9.4.3 The Relationships Between and Among Point Headings

There can be many different types of logical relationships between and among point headings, but four are particularly common. One type of relationship exists when the main heading describes a multipart test and the subheadings discuss each of the parts in turn.

3. The use of an irrebuttable gender stereotype in 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) is not “substantially related” to the achievement of the government’s objective, and there is no “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the stereotype’s use.

3.1. 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) is unconstitutionally overinclusive and, therefore, is not “substantially related” to the achievement of the government’s objective.

3.2. There is no “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the use of an irrebuttable gender stereotype in 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) because less discriminatory methods would achieve the government’s objective.

In the second type of relationship, the main heading makes an assertion, and the subheadings address factors that may or may not be formal “subparts” of the main assertion. In this excerpt from a petitioner’s brief in Minnesota v. Carter, note how the four subheadings make legal arguments that support the Arabic heading “1.” Although they are not all necessary subparts of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” argument, the reader will be more likely to agree with heading “1” if he or she agrees with the subheadings:

1. As temporary business invitees present in another’s residence for the sole purpose of packaging drugs, Respondents had no legitimate expectation of privacy.

1.1. Respondents failed to meet their burden of proving that they had a legitimate expectation of privacy because they introduced absolutely no evidence regarding their status in Thompson’s apartment.

1.2. Any subjective expectation Respondents might have had while temporarily in another’s home for the sole purpose of conducting illegal business was not one society recognizes as reasonable. 1.3. By engaging in criminal acts in a well-lit room, directly in front of a window facing a widely used common area, Respondents exhibited no subjective expectation of privacy. 1.4. This Court should maintain its reluctance to expand the class of individuals who may claim a legitimate expectation of privacy and invoke the exclusionary rule.

In the third type of relationship, the main heading makes an assertion, and the subheadings focus on how particular facts support the main assertion:

2.2. Even if the Olson rule extends to non-overnight guests, Respondents’ expectation of privacy is unreasonable because they were present only to conduct illegal business that is not valuable to society.

2.2.1. Illegal drug distribution is not a longstanding social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by society. 2.2.2. Respondents were present for a purely commercial purpose and were not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protection associated with the home.

The fourth common type of relationship is a relationship between “equal” headings rather than between a main assertion and its subheadings. In this relationship, the headings present alternative arguments, as in this example from a petitioner’s brief in Minnesota v. Carter:

GOOD EXAMPLE 1. The Olson rule dictates that only overnight guests have a connection to a premises that gives rise to a legitimate expectation of privacy. 2. Even if the Olson rule extends to non-overnight guests, Respondents’ expectation of privacy is unreasonable because they were present only to conduct illegal business that is not valuable to society.

Using “even if” language in the second alternative point heading can help the court to understand the relationships between the headings more quickly. Despite the concerns of some students, alternative arguments are perfectly acceptable, as long as the law and the facts could reasonably support both arguments.