Overview
The purpose of this assignment is to provide students with experience writing an amicus brief (a very powerful advocacy tool used in the judicial process). Students will practice using social science and research as evidence in their arguments in support of judicial rulings that promote social and economic justice.
Directions
- Read through the case overview of the Ankrum v. State of Alabama [2011] case [available at the end of this document].
- You are a policy analyst for the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). You are working with the NASW legal counsel to complete an amicus brief on this case. You have been asked to help write an amicus brief from this perspective and as if the case were still pending before the The brief should include the following sections:
- Case Headings/Captions – This is the title page for the brief. It identifies the Court hearing the case; the parties; the date, case number and your name and contact information. This page also indicates that this document is an amicus brief and which party it is in support of.
b. Table of Contents
- Table of Authorities – This section simply lists different sources that you will use in support of your argument. Sources can include: laws, previous judicial decisions (i.e. precedents), social science research, journal articles, law review articles, etc. If searching for precedents that were set in previous cases, look for cases that centered on similar issues. However, because you are writing for the NASW, you can rely heavily on social science sources. If using more than one type of source, each type should be grouped together and include a header for each section indicating the source. Please include 8-10
- Interest of Amicus Curiae – This section explains to the Court why your organization (the NASW) is interested in the case. In writing this section, think about the mission, vision and values of the NASW, what a positive outcome would be for this organization and how a positive outcome in this case will support the mission, vision and values of the
- Summary of Argument – This section provides a summary for your arguments. It is similar to an executive summary in a report that briefly gives the reader an overview of your
- Argument – In this section, you will present your case for why the Court should make a ruling that is favorable to your position. You will rely on literature to do Think broadly about the impact charging or not charging someone criminally when they use illegal drugs while pregnant. For example, what impact will this have on women? Or how will it impact a woman’s decision to get prenatal care or not? Or how will this impact all parties involved? Or what happens if the child dies? Ultimately, you are understanding how this issue is addressed in the literature. Support your argument with the sources listed in the table of authorities. Include 4-6 arguments.
g. Conclusion
Note – please see the sample amicus briefs for how each section is formatted and examples of appropriate content in each section. This is also located within the course.
Paper Requirements: The paper will be 6-8 pages in length, NOT including the Case Captions Page, the Table of Contents or the Table of Authorities. APA formatting required. Writing should be free of spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. This paper should be well organized and should use sections a-g listed above as headers for each section of the paper. Students should include 4-6 arguments in support of your position and support these arguments with at least 8-10 reputable sources.
Grading Rubric
| Grammar & APA
Citations |
Virtually no spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors;
All in-text citations were in the correct APA citation style and the reference page was also correct. |
Few spelling and punctuation errors, minor grammatical errors;
Few minor errors in either the in- text citations and/or references page |
A number of spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors;
A number of errors in the in- text citations and/or references page. |
So many spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors it interferes with the meaning;
Many errors in the in-text citations and/or references page. |
|
Exemplary -5 |
Good – 3 |
Marginal – 1 |
Unacceptable – 0 |
|
| Quality of writing & Formattin g | Very informative and well organized. 6-8 page requirement was met.
Exemplary – 5 |
Somewhat informative and organized. 6-8 page requirement was met.
Good – 3 |
Gives some new information but poorly organized. Paper was less than the required length.
Marginal- 1 |
Gives no new information and very poorly organized. Paper was less than the required length.
Unacceptable –0 |
| Case Headings & Captions | Clearly identifies the Court hearing the case; the parties; the date, case number and your name, contact information and indicates that the document is an amicus brief and which party it is in support of.
Exemplary – 4 |
Somewhat identifies the Court hearing the case; the parties; the date, case number and your name, contact information and indicates that the document is an amicus brief and which party it is in support of.
Good -2 |
Fails to identify the majority of the information needed such as the Court hearing the case; the parties; the date, case number and your name, contact information and indicates that the document is an amicus brief and which party it is in support of.
Marginal -1 |
Does not give enough information to identify the case or the purpose of the document
Unacceptable -0 |
| Table of Contents | All sections of the paper are included
Exemplary -3 |
Fails to list a few of the paper’s sections
Good -2 |
Fails to list the majority of the paper’s sections
Marginal – 1 |
No table of contents included
Unacceptable – 0 |
| Table of Authoritie s | Includes 8-10 sources/authoritie s that are relevant to the topic.
Exemplary -3 |
Includes less than 8 but more than 6 sources that are relevant to the topic.
Good – 2 |
Includes less than 6 but more than 4 sources that are relevant to the topic
Marginal – 1 |
Includes fewer than 4 sources that are relevant to the topic
Unacceptable – 0 |
| Interest of Amicus Curiae | Incorporates the NASW’s mission, vision and values into the explanation of
why the agency is |
Somewhat includes the
NASW’s mission, vision and values into the explanation of |
Gives some information about why the NASW is interested in the case, but info is
not based on |
Explanation of interest is not specific to the NASW. |
| interested in the case
Exemplary – 8 |
why the agency is interested in the case.
