Briefing Supreme Court Cases
Parties and How to Keep Track of
Them: Trial Courts
•
Plaintiffs – Sue defendants in civil court.
•
Government – Prosecutes defendants in
criminal cases.
Parties and How to Keep Track of
Them: Supreme Court
•
Cases coming to the Court on a writ of
certiorari:
•
Petitioner is the party asking the Court to
overturn a lower court decision.
•
Respondent is the party who wins in the
lower court and responds to the petition in
the Supreme Court.
Parties and How to Keep Track of
Them: Supreme Court
•
Cases that come to the Court on appeal.
•
Appellant: Person/party who formally
appeals to the Court (almost never
happens).
•
Appellee: Person/party who responds to
the appeal.
Parties and How to Keep Track of
Them: Supreme Court
•
The petitioner/appellant name always
appears first in a case, and the order can
change.
•
Trial: Johnson v. Udani (Johnson wins).
•
Appeal: Udani v. Johnson (because Udani
lost at trial court).
What Goes into a Brief: Title and
Citation
•
Title: Shows who is opposing whom.
•
Person/party who initiates legal action
always appears first.
•
Citation: Shows how to locate the case in a
legal reporter.
•
U.S. Reports Citation: 484 U.S. 275
(volume No. U.S. page No.)
What Goes into a Brief: Facts of the
Case
•
A general overview of the RELEVANT
case facts.
•
A one-sentence description of the nature of
the case, to serve as an introduction.
•
A statement of the relevant law—that is,
what statute of constitutional provision is at
issue (this may be abstract).
Facts (continued)
•
A summary of the complaint (in a civil
case) or the indictment (in a criminal case).
•
This includes an explanation of who did
what to whom and the arguments raised by
each side.
•
A summary of actions taken by the lower
courts, for example: defendant
convicted; conviction upheld by appellate
court; Supreme Court granted
certiorari.
What Goes into a Brief: Legal Issues
•
What exact question does the Court want to
answer in this case?
•
Cases often have multiple issues, and your
job is to figure out what issue is the main
one presented in the excerpt you have read.
•
If a constitutional provision/statute is
involved, include it in the question if
possible.
What Goes into a Brief: Holding
•
How does the Court answer? It is often
easiest to write the legal question as
“Yes/No” so that the answer is easy to
determine.
•
What is the vote in the case?
What Goes into a Brief: Reasoning
•
What is the logic behind the decisions (cite
relevant arguments, precedents, etc.).
•
Follow the order of the opinion, and number
your arguments point by point.
•
Caution: Reasoning v. obiter dicta (“said by
the way”). Marbury is the quintessential
example!
What Goes into a Brief: Separate
Opinions
•
List relevant arguments from additional
opinions (in a sentence or two).
•
Knowing how each justice voted in this case
will help you understand how they may vote
in future cases.
What Goes into a Brief: Analysis
• What is important about this decision?
•
Is the argument sound? How does it fit with
previous decisions of the Court?
•
What are the possible implications for this
decision?
• If the case is narrowly decided, what are the
differences noted by the dissenters and what
bearing might they have on future cases?
Writing Briefs: A Cautionary Note
•
Don’t brief the case until you have read it
through at least once.
•
Don’t think that because you have found the
judge’s best purple prose you have
necessarily extracted the essence of the
decision.
•
Look for unarticulated premises, logical
fallacies, manipulation of the factual record,
or distortions of precedent.
Example: Marbury v. Madison (1803)
• Relevant Case Facts:
After the election of 1800, President Adams and the
Federalist-controlled Congress created six new circuit courts
and several new district courts. They then tried to staff these
courts during the last six months of Adams’s term. As part of
the Organic Act of 1801Adams was also allowed to appoint
forty-two justices of the peace in the District of Columbia.
Several of the commissions were not delivered by Secretary
of State John Marshall—including the appointment for
William Marbury. When Jefferson came into office he told
James Madison, the new secretary of state, not to deliver
these commissions. As a result Marbury appealed directly to
the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices for a writ of
mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commissions.
The lawsuit was based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789, which gave the Court the power to issue such writs.
Legal Question:
•
Does the Supreme Court have the power to
issue a writ of mandamus in order for an
appointed judge to secure his commission?
Holding:
•
No. By a vote of 4 to 0 the Court ruled that
such power is not in the Constitution.
Legal Reasoning:
•
Marbury has the right to his commission because the only requirement is
the presidential seal. And, because President Adams affixed his seal to
Marbury’s appointment he is entitled to it. For the current administration
to deny the commission would violate his rights.
•
Marbury brought this case to the Court under its original jurisdiction,
citing Article 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which added writs of
mandamus to the Court’s original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction,
however, is set by Article III of the Constitution, and it does not include
writs of mandamus. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void, and
because this act is contrary to Article III it is void and unconstitutional.
Marbury is not entitled to his commission.
•
Marshall asserts the Court’s power of judicial review—–the power to
declare as void laws contrary to the Constitution. Specifically he argued:
•
•
•
•
The Court has the duty to say what is law.
The Court decides whether laws violate the Constitution.
The Court has this power over all laws passed under the Constitution.
In short, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what is the law.”
Example: Ex parte McCardle (1869)
• Relevant Case Facts:
After the Civil War the Republican Congress instituted
Reconstruction laws in the South. Specifically, it placed the
South under military rule. McCardle wrote editorials
opposing these measures and urged resistance against them.
He was arrested for publishing “incendiary and libelous
articles” and was held for trial before a military tribunal.
McCardle argued that he was a citizen and not a member of
militia and was therefore being illegally held. He filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus as allowed under
Congressional Act of 1867. When this effort failed, he turned
to the Supreme Court for help. Before the Court could hear
the case, Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus Act, removing
the Supreme Court’s authority to hear such cases.
Legal Question:
•
Can the Supreme Court hear a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus when Congress has
taken away such authority?
Holding:
•
No. By a vote of 8 to 0 the Court said it
could not decide such cases.
Legal Reasoning:
•
•
•
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established
judicial courts in the United States, and set
jurisdiction for these courts.
Congress has expressly taken away the
Court’s power to decide cases involving
writs of habeas corpus. Without
jurisdiction, this Court cannot proceed in
this matter.
The Court’s only function in instances
such as this one is to declare that no
jurisdiction exists and to dismiss the case.
GLOSSARY TERMS
• Writ of mandamus – “We
•
command.” a writ issued by a court
commanding a public official to
carry out a particular act or duty.
Ex Parte – A hearing in which only
one party to a dispute is present.