Below is a complete case brief for one of the most important cases in American constitutional law. Each section is annotated with guidance on what to include and why.
In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia. The commission was signed and sealed but not delivered before Adams left office. Incoming Secretary of State James Madison refused to deliver the commission. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court directly for a writ of mandamus compelling Madison to deliver it.
The Facts section captures who the parties are, what happened, and how the case reached the court. Include only legally relevant facts — details that affect the outcome.
Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789?
The Issue is the legal question the court must decide. Frame it as a specific yes/no question. A well-written issue incorporates the relevant legal standard and the key facts.
Article III of the Constitution defines and limits the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress cannot expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III provides. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and any statute that conflicts with it is void.
The Rule states the legal principle or test the court applied. This is often the most important section for exam purposes — it is the law you will apply in issue-spotters.
The Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which purported to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional because it conflicted with Article III's enumeration of the Court's original jurisdiction. Because the Constitution is the supreme law, any legislative act repugnant to it is void. The Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear Marbury's case.
The Holding/Application section explains how the court applied the rule to the facts of this case and what it decided. This is where you show the court's reasoning chain.
Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that if the Constitution is superior to ordinary legislation, then a court must refuse to apply a statute that contradicts the Constitution. It is the essential duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. If two laws conflict, the court must decide which governs. The Constitution, as the fundamental and paramount law, must prevail over any conflicting legislative act.
The Reasoning section captures the court's justification for its holding. Why did the court reach this conclusion? What policy considerations or logical arguments supported the decision?
Use this template for your own case briefs. Fill in each section as you read the assigned case.
[Case Name], [Citation] ([Year])
FACTS:
[Summarize the key facts that gave rise to the legal dispute. Who are the parties? What happened? How did the case reach this court?]
ISSUE:
[State the legal question as a yes/no question. Incorporate the relevant legal standard and key facts.]
RULE:
[State the legal principle, test, or standard the court applied to resolve the issue.]
HOLDING / APPLICATION:
[Explain how the court applied the rule to the facts. What did the court decide and why?]
REASONING:
[Summarize the court's justification. What policy considerations, precedents, or logical arguments supported the decision?]
DISSENT (if applicable):
[Summarize the dissenting opinion's main argument and why it disagreed with the majority.]
Here is a brief for a classic Torts case to show how the template works across different subjects.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
A passenger running to board a moving train dropped a package, which was dislodged when railroad employees helped him aboard. The package contained fireworks, which exploded on impact. The explosion caused scales at the far end of the platform to topple onto Mrs. Palsgraf, injuring her. She sued the railroad for negligence.
Did the railroad owe a duty of care to Palsgraf, who was injured as an unforeseeable consequence of the employees' negligence toward another passenger?
A defendant owes a duty of care only to those who are foreseeably within the "zone of danger" created by the defendant's conduct. Negligence is defined in relation to the plaintiff; there is no negligence in the abstract.
The court held for the railroad. Palsgraf was not within the foreseeable zone of danger created by the employees' act of helping the passenger board. The risk of harm to someone standing at the other end of the platform from a package of unknown contents was not foreseeable. Without a duty owed to Palsgraf specifically, there could be no actionable negligence.
Chief Judge Cardozo reasoned that negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest — a violation of a right. The risk reasonably perceived defines the duty to be obeyed. Here, no reasonable person would have foreseen that helping a passenger board a train could injure someone at the far end of the platform.
A standard case brief includes: Facts (what happened), Issue (the legal question), Rule (the legal principle applied), Holding/Application (how the court applied the rule), and Conclusion (the outcome). Some professors also require Reasoning and Dissent sections.
A good case brief is typically 1-2 pages. The goal is conciseness — capture the essential information without rewriting the entire opinion. Focus on the facts that matter legally, not every detail.
IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. FIRAC adds Facts at the beginning. Both frameworks accomplish the same goal; FIRAC simply makes the factual summary an explicit first step, which is useful for case briefing.
Yes. Briefly's AI case brief generator produces complete FIRAC-format briefs from any case name in under 30 seconds. It is a great starting point — you can use the AI brief as a foundation and add your own notes from the reading. 3-day free trial, then $9.99/month.