How do I do an IRAC case brief?

 

📚 How to Write an IRAC Case Brief Step-by-Step

Mastering the IRAC method is a key skill for any law student, paralegal, or legal writer.
IRAC — which stands for Issue, Rule, Application (Analysis), and Conclusion — offers a clear framework for breaking down complex legal cases into manageable parts.

Here’s a simple, step-by-step guide to writing an IRAC case brief! ⚡

Step 1: Carefully Read the Case
👉 Concentrate on the facts, the procedural history, and what legal question was at issue.

Step 2: Identify the Issue
What legal question is the court deciding?
This should be in question form.
Short and sweet!
Step 3: State the Rule
No rule or exception was referred to in the short discussion.
Step 4: Apply the Law to the Facts
The Supreme Court held that the stop-and-frisk was constitutional because it was based on reasonable suspicion.
Step 5: Conclusion
Quick IRAC Example using Terry v. Ohio:
Issue: Was the stop-and-frisk of Terry a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Rule: A limited search is constitutional if there is reasonable suspicion.
Application: Officer McFadden observed unusual conduct suggesting criminal activity and a threat to safety.
Conclusion: It was held that the search was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Final Tips for a Strong IRAC Case Brief
📍Use simple, direct language—there’s no need to try to sound ultra formal.
📍Focus on what the court decided and why, not just your personal opinion
📍If the case has multiple issues, do IRAC all over again for each issue!!
📌 Help This Guide!
Good luck — you’ve got this! 🚀

Set yourself to write after reading the case closely, once or even twice!

Pro Tip: Take down important facts, legal questions, and reasoning as you proceed.

Ask:

Legal rule used to answer the issue

Any search and seizure must be reasonable; thus, under the Fourth Amendment, this is allowed. A stop-and-frisk is permissible if the officer possesses a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.

Thus, the conclusion was that Officer McFadden did, in fact, have reasonable suspicion derived from his observations of Terry’s suspicious behavior, rendering the frisk lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Quick, clear, and final.

📍Make each section clean and easy to follow.

Bookmark this page so you can reference it anytime you’re writing your next case brief!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief (IRAC Format)

⚖️ Case Brief: Marbury v. Madison (1803) Court: Supreme Court of the United States Date: February 24, 1803 Citation: 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) Chief Justice: John Marshall Decision: Unanimous (4–0) ❓ Issue 🧩 Whether or not the plaintiff, William Marbury, has a right to the writ of mandamus he has demanded and whether or not it be in the power of a court of law to issue such a writ? —Further, whether or no the act to Congress, passed on 24th of Feb., 1789, entitled "An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States," gives the Supreme Court of the United States "original jurisdiction" to issue such writ? 📘 Rule 📜 The Constitution is above all laws. Any law made by Congress—if it does not agree with the Constitution—will not apply. In such cases, the judiciary must see whether or not an act is constitutional and can stand. → Established Judicial Review. 📝 Facts ⏳ John Adams made many Midnight Judges in his last days under the Judiciary Act of 1801, a...
Read more

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

  Terry v. Ohio Case Brief (1968) | IRAC Format Case Name: Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Issue 🔎 Does a police officer's stop and frisk of an individual without a warrant or probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? Rule 📜 The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. However, a brief investigative stop ("stop and frisk") is allowed when a police officer has a reasonable suspicion , based on specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot and that the individual may be armed and dangerous. The frisk must be limited to a pat-down of outer clothing to check for weapons. Analysis 🧠 The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment’s protections are not absolute barriers to all police-citizen encounters. A balance must be struck between the individual’s right to personal security and the government's interest in crime prevention and officer safety. In Terry’s case...
Read more

Sweatt v. Painter – Case Brief (IRAC Format)

⚖️ Sweatt v. Painter , 339 U.S. 629 (1950) – IRAC Brief ❓ Issue Does the State of Texas, by denying Heman Marion Sweatt admission to the University of Texas Law School solely because he was Black, and instead offering him a separate law school for Black students, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 📜 Rule The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides: “No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” — U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 Under this rule, segregation in public education must provide substantially equal educational opportunities . If the separate facilities are not equal in quality, they violate the Constitution. 🔍 Analysis In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt applied for admission to the University of Texas School of Law, the only public law school in the state at that time. Since it was a matter of course that the institution would return his application automatica...
Read more