<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Nahmod Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nahmodlaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nahmodlaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:40:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<cloud domain='nahmodlaw.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://nahmodlaw.com/osd.xml" title="Nahmod Law" />
		<item>
		<title>A Section 1983 Primer (3): Constitutional States of Mind</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/02/06/a-section-1983-primer-3-constitutional-states-of-mind/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/02/06/a-section-1983-primer-3-constitutional-states-of-mind/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights - Section 1983]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction
Are there state of mind requirements for the section 1983 cause of action? The answer is NO as a statutory matter and YES as a constitutional matter.
The Background
Recall that the Supreme Court stated in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), that section 1983 is to be interpreted against &#8220;the background of tort liability.&#8221; What [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=372&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/02/06/a-section-1983-primer-3-constitutional-states-of-mind/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Introduction to Freedom of Speech (2)</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/01/29/an-introduction-to-freedom-of-speech-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/01/29/an-introduction-to-freedom-of-speech-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction
The last post dealt with the three major rationales of freedom of speech. This one addresses the important factors to which attention must be paid in every free speech case: content, medium and forum.
Content
The threshold consideration in free speech cases typically revolves around the content (the WHAT) of what is communicated. It turns out that, [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=361&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/01/29/an-introduction-to-freedom-of-speech-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Introduction to Freedom of Speech (1)</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/01/19/an-introduction-to-freedom-of-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/01/19/an-introduction-to-freedom-of-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The blog is back from vacation.
Introduction
When I begin teaching the First Amendment course, I introduce freedom of speech by briefly describing the conventional rationales of freedom of speech (this post) and then setting out three factors that are crucial for all free speech analysis (a subsequent post).
Three Rationales of Free Speech
1. Self-Government
Like the Constitution, a [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=353&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/01/19/an-introduction-to-freedom-of-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blog on Vacation; 2010 Plans</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/23/blog-on-vacation-2010-plans/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/23/blog-on-vacation-2010-plans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vacation
My blog and I are busy grading exams, finishing an article and then vacationing afterward.  We will return during the week of January 18, 2010, the first week of the spring semester.
In 2010
I will continue my series of posts on all aspects of § 1983, from the basics to the complexities.
I will also continue to [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=349&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/23/blog-on-vacation-2010-plans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Religion Clauses: &#8216;Tis the Season</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/18/the-religion-clauses-a-seasonal-introduction/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/18/the-religion-clauses-a-seasonal-introduction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction
The first part of the First Amendment reads as follows: &#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&#8230;.&#8221;
These sixteen words containing the Religion Clauses have for the last fifty years caused a great deal of controversy not only in the United States Supreme Court but among the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=337&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/18/the-religion-clauses-a-seasonal-introduction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public Employee Free Speech: The New Regime</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/08/public-employee-free-speech-the-new-regime/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/08/public-employee-free-speech-the-new-regime/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction
Several years ago the United States Supreme Court handed down Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006),  the most important public employee free speech case in decades.
[Note: my article, Public Employee Speech, Categorical Balancing and Section 1983: A Critique of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 42 U. of Richmond L. Rev. 561 (2008), is downloadable. This [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=321&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/12/08/public-employee-free-speech-the-new-regime/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Section 1983 Primer (2): The Seminal Decision of Monroe v. Pape</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/29/a-section-1983-primer-2-the-seminal-decision-of-monroe-v-pape/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/29/a-section-1983-primer-2-the-seminal-decision-of-monroe-v-pape/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:24:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights - Section 1983]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the second post for those lawyers, law students and others who are not familiar with 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first was on October 27, 2009.
The Seminal Decision: Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
This forty-eight year old decision is where § 1983, enacted long ago in 1871, first had life breathed into [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=310&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/29/a-section-1983-primer-2-the-seminal-decision-of-monroe-v-pape/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Equal Protection Clause and Fundamental Interests</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/23/the-equal-protection-clause-and-fundamental-interests/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/23/the-equal-protection-clause-and-fundamental-interests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction
Litigants who challenge a legislative classification on equal protection grounds prefer, for obvious reasons, to have strict scrutiny apply to that classification. The paradigm suspect classification for which strict scrutiny is used is a classification based on race. However, there is another category of equal protection cases in which a legislative classification has to overcome [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=304&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/23/the-equal-protection-clause-and-fundamental-interests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prosecutorial Immunity Revisited: The Pottawattamie County Case (UPDATED)</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/15/prosecutorial-immunity-revisited-the-pottawattamie-county-case/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/15/prosecutorial-immunity-revisited-the-pottawattamie-county-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights - Section 1983]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pottawattamie County Case in Supreme Court: Argued November 4, 2009
The Supreme Court heard argument in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 129 S. Ct. 2002 (2009)(granting certiorari), on November 4, 2009. What follows is a description of the important section 1983 prosecutorial immunity issues raised.
[Full disclosure: I consulted with defense counsel and my name appears on their [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=270&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/15/prosecutorial-immunity-revisited-the-pottawattamie-county-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Affirmative Action</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/05/teaching-affirmative-action/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/05/teaching-affirmative-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:16:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teaching]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Background
Affirmative action involving race is a hot button topic  and there may consequently be some student reluctance to engage in meaningful discussion of the issues involved. So I begin class by pointing out the analytical distinction between constitutionality and wisdom. A statute, for example, may be constitutional but still unwise (or immoral). On the other [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&blog=8604426&post=272&subd=nahmodlaw&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2009/11/05/teaching-affirmative-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>