Good – 5 |
NASW mission, vision or values.
Marginal – 3 |
Unacceptable – 0 |
|
| Summary of Argument | Includes a brief overview of the student’s 4-6 arguments
Exemplary – 8 |
Somewhat provides an overview of 4-6 arguments
Good – 5 |
Provides some information on at least 3 arguments
Marginal -3 |
Fails to provide an overview of at least 3 arguments
Unacceptable – 0 |
| Argument s & Supportin g Evidence | Arguments were appropriately and clearly summarized.
Strong support was provided about the impact the housing policies/practices can have on individuals
Exemplary – 20 |
Summary of arguments was mostly correct with only minor errors. Some support was provided about the impact the housing policies/practices can have on individuals
Good – 13 |
Some errors in explaining the arguments. Weak support was provided about the impact the housing policies/practices can have on individuals
Marginal- 6 |
Many errors in explaining arguments.
Case was not made to support arguments about the impact the housing policies/practice s can have on individuals
Unacceptable-0 |
| Conclusio n | Provides a comprehensive summary of the interests of the NASW in the case and the arguments/suppor t for the student’s position.
Exemplary – 4 |
Provides a complete summary of the interests of the NASW in the case and the arguments/suppor t for the student’s position.
Good – 3 |
Provides somewhat of a summary of the interests of the NASW in the case and the arguments/suppor t for the student’s position.
Marginal – 2 |
Fails to provide a summary of either the interests of the NASW or the student’s arguments.
Unacceptable – 0 |
Appendix: Ankrum Case Overview
Ankrum (petitioner) v. State of Alabama (defendant) (2011)
Issue
Can a woman be criminally prosecuted in Alabama for using illegal drugs while pregnant?
Facts of the Case
“ ‘On January 31, 2009, the defendant, Hope Ankrom, gave birth to a son, [B.W.], at Medical Center Enterprise. Medical records showed that [Ankrom] tested positive for cocaine prior to giving birth and that the child tested positive for cocaine after birth.
“ ‘Department of Human Resources worker Ashley Arnold became involved and developed a plan for the care of the child. During the investigation [Ankrom] admitted to Ashley that she had used marijuana while she was pregnant but denied using cocaine.
“ ‘Medical records from her doctor show that he documented a substance abuse problem several times during her pregnancy and she had tested positive for cocaine and marijuana on more than one occasion during her pregnancy.’
“On February 18, 2009, Ankrom was arrested and charged with chemical endangerment
of a child. On August 25, 2009, the grand jury indicted Ankrom. The indictment stated that Ankrom ‘did knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally cause or permit a child, to-wit: [B.W.], a better description of which is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown, to be
exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia as defined in Section 13A–12–260 of the Code of Alabama, 1975, to-wit: Cocaine, in violation of Section [26–15–3.2(a)(1) ].’
“On September 25, 2009, Ankrom filed a motion styled as a ‘Motion to Dismiss
Indictment.’ In that motion, after setting forth the facts, Ankrom argued that ‘[t]he plain language of [§ 26–15–3.2, Ala.Code 1975,] shows that the legislature intended for the statute to apply only to a child, not a fetus’; that ‘courts in other states which have enacted the same or similar chemical endangerment statutes have determined that such statutes do not apply to prenatal conduct that allegedly harms a fetus’; that ‘[t]he state’s contention that the defendant violated this statute renders the law
impermissibly vague, and therefore the rule of lenity applies’; that ‘[t]he legislature has previously considered amending the statute to include prenatal conduct that harms a fetus, and declined to do so’; that ‘the defendant has not been accorded due process because there was no notice that her conduct was illegal under this statute’; that ‘[t]he prosecution of pregnant women is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection’; and that ‘[p]rosecution of pregnant, allegedly drug-addicted women is against public policy for numerous moral and ethical reasons.’ The State responded to that motion on October 13, 2009. In the State’s response, it agreed that on January 31, 2009, Ankrom gave birth to a son and that medical records showed that Ankrom tested
positive for cocaine immediately prior to giving birth and that the child tested positive for cocaine after birth. Based on that conduct, the State argued that prosecution of Ankrom was proper under § 26–15–3.2, Ala.Code 1975. On October 15, 2009, the trial court denied Ankrom’s motion.
“On April 1, 2010, Ankrom pleaded guilty to a violation of § 26–15–3.2(a)(1), Ala.Code
1975.”
Ankrom v. State, [Ms. CR–09–1148, Aug. 26, 2011] _ So.3d _ (Ala.Crim.App.2011). Ankrom was sentenced to three years in prison, but her sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation for one year. Ankrom, _ So.3d at _.
“Ankrom alleges that the term ‘child’ in § 26–15–3.2, Ala.Code 1975, does not include a viable fetus. The State responds that the plain meaning of the term ‘child,’ as used in
the statute, includes an unborn child.”
Retrieved from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-supreme-court/1620470.html
