Dear 1L: IRAC Outline – Standing
Dear 1L,
Here is the start of an outline template for an IRAC exam essay.
I did the below based on Article III standing, but if you use the template to start writing on any issue in any typical IRAC essay, it should help you remember to cover everything.
N.B. As with anything I write about IRAC, there are many approaches that can work. If you have already developed one that worked well for you in the fall, keep using what you’re using. Also, if your approach contains parts that you feel would make the below better, please share with me! I am always looking to tweak and improve.
ISSUE. The issue is whether P has standing to assert her claim in federal court.
Explanation: To have standing, a claimant must satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.
RULE. Establishing standing requires that P show (1) she suffered an injury-in-fact, (2) that D’s acts caused, and (3) which would likely be redressed by the relief P seeks.
ANALYSIS.
I. Element: Injury-in-Fact. Explanation: To satisfy the first element, P must show…
A. Make Case for Plaintiff (P).
1. Make logical Factual arguments.
2. Make Case-Law arguments. [Explain why case(s) you read help P.]*
3. Make Policy arguments. [Explain why policy favors ruling for P.]*
*N.B. Not every element of every Issue will lend itself to case-law and public policy arguments, but both are prevalent in ConLaw.
B. Make Case for Defendant (D).
1. Make logical Factual arguments.
2. Make Case-Law arguments.
3. Make Policy arguments.
C. The court will probably rule for P/D on injury-in-fact because…
II. Element: Causation. Explanation: To satisfy the second element, P must show…
A. Make Case for Plaintiff (P).
1. Facts.
2. Case-Law.
3. Policies.
B. Make Case for Defendant (D).
1. Facts.
2. Case-Law.
3. Policies.
C. The court will probably rule for P/D on causation because…
III. Element: Redressability. Explanation: To satisfy the third element, P must show…
A. Make Case for Plaintiff (P).
1. Facts.
2. Case-Law.
3. Policies.
B. Make Case for Defendant (D).
1. Facts.
2. Case-Law.
3. Policies.
C. The court will probably rule for P/D on redressability because…
Extras You Might Add:
1. Is there a fact that, if different, would change the conclusion?
2. Would you have concluded differently if the case were at a different time in history?
3. Would the conclusion be different if the case were in a different court? [N/A for your federal ConLaw purposes, but often relevant in courses where there are minority and majority jurisdictions.]
Please comment or DM any questions.
Fondly,
Amanda
P.S. Follow —> #Dear1L to receive future letters.
#lawschool
#law
#lawyer