Prof. Sarah J. Schendel
Teaching a skills-based class presents its own set of challenges, namely, continuity of the semester without a cohesive topical “theme” (e.g., Contracts, Criminal Law), and the differing skill levels and needs of students. At Suffolk University Law School, students who are on academic probation are required to take Legal Analysis and Methods (LAM) during the Fall of their 2L year. The goal of the course is to reinforce and deepen skills critical to success both in law school and in practice; including exam prep, time management, statutory interpretation, and rule-based analysis. Because not all students in LAM are enrolled in the same courses I generally select readings, out-of-class assignments, and in-class exercises from a variety of topics. Previously, I chose exercises primarily from 1L topics, in order to remove the stress of focusing on topics students were currently learning and to avoid disparities between students. This practice, however, was of varied success, since it ran the risk of making the class feel more like a review of the students’ 1L year (to much student frustration), potentially “remedial,” and less aligned with their current academic pursuits.
In an attempt to give the semester a continuity of topic, minimize student feelings of repetition, and help place the skills they are learning within a practical, contemporary context, this year I chose a “live” Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case around which to focus some of the course. Specifically, I chose United States v. Stitt, one of many federal cases seeking clarity from the notoriously vague Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Stitt, 586 U.S. __, (2018). I selected Stitt for several reasons:
it involved Criminal Law (which all of the students took during their 1L year);
the potential for interesting policy discussions (about mandatory minimums, sentencing, Congressional intent, and the intersection of state and federal law);
it involved statutory interpretation (one of the skills on which we would be focusing);
the projected timing of the case (Oral Arguments were scheduled to occur in October, at which time we would be over a month into the semester); and, finally,
it was a case I was interested in following (that helps!).
What It Looked Like In Practice
The students’ first introduction to Stitt came during our Week 5 lesson on Statutory Analysis and Interpretation. Without introducing the entirety of the case, I pulled the relevant state and federal statutes from Stitt to use in classroom examples, based around the Statutory Analysis chapter in A Lawyer Writes: A Practical Guide to Legal Analysis. See generally Christine Coughlin et al., A Lawyer Writes: A Practical Guide to Legal Analysis (2nd ed. 2013). The following week, Week 6, we focused on Appellate Briefs, reading a chapter from Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing. See generally Richard K. Neumann, Jr. et al., Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing (8th ed. 2017). In class, I gave the students selections from either the Respondents’ or Petitioner’s Appellate briefs in Stitt, asked them questions about both, and had them summarize the arguments to each other.
During Weeks 7 and 8 we focused on Oral Arguments. Prior to Week 7, the students read a selection from “Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing,” and in class we used the lesson to conduct mini mock oral arguments. With that background, the students were prepared to listen to the arguments in Stitt, also held that week. In Week 8, we debriefed the Stitt oral arguments together, discussing the merits of the arguments and the demeanor of the judges and attorneys.
Finally, in Week 13 I handed out the final memo assignment: a take home, closed memo due Week 16. The memo was a Multistate Performance Test (MPT)-style bench memo on Stitt, with a packet including memo instructions, briefs for the Petitioner and Respondent, relevant statutes, a few additional secondary sources, and the transcript of oral argument. From the beginning of the semester, students knew that their final assignment would involve Stitt, so there was little surprise. I chose a bench memo assignment because it would require synthesizing multiple primary and secondary sources (a challenge for many students); was consistent with their midterm (which had been a non-bench memo MPT); and because the fact that students had already interacted with some of the materials meant those who had paid attention and participated throughout the semester would benefit.
Successes, Challenges, and Best Practices
Overall, I think the class benefitted from the structure and theme of using a “live” SCOTUS case, and I hope to do it again. The benefits were varied. Right away, I noticed that using Stitt increased student awareness of and involvement with the SCOTUS calendar, and helped to make the proceedings a bit less abstract. Additionally, Stitt happened to be one of the very first cases heard by Justice Kavanaugh, so this gave us an opportunity to discuss the confirmation hearings, and tied what we were doing in class to current events.
Using a complex and ongoing SCOTUS case also was an opportunity to demonstrate trust in the students and their abilities, and to convey that while this class was required due to their less than ideal academic performance, it was not intended to be a “remedial” or easy course. At the end of the semester, a student explicitly thanked me for using a current SCOTUS case, and I myself felt challenged and excited by being forced to engage with a case previously unknown to me as well.
This new endeavor was, of course, not without its challenges. It required me to do more work prior to the semester in order to familiarize myself with Stitt and the wealth of materials involved. It also added a bit of anxiety to the planning of the semester, since there was always the possibility that, for one reason or another, oral arguments would be delayed or another change in timing would impact my syllabus.
Having a backup plan for possible case scheduling changes is something I still have not fully developed, and will continue to ponder. In choosing a case for a future class, I will again look to find a complex take on a 1L topic (for an ideal mix of review and challenge), as well as a case where there are both appropriate primary sources to analyze (statutes, particularly) and potential secondary sources to include as well (law review articles, Congressional Research Service overviews, etc.)
A final benefit I later realized was that using Stitt also gives me a way to stay in touch with my students. After grading their finals, I am able to report back to them that, as a class, they sided overwhelmingly with the Respondent. When Stitt is decided, I’ll email them to let them know the outcome, and see what they think of the decision. And, of course, to check in on how their Spring semesters are going.