I am curious about this in approaching my exams – whether making my IRAC analysis shorter and more to the point instead of going through all of the details would be a better tactic as it would seemingly save me a lot of time and allow me to discuss more issues.
Here is what I am talking about with a Constitutional Law example:
1. MORE DETAILED/MORE TIME CONSUMING RESPONSE:
P must first satisfy all 3 of the requirements under standing. First, she must have suffered an injury or will imminently suffer an injury. Here, this is met as she has suffered the injury of not being able choose whether or not to use contraceptives (a violation of her reproductive autonomy right). Next, the D must have caused the injury (causal connection). This is met here as S has caused the injury to P in enacting its law. Finally, P must meet the redressability requirement. Here, P satisfies this requirement as well because the remedy the court gives will likely redress the injury she has suffered – i.e. invalidating the law would effectively cease P from being injured.
Next, P must meet the ripeness requirement. In order to satisfy this requirement, there must be a full-fledged controversy that is apparent and the record must be complete enough for the court to review it. Here, P satisfies this requirement as there is an actual full-fledged (developed) controversy between adverse litigants that is ready to be resolved by the court now.
2. MORE CONSICE RESPONSE/SAVES A LOT OF TIME:
The first issue is if L has standing. Here, it arguably satisfies all of the requirements to have standing as it has suffered an injury that will recur because of South enacting the FRA, which virtually ceases all of its in-state sales; the defendant (here South) caused the injury (causation) as South’s enactment of the FRA has directly caused the injury to L; and finally, the redressability requirement is satisfied as the court holding the FRA is void/unconstitutional would redress the injury L has suffered.
Next, the ripeness requirement is satisfied as a full-fledged controversy is apparent (L is losing sales every day as it stands) and the record is complete enough for the court to review it.
Traditionally, I have used the approach in #1 in my exams, but now I am thinking approach #2 might be a better tactic as it would likely save me a good amount of time and will allow me to hit + discuss more issues overall. Would that likely get me a better grade or do Professors’ tend to value more ELABORATE/DETAILED responses even if a student ends up touching on less issues because of the time consuming issue?
I am getting really nervous with exams coming up!! I would really appreciate any help!