2.The Federal Legislative Power Chapter 4. Limits on State Regulatory and Taxing Power Chapter 6. Economic Liberties Chapter 7. Equal Protection Chapter 9. First Amendment: Freedom of Expression

The United States is a nation of laws, and its Constitution and the rule of law have allowed it to confront and successfully navigate many threats to democracy throughout the nation''s complex history, including a Civil War. All of these threats challenged the nation in various ways, but never has there been a challenge to the truth of our elections like what happened on January 6, 2021. The Insurrection represents a turning point in America''s history. In addition to the unprecedented assault on the U.S. Capitol, members of the government sought to undermine an election and supported an attack on the government. Exposing the issues that led us to January 6, Beyond Imagination? brings together 14 deans of American law schools to examine the day''s events and how we got there, from a legal perspective, in hopes of moving the nation forward towards healing and a recommitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.

The Supplement will include the Supreme Court cases from October Terms 2017 and 2018. It will include the material from the 2018 Supplement and add to it the new decisions from October Term 2018. New to the 2019 Edition: New case about the Fourth Amendment: Mitchell v. Wisconsin New case regarding the separate sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy rule: Gamble v. United States New case regarding the incorporation of Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines: Timbs v. Indiana New case regarding constitutionality of execution by lethal injection: Bucklew v. Precythe

To ensure that you have the most up-to-date and complete materials for your Constitutional Law class, be sure to use Constitutional Law, 2009 Case Supplement . Case coverage includes: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder Altria Group, Inc. v. Good Wyeth v. Levine Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. District Attorney''s Office For The Third Judicial District v. Osborne Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum Federal Communications Commission et al., Petitioners, v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al.

Constitutional Law 2017 Case Supplement

"Selected pages from Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition by Erwin Chemerinsky; Constitutional Law 2021 Supplement, Sixth Edition by Erwin Chemerinsky; The Regulatory State, Third Edition by Lisa Schultz Bressman, Edward L. Rubin and Kevin M. Stack." --

The Professional Responsibility audio lecture explains regulation of attorneys, bar admission, unauthorized practice, competency, discipline, judgment, layer-client relationship, representation, and withdrawal. It also discusses conflicts, disqualification, clients, client interests, successive and effective representation, integrity, candor, confidences, secrets, and past and future crimes. Other topics include perjury, communications, witnesses, jurors, the court, the press, trial tactics, prosecutors, market, solicitation, advertising, law firms, fees, client property, conduct, and political activity.

Public universities must allow unpleasant speech, even anti-semitic speech, on campus. Professor Marcus sharply criticizes universities for allowing such speech. But his position cannot be reconciled with the most basic principles of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

In Stern v. Marshall (2011), the Supreme Court held that it violated Article III of the Constitution for a bankruptcy court to issue a final judgment as to a state law counterclaim. Although Chief Justice Roberts'' majority opinion is predicated on the need to have judges with life tenure to ensure judicial independence, it is difficult to see why this should matter for state law claims. Stern v. Marshall can be understood only as an exercise in formalism, rather than a functional approach to determining what can be decided by non-Article III judges. The formalistic reasoning of the Court is unsatisfying, especially in an area where the Court throughout American history has allowed non-Article III courts for functional reasons. Stern v. Marshall, if followed by the Court, could have enormous implications for the authority of the bankruptcy courts and more generally for federal jurisdiction.

u200bu200bIntended for use with any of the authors’ three casebooks for Criminal Procedure—all of which were revised in 2022—the 2023 Case and Statutory Supplement combines two objectives: first, it covers the cases decided in the 2021-2023 Supreme Court terms; second, it provides important statutory material related to each of the casebooks’ chapters.u200b New to the 2023 Edition: Significant new decisions and materials, among them: Analysis of important, recent decisions in the area of Criminal Procedure, including several decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent terms and discussion of policy issues at the forefront of criminal law Changes in Investigation chapters: New case: Vega v. Tekoh (the ability to sue police for violating Miranda v. Arizona) Changes in Adjudication chapters: New cases, including United States v. Tsarnaev (pretrial publicity and jury selection); Bucklew v. Precythe (method of execution); Denezpi v. United States (dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy rule); Samia v. United States (Bruton problems); Smith v. United States (double jeopardy rules in venue cases) Amended Rules 16(a)(1)(G) and 16(b)(1)(C) (Expert Witnesses)

