How to Outline Constitutional Law

Con Law casebooks are organized historically because the doctrine moved. Your outline cannot be. On the exam you will get a statute, an executive order, or a municipal ordinance and you will need to know, in order: who acted, under what power, what limit applies, and what test governs. A list that runs McCulloch, Gibbons, Wickard, Lopez, Morrison, Raich tells you the history of the Commerce Clause but does not tell you what to do with a federal statute banning something.

Convert every doctrinal area into a question sequence. The Commerce Clause section should open with the three Lopez categories (channels, instrumentalities and persons or things in interstate commerce, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce), then the aggregation rule from Wickard v. Filburn as narrowed by Lopez and Morrison to economic activity, then Raich confirming aggregation survives for a comprehensive regulatory scheme, then NFIB v. Sebelius holding that Congress cannot compel entry into commerce. The cases are the branches. The question is the trunk.

Use two macro-halves that mirror how the exam separates. Half one is who may act. Half two is what they may not do to people.

Inside half one, sequence: judicial power and justiciability; federal legislative power; limits on federal power that protect states; limits on state power that protect the national market; separation of powers between Congress and the President. Inside half two, sequence: state action; incorporation; due process (procedural then substantive); equal protection; takings; speech; religion. That order matters because each step is a gate. If there is no state action, you never reach scrutiny.

Every entry needs four fields: the trigger, the test, the burden, and the outcome pattern. Trigger tells you when the doctrine turns on. Test is the operative language you will quote. Burden tells you who loses ties. Outcome pattern tells you how the test usually resolves so you can predict.

For example, under content-based speech regulation: trigger is a law that draws lines by subject matter, function, or viewpoint on its face, or that was adopted because of disagreement with the message (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, refined by City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising). Test is strict scrutiny. Burden is on the government. Outcome pattern is that the law almost always fails unless it fits an unprotected category (incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio, true threats, obscenity under Miller v. California, defamation subject to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan).

Keep case parentheticals to one line: name, year, one-clause holding, and why it matters to the line. "Morrison (2000): gender-motivated violence not economic, no aggregation, marks the outer edge of substantial effects." That is enough. You are not writing briefs into your outline.

Build one master chart and put it near the front of the rights half, then cross-reference it everywhere. Write out each tier with the exact phrasing: strict scrutiny requires that the law be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest, with the government bearing the burden; intermediate scrutiny requires that the law be substantially related to an important government interest, and in sex-classification cases the government must show an exceedingly persuasive justification (United States v. Virginia); rational basis requires only a rational relationship to a legitimate interest, with the challenger bearing the burden and the actual legislative purpose being irrelevant (Williamson v. Lee Optical).

Then keep a separate short list of triggers, because the classification question is what students actually miss. Race and national origin, and alienage with exceptions, get strict scrutiny in equal protection; sex and illegitimacy get intermediate; everything else, including age, disability (City of Cleburne), wealth, and sexual orientation as a formal matter, gets rational basis, though Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges applied something with more bite without renaming the tier.

Do not let speech scrutiny bleed into equal protection scrutiny in your notes. Time, place, and manner review under Ward v. Rock Against Racism uses narrow tailoring language that does not mean least restrictive means, and O'Brien intermediate scrutiny for expressive conduct is not the same test as sex-discrimination intermediate scrutiny. Note the difference explicitly in the margin of your chart.

Several doctrines changed in the last few terms, and outlines borrowed from upperclassmen are often wrong. Write the current rule first, then a one-line note on what it replaced, because your professor will likely test the transition.

Substantive due process: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overruled Roe and Casey and instructed that unenumerated rights must be deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, the Glucksberg formulation. Establishment Clause: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) abandoned the Lemon test in favor of historical practices and understandings. Free Exercise: Employment Division v. Smith still governs neutral and generally applicable laws, but Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and the funding cases (Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, Carson v. Makin) do heavy work. Second Amendment: New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) replaced means-end scrutiny with a text-and-historical-tradition inquiry, applied in United States v. Rahimi (2024). Race-conscious admissions: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023).

Flag overruled cases rather than deleting them. Lemon, Lochner, and Korematsu still show up as reference points, and Plessy v. Ferguson matters for what Brown v. Board of Education did.

This is the course where coverage varies most. Many schools split Con Law into two required or elective courses, with structure and powers in the first and individual rights in the second; some one-semester courses cover only federalism and separation of powers and never reach the First Amendment. Some cover the dormant Commerce Clause in depth; others skip it. Your outline should match your syllabus and nothing else.

Methodology also varies more here than in any other 1L subject. An originalist-leaning professor will want you to argue from text, structure, and founding-era practice, and will reward you for handling the historical-tradition inquiries in Bruen and Kennedy. A professor focused on political process or critical theory may want Carolene Products footnote four, representation-reinforcing theory, and the tiers as a political-process device. Read past exams and model answers on the library reserve; the fact pattern style tells you whether you need a policy section at all.

If your course is closed-book, compress. If it is open-book with a page limit, the limit is the design constraint, and you should cut every case that does not move a line.

Build an attack outline separate from the full outline. Four to six pages, no prose. Each page is a flowchart with yes-or-no branches and the operative test at each terminal node.

Draft at least three: one for a federal statute (enumerated power, then federalism limits, then individual rights), one for a state law (dormant Commerce Clause and preemption, then rights), and one for executive action (statutory authorization, then Youngstown category, then constitutional limit). Add a fourth for any speech or religion problem, starting with whether the government is regulating as sovereign, employer, educator, or speaker, since Garcetti v. Ceballos, Tinker, and government-speech doctrine each change the analysis before scrutiny is even selected.

Full citations do not belong in an outline. Case name and year is enough. Save Bluebook form for your journal write-on and briefs; on a timed exam, "Lopez" is a complete citation.