Constitutional Law Keyed to Rotunda
Harris v. Quinn
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In Illinois, Medicaid recipients that would typically require institutional care are permitted to hire personal assistants (PAs) to provide that care in their home. These recipients are called customers and control most aspects of the employment relationship with the PAs, such as hiring, firing, and supervising. The PAs are paid by the State of Illinois. Illinois law permits collective bargaining through unions by public employees. If public employees are represented by a bargaining unit, such as a union, all those public employees, including nonmembers, are required to pay dues to the unit. In 2003, Illinois passed a statute declaring that PAs were public employees solely for the purpose of collective bargaining. Subsequently, SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana (Defendant) became the bargaining unit for Illinois PAs. These PAs paid more than $3.6 million per year in dues to Defendant. A group of PAs (Plaintiffs) brought a class-action suit against Defendant, alleging that the requirement for non-members to pay dues to the union violated the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the statutes. Plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.