LEGAL ASSIGNMENT

LEGAL BRIEF WRITING ASSIGNMENT & PRESENTATION

Goal of Writing a Legal Brief:

The overall goal of writing a legal brief is to provide a reader, who has no previous knowledge about the case, with a general sense for: (a) how the case appeared before the court, (b) the legal issue(s) that are trying to be determined by the courts, and (c) the Supreme Court’s decision on the case. Keep in mind, that legal briefs do not contain student’s personal opinions or commentaries, but rather only provide information directly from the case facts. All legal briefs should follow APA style and the general writing guidelines (e.g., typed, 12 point font, double spaced, grammatically correct, etc.) on the Blackboard course menu.

General Guidelines for Writing Legal Briefs:

· First, read through the case for general understanding. Try to ignore the legalese. Also, you do NOT have to read the dissenting opinion portion at the end of the case. Rather, you should focus on the Majority Opinion.

· Second, as you re-read the case you will need to develop an understanding of the procedural posture of the case. How did the case get to the Supreme Court?

· Third, determine the main legal issue(s) and the Court’s holding in the Major Opinion on the issue(s). Consider what constitutional issue is at stake? What question is the Supreme Court trying to answer in the case and what implications will it have for the operations of public universities?

· Fourth, you will need to be able to explain the rationale behind the Court’s decision.

Components of a Legal Brief: - Please Read

There are five components that comprise a legal brief which include:

I. Citation: Citations are references that allow attorneys to look up particular court cases and judicial opinions. The citation serves as a designation of the case and generally includes a.) the volume number, b.) name of reporter, and c.) the page number. For example, if a case were decided by the Supreme Court and cited as 60 S. Ct. 710, the case would be found in volume 60 of the Supreme Court Reporter on page 710.

II. Facts: The facts of the case provide a concise synopsis of the processes involved in how the case appeared before the Supreme Court. The facts component of the brief should be a maximum of a half to one double spaced, typed page in length.

III. Issue(s): The issue component of a brief should always be framed as a question. The issue serves as the question or questions that the Supreme Court will be trying to decide. Therefore, what are the main legal issues at stake in this case?

IV. Holding: The holding is a yes or no answer to the legal issue at hand in the case. It is important to note that the issue component and holding component of the brief should represent the most succinct components of the brief.

V. Rationale: The rationale component of the brief will provide the reader with a longer explanation of the Supreme Court’s holding in the determination of the legal issues. Thus, in this component you will seek to explain in greater detail the Supreme Court’s holding in this case. The rationale component of the brief should be one to two typed pages in length.

SAMPLE LEGAL BRIEF

*Note: This is a sample legal brief written by a graduate student. This sample may not be perfect, but it is a good example that provides students with an idea of the content and form of a written legal brief .

Widmar v. Vincent

I.) Citation: 454 U.S. 263 (1981)

Full Case Name: Widmar v. Vincent et al.

II.) Facts of the Case:

The University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC), a state university, maintained a policy that encouraged registered student groups to participate in student activities. In fact, the UMKC campus had over 100 officially recognized student groups. The university regularly allowed registered student groups to hold meetings in the university’s facilities. From 1973 to 1977, Cornerstone, a registered student religious group, received permission to hold meetings in the university’s facilities. However, in 1977 the religious student group was excluded from holding meetings in the university’s facilities due to the enforcement of a 1973 regulation that was adopted by the UMKC Board of Curators. The regulation strictly prohibited the use of “University buildings or grounds ‘for purposes of religious worship of religious teaching’” (p. 3). In response, eleven members of the Cornerstone religious student group brought suit against the university in Federal District Court. The students claimed that the university’s regulation was a violation of their “rights to free exercise of religion, equal protection, and freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” of the United States Constitution. In a summary judgment, the District Court upheld the university’s regulation banning religious student groups on its campus. The District Court reasoned that UMKC was not only “justified, but required, by the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution” (p. 3). Next, the members of the student group brought the case before Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the university’s regulation served as a “content-based discrimination against religious speech, for which it could find no compelling justification” (p. 3). The Court of Appeals further held that the “Establishment Clause does not bar a policy of equal access, in which facilities are open to groups and speakers of all kinds” (p. 3). The case now appears before the Supreme Court of the United States.

III.) Issue(s):

Is the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC), a state university, which “makes its facilities generally available for the activities of registered student groups” violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, under the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech Clause (1st Amendment) and Equal Protection (14th amendment) of the U.S. Constitution, by denying the use of its facilities to religious student groups for the purposes of religious worship and religious discussion? (p. 3)

IV.) Holding:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals by holding that the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC) is in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

V.) Rationale:

In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice Powell begins by pointing out that UMKC policy which encourages and allows the general use of campus facilities for student group meetings has, in effect, created an open forum for student groups. Therefore, because UMKC, as a public institution of higher education, accommodates student group meetings it must take the responsibility of justifying its “discriminations and exclusions [of religious student groups] under applicable constitutional norms” (p. 4). Justice Powell makes clear that the U.S. Constitution (through the inclusion of the fourteenth amendment) “forbids a state to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public, even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place” (p. 4). Although UMKC’s institutional mission is to provide students with a “secular education,” it is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny as a public institution (p. 4). In order to uphold a content-based exclusion, the public university must show that the regulation banning religious student groups from the campus facilities serves a compelling state interest.

In this case, the university argues that “it cannot offer its facilities to religious groups and speakers on the terms available to other groups without violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States” (p. 4). Moreover, the university argued that to allow religious student groups to share in the university’s open forum “would have the ‘primary effect’ of advancing religion” (p. 5). While public universities are compelled to maintain the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court notes that public universities must also adhere to an “equal access” policy (p.4). The Court holds that a public university would not be in violation of the Establishment Clause in having an equal access policy if it can pass a three-pronged test. According to Justice Powell, in order to meet the three-prong test: “a) the governmental policy must have a secular legislative purpose, b) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religions, and c) the policy must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion” (p. 4). In this case, both the District Court and Court of Appeals agreed that the first and third prongs of the test had been met. However, the District Court held that to permit the university to serve as a public forum for religious groups would “have the ‘primary effect’ of advancing religion” (p. 5).

Conversely, Justice Powell asserts that the “university’s argument misconceives the nature of the case” (p. 5). According to Justice Powell, the question is not whether allowing student groups to use the campus facilities would violate the Establishment Clause. Rather, the question is whether a public university can “now exclude groups because of the content to their speech” (p. 5). He further explains that allowing religious student groups to have an open forum at a university does not “confer any imprimatur of state approval on religious sects or practices” (p. 5). He dismisses the notion that the advancement of religion would be the forum’s primary effect by reasoning that allowing religious groups on campus would no more serve to commit a university to religious goals than it would serve to commit a university to the democratic goals of a democratic student group.

In the final analysis, Justice Powell summation of the Court’s ruling speaks to the inherent tension in balancing the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. He states that “in achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution—is limited by the Free Exercise Clause and in this case the Free Speech Clause as well” (p. 6). Thus, because the university has created a forum generally open to student groups, the content-based exclusionary policy violates the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.