US Supreme Court: Analysis of Briefs in Suncor v. Boulder Case

When the court opens its term on Monday with the blockbuster case Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the justices will have digested four principal briefs. They are Suncor Energy and the other energy companies’ opening brief (Kannon Shanmugam), the United States’ amicus brief supporting the energy companies (Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris), Boulder’s brief (Kevin Russell), and the energy companies’ reply. The merits question is whether federal law bars state-law claims for injuries attributed to interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions. But this post is for anyone who writes briefs, in the Supreme Court or in any court, and it is about the introduction: the prime real estate that offers the court a frame for all the law and facts to follow.Each introduction combines, in its own recipe, the four techniques I outline in my book on legal advocacy, “Point Made”: Brass Tacks, the narrative lens explaining “who, what, when, where, why, how.” The Short List, the logical lens numbering your path to victory. Why Should I Care?, the pragmatic lens giving the court a reason to want to find for you. And Flashpoint, the contrasting lens drawing a line in the sand. The way each side navigates these introductions, each under 1,000 words, also reveals what it sees as its strengths and weaknesses.Brass Tacks: who, what, when, where, why, howEven, or especially, when the legal issues are abstract, the best introductions spin a narrative line showi