Example 13.5
Takeaway point 13.5: A Summary of Argument may present many arguments.
The next Summary of Argument reflects how to dart from argument to argument. The State Department refused to issue a passport to any American born in Jerusalem listing that citizen’s birthplace as “Israel.” Congress enacted a statute to override this policy.
The State Department refused to comply. A federal court dodged the issue, invoking the “political question” doctrine. Here, the lawyers ask the Supreme Court to require the State Department to follow the statute.Source: Brief for the passport applicant from Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012).
The Summary tracks the sequence of the arguments that appear later in the brief. It begins with a threshold issue (the political question doctrine) and then moves to substantive issues. See Chapter 11 for advice about how to select and arrange arguments.
As with Example 13.4, the lawyers rebut a counterargument quickly, noting that that argument is based on “much-criticized dicta” that clashes with the Court’s precedent.
Even in the Summary, the lawyers manage to follow CRAC. Paragraph 5 explained the Rule that governs this issue. Here in Paragraph 6, the brief explains why the other side cannot fulfill that standard.
The lawyers have concisely presented numerous reasons that their client should win.