New to the 2023 Edition: Biden v. Nebraska (Executive Power) National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (Dormant Commerce Clause) Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Equal Protection) 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (Free Speech)

What is the purpose of legal scholarship? The foreword to the University of Michigan Law Review''s book review issue provides an excellent occasion for addressing this question. This in turn requires considering who are the audiences for legal scholarship and what should count as legal scholarship. This essay offers thoughts and suggestions on these important topics.

In June of 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its first major church-state rulings in some time. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, it held that the federal Free Exercise Clause required the State of Missouri to provide direct funding to an arm of a church despite an anti-establishment clause in the Missouri Constitution which barred it. This article argues that the decision was contrary to American constitutional history at both the federal and state level, was not faithful to Court precedent in this area, and was contrary to sound constitutional policy in the area of church-state relations. Most importantly, it argues that the Court''s reasoning will open the door to increased governmental funding of churches and other devotional communities, all to the detriment of a healthy separation of church and state that is vital for religion to thrive and the state to properly perform its functions.

Unlike in other countries, there is no express protection of socioeconomic rights written into the United States Constitution. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has neither deemed such rights fundamental for the purposes of review under the Constitution nor found poverty to be a classification, like race, that is deserving of a searching equal protection analysis. The problem of how to reform the Court''s shabby treatment of interests that have been described as "constitutional welfare rights" has been long standing, having commanded at least forty years of sustained scholarly debate. The conversation continues because even as the plight of the poor worsens in this country, socioeconomic rights are thorny. Not only does greater recognition of constitutional welfare rights provide a potential basis to limit certain types of governmental class-based discrimination, if given full effect, such rights might also be construed as forcing the provision of government benefits or assistance. The necessary brevity of this short essay prevents the in-depth exploration of the broadest variant of the welfare rights debate: how to effectively structure a constitutionally-recognized right to some form of basic subsistence. Justifications, however, can be provided for why discrimination based upon socioeconomic class needs greater constitutional protection and how a more robust equal protection analysis can serve as the means to achieve this goal. Toward this end, Part II of this Essay articulates just how lean the U.S. Supreme Court''s jurisprudence has been in the area socioeconomic class. Sections A through C summarize the treatment of poverty under the various strands of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, while Section D provides a number of justifications for why socioeconomic class deserves a more considered approach from the Court. Part III lays out how the Court''s treatment of race, as classification, has been very different from the treatment of socioeconomic class and explores why there has been this difference. Part IV concludes by suggesting that the Court should abandon its present bifurcated jurisprudence on race and class as a first step toward acknowledging the need for consistent judicial treatment of classifications that operate as overlapping and intersecting bases for discrimination and subordination.

"Based on declassified FBI documents, including secret documents from J. Edgar Hoover''s vault and never-before-published National Archives documents, Burning Bridges is the first detailed account of the twenty-year legal campaign waged by government lawyers and policymakers, in secret conjunction with private enterprise, to deport labor leader Harry Bridges. Set in the middle decades of the twentieth century during the Cold War, this is a story of bribery, perjury, and wiretaps; of secret FBI investigations, witness intimidation, and secret deals; and of assassination attempts, overzealous government prosecutors, and larger-than-life defense lawyers risking prison defending their clients. Three-quarters of a century on, the legacy of the Harry Bridges trials still haunts America''s legal system and is critical to assess because Americans today again confront a modern surveillance state with the greatest threat of government intrusions into civil liberties since Bridges'' era"--Page 4 of cover.