To make a case brief.

You can go to Supreme Court website

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

and look for opinions.

Choose one of the following cases which you like:

Tennessee Wine and Spirits v. Thomas (Can Tennessee make it tough for nonresident to get liquor license)

Kisor v. Wilkie (a Chevron deference case about a vet with PTSD)

Iancu v.Brunetti (can a trademark for Fuct be denied as immoral)

American Express v. Italian Colors(arbitration limits)

Goodyear Tire and Rubber v. Haeger (sanctions for bad conduct for lawyers)

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment(Court refuses to overturn a bad precedent for Spiderman)

Masterpiece Cakeshop(Mr. Phillips does not have to bake a cake for the gay couple)

National Meat Association v. Harris(California cannot regulate sick cows - Supremacy and Commerce Clause)

South Dakota v. Wayfair (States can tax internet business, and a precedent is overturned)

Integrity v. Busk(You cannot get paid for standing the line waiting to be searched at the end of a shift)

Tyson Foods v. Bouphakeo (You can get paid for putting on chicken killing uniforms)

Navarro v. Encino Motors (2016) Not 2018!(The Administration can't change rules without good explanations)

New Prime v. Oliviera(Another arbitration case, the only one the employee wins)

Epic Systems v. Lewis(Another arbitration case about arbitration agreements)

Apple v. Samsung (How do you compute profits on sales of phones where technology is stolen?)

Apple v. Pepper (Can a class action of app developers, or app buyers, sue Apple for antitrust law violations?)

Bostock v. Clayton County ("sex" means "sexual orientation" for LGBT discrimination)

Dept. of Homeland Security v. UC Board of Regents (Administration cannot summarily terminate the DACA program)

Here are the steps that "how to brief a case" and you should follow this to make the case brief.

How to brief a case

There are several ways to brief cases, and many different formats that can be used. Some lawyers want it a certain way, and paralegal societies also have their own standard. The primary idea is to provide short and to the point ideas about a case, its facts, and outcomes to the reader as soon as possible. The format I suggest is shown in the example below, but you may make any format that communicates the ideas noted here.

Here are steps you can follow:

1. Read the summary opinion of the case.

2. If you are unclear about any part of the case, read the actual decision. Consider what the important parts of the opinion are and try to provide little emphasis on those facts or issues that are not the primary part of the case.

Now, provide this information:

1. Give the name and "citation" of the case. This is where the case can be found. It may look like "Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018)". Sometimes, the page number may not be available.

2. Provide a concise summary and statement of the important facts in the case. Keep in mind that sometimes the "facts" are the procedures used to get the case to the Supreme Court, and those will be what are discussed.

3. Do the brief summary of the procedures that were used in the case.Where was a case initially filed, and what appeals have occurred? List these out.

4. Note the primary issue in the case.Sometimes the opinion will have that, or sometimes you may have it.

5. If there is an existing rule in the area of law surrounding the case, note that.

6. Show the decision and show the vote of the judges. This is useful information.

7. Provide a summary of the decision, along with a note about any concurring or dissenting opinions.

Here is the case brief I did before, follow the steps and layout I did then make the brief of case which you chose.

BOSTOCK V CLAYTON COUNTY

Citation 590 U.S._ (2020)

Brief Fact Summary: The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock was fired after he expressed interest in a gay softball league at work. In April 2013, Clayton County conducted an audit of funds controlled by Bostock and fired him for "conduct unbecoming a county employee. Bostock believed that the county used the claim of misspent funds as a pretext for firing him for being gay and sought legal recourse for workplace discrimination in 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court sought to dismiss the claim of prohibited discrimination-the District Court agreed to dismiss, on the basis of the precedent established in 2017 case Evans v Georgia Reginal Hospital decided by Eleventh circuit and which held that the Civil Rights Act's Title VII does not include protection against discrimination towards sexual orientation. Bostock petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the question of whether sexual orientation is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights.

Procedural Steps: The lower courts followed the Eleventh Circuit's past precedent that Title VII did not cover employment discrimination protection based on sexual orientation. This case was first made in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Bostock appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where the tree judges affirmed the District's ruling in 2018. In ruling the Eleventh Circuit pointed to their ruling in Evans that dismissed the supreme Courts precedent against sex discrimination. Bostock petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the question of whether sexual orientation is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights.

Primary Issue: whether sexual orientation is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights?

Synopsis of Rule of Law Prior to the Case: This is an existing rule in law surrounding the case. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Supreme Court certified the petition and consolidated the case with Altitude Express. The U.S Department of Justice argued that sexual orientation was not covered, but asserted that "congress of course remains free to legislate in this area and employers, including government employers, remain free to offer greater protection to their workers than Title VII requires. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court in the case, the court held that Title VII protections did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

Decision: 6-3 decision for Bostock, majority opinion by Neil Gorsuch, covering all three cases that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender.

Summary of Decision: This was a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Court also held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination against individuals based on sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups. Thus, Title VII provides a remedy to individuals who experience discrimination based on sex even if an employer's policy overall does not involve discrimination.