Introductions: When School Marms Attack

I've written here before about the qualities of a great introductory paragraph, how important it is to state your conclusions up front, get to the point and tell the reader the answer, and how a good introduction keeps your reader from feeling like they've been kidnapped.

Here at the end of the Supreme Court term, when I'm trying to shake off my sloth and catch up on all the opinions that have come out, I must again wag my pedantic and prodigious finger. The Court does not always measure up.

With a good introduction, I can tell what the case is about, what the issue is, how the issue comes out.

With an inadequate introduction, I either get a garbled message or I am forced to read further to find out . . . whether I want to read further.

After the break we'll use some recent Supreme Court opinions as object lessons for what works, and what doesn't.

How long should an introduction be? Mrs. Jeffries, My AP English, teacher always said that our writing ought to be "skirt length"--long enough to cover the subject and short enough to be interesting.

As applied to introductions, that means long enough to do at least three things:

Lay out something of the basic area of the law so I know where the battle field is. State the issue, often in a way that signals which way it is (or ought) to be decided. State the resolution of the issue, usually in a way that begins to persuade me that the resolution is correct. But does the Supreme Court always do that? Alas, no. Even the Court's best writers sometimes fall short.

There is no clearer writer on the Court than Justice Scalia. And yet, Scalia often does the "page turner" type of introduction--one that merely states the issue and then requires the reader to turn the pages of the opinion as if it were a political thriller to discover the resolution.

Take as an example the introduction to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes:

We are presented with one of the most expansive class actions ever. The District Court and the Court of Appeals approved the certification of a class comprising about one and a half million plaintiffs, current and former female employees of petitioner Wal-Mart who allege that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violates Title VII by discriminating against women. In addition to injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs seek an award of backpay. We consider whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).

Not too long...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT