Students,

I think if I show you a specific, annotated format for briefing cases, it will help you more completely digest the crucial aspects to the cases you brief. I recommend that you set up your brief in the following manner.

Case Name

Case citation, (year)

1. Facts

If there is a law being challenged in the case, briefly state what the law says.

If there is some individual doing something, or some government official or government body doing something, briefly state what is being done that is creating the problem in the case.

If the case states it, restate what each party in the case doesn’t like about what the other party is doing.

If you can find out how lower courts were deciding the case, disclose this in the facts.

2. Issue

Include the level of government, national or state. Try to include a concise statement of what the law that is being challenged says, or the activity of the government is. Finally include what provision of the constitution is at issue. Remember, try to boil down the complexities of the case issue into something that is simply stated as a yes or no question.

Examples

May Congress, consistent with Art. 1 Sec. 8, Clause 3, allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce, pass laws that prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations?

May the president, consistent with Art. 2 Sec. 2 commander and chief clause, direct the military to detain in secret and try enemy combatants without providing them the same constitutional guarantees given to defendants in a civilian court?

Can states use their powers under the 10^th amendment to tax entities created by the National Government?

Can Congress, consistent with their inherent powers under Art 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18, create a national bank and have it operate in states without states taxing it?

Note: Sometime it will be hard to phrase an issue in this manner but try first, before giving up. It will simplify your ability to understand what the problem is in the case.

3. Decision

If you can easily do so, try to phrase the issue in such a way that the yes or no answer is consistent with the court affirming or reversing something. Yes = affirm and no = reverse.

4. Reasoning. (name of justice writing the opinion and who signs on to the decision and the vote count (9-0, 5-4, whatever it is). It’s not a bad idea to state who is part of the majority so you can begin to get an idea of where the different justices stand on these constitutional issues. e.g., if you start seeing Justice Brandeis and Cardozo voting to uphold economic regulations, that knowledge will help you better understand their position on other business regulation cases you might read. Maybe not always, but you will begin to get an idea of what justices think about these issues if you know who is signing on to the different opinions.

In the reasoning, include a brief review of the major cases, if any, the court discusses that they feel creates the foundation of logic they are going to use to decide the current case. You will often see some type of a case review in the reasoning to set the philosophical tone of the argument used to justify the decision.

Briefly include a discussion of what the majority opinion believes is the strength or weaknesses of the side trying to justify the constitutionality of their action, be it the reasons a legislature gives to pass a law, or the reasons an agency might give to justify the way it acted, or the reasons a business might justify child labor.

Briefly include a synopsis of why the majority believes the way they are deciding the case is correct.

Conclude by stating whether the court is affirming or reversing the most recent, previous decision in the case (usually from some state or federal appellate court).

5. Concurring opinion (name the justice authoring the concurring opinion and the justices who sign on)

Briefly identify the crux of their argument. They will usually agree with the majority decision but for some different reasons. What are they?

Do this for each concurring opinion.

6. Dissenting opinion (name the justice authoring the dissenting opinion and the justices who sign on)

Briefly identify the crux of the argument. Dissenters disagree with the decision and the logic to justify the decision found in the majority opinion. Occasionally they will also attack concurring opinions.

Do this for each dissenting opinion

7. If you haven’t already done so in the reasoning section, briefly state why this case is important. What’s the significance of the case?

As you study the individual cases in our different units, consider the following suggestions to help you organize your thoughts so you can develop a more seamless understanding of how the different units meld together.

1. How do the states and the different branches of the national government see their roles as the regulator of capitalism?

2. Keep track of what parts of the constitution the different branches and levels of government are invoking to justify their actions.

3. Keep track of the time period cases were decided and see if you can gauge how consistent public opinion at the time a case was decided seems consistent or inconsistent with the case you are studying.

4. Keep track of how different justices view different issues.

5. Learn the relevant terminology that frame the cases we study.