Sample Brief Format

1. Name of the case, the court that decided the case, and the date it was decided.
2. A summary of the main facts of the case.
3. A summary of the procedural history of the case which means earlier legal proceedings in the case before the case reached the court whose opinion you are briefing.
4. The issue (or issues if more than one) that the court needs to decide.
5. The holding of the case which means the way that the court resolved the issue the court needed to decide and the legal principle that the court relied on as the basis for its decision.
6. The rationale for the court’s holding. This means summarizing the chain of reasoning relied on by the Court that lead it to reach its holding.
7. The final disposition of the case which means at the end of the decision how did the court dispose of the case. Which party won? If the court discusses the remedy in the case, what remedy did the court award? In appellate decisions, how did the court deal with the decision of the court below? Did it affirm the decision, reverse the decision, remand to the court below for further proceedings, or some other disposition?
8. A short summary of the principal reasoning of any concurring or dissenting opinions.

Sample Brief

1. Johnson v. California (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2005)

2. Facts: The California Department of Corrections (CDC) has an unwritten policy to prevent violence caused by racial gangs within its prisons. Under that policy, prisoners, when they first arrive at a correctional facility (as new prisoners or as transfers from another prison) and are housed in double cells in a “reception center” for a 60 day period, are assigned to share a cell with a prisoner of the same race. Johnson, who was subject to this policy, challenged the policy because it is unconstitutional segregation.

3. Proceedings Below: Johnson filed a complaint pro se in the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Central Dist. of California. It was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The 9th Circ. Ct. of Appeals reversed and remanded. On remand, Johnson was appointed counsel and amended his complaint. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the CDC’s motion. The 9th Circuit affirmed applying the standard in Turner v. Safley. The Sup. Ct. granted certiorari to decide what standard to apply.

4. Issue: Whether strict scrutiny or Turner’s deferential standard applies to decide whether the CDC’s policy of segregating prisoners by race in cell assignments in prison “reception centers” is unconstitutional racial discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

5. Holding: The strict scrutiny standard requiring the government to use narrowly tailored means to accomplish a compelling interest applies to racial discrimination in prisons to prevent invidious discrimination.

6. Rationale: While the CDC’s policy is unwritten, the CDC does not deny that it relies on race to make reception center cell assignments. Racial classifications are suspect classifications and strict scrutiny is the standard used to review racial discrimination in order to identify invidious discrimination. Strict scrutiny is used even when the government argues it is using race in order to prevent violence in the prisons. While the deferential standard of Turner v. Safley (1987) requiring the government only show that its policy is “reasonably related” to “legitimate pedagogical objectives” has been used in numbers of cases asserting prisoner rights, those cases have only involved rights that must be limited in prisons such as inmate correspondence, inmate receipt of publications, and the right of inmates to marry. The right to be free of racial discrimination does not fall into this category and is a right that doesn’t need to be limited for proper administration of prisons. The opposite is true. Racial segregation can increase racial tensions and incite additional violence as well as undermine the public’s respect for the criminal justice system. The Court used strict scrutiny in Lee v. Washington, a 1968 case, and concluded that prison security is a compelling interest that can justify segregation in certain circumstances like temporary segregation due to a prison race riot, but prison officials must show that the use of racial segregation is narrowly tailored to protect prison security.    

7. Final Disposition: The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 9th Circ. so that the 9th Circ. or the Dist. Ct. could apply the strict scrutiny standard and, if necessary, hold an additional evidentiary hearing before doing so.

8. Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:
1. Ginsburg, concurring (joined by Souter & Breyer) - writes separately only to make clear that while she agrees with the application of strict scrutiny in this case, she would not apply strict scrutiny in all equal protection cases. She would apply a more deferential standard in affirmative action cases where the discrimination is designed to help racial groups that have been disadvantaged in the past.
2. Stevens, dissenting - dissents, but not to disagree with the use of strict scrutiny. He dissents because he does not believe it is necessary to remand the case for further review. He believes the record is clear that the CDC policy fails both strict scrutiny as well as the Turner deferential test and no benefit is served by further proceedings below. The only explanation offered by the CDC for not making individual judgments about inmates is that their pre-sentence reports in the case of new inmates and their prison records in the case of transferred prisoners (85% of prisoners in the reception centers) do not arrive in time & that is an insufficient justification.
3. Thomas, dissenting (joined by Scalia) - would apply the Turner test and defer to the expertise of prison officials as to what is necessary to protect the safety of prisoners.