In a case that scrutinized the limits of presidential authority, the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump revealed the power of effective storytelling in legal writing. Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the majority opinion, faced the challenge of addressing whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allowed President Trump to impose tariffs, a decision pivotal to his economic policy.
The task was complex. Roberts had to navigate through the dense legal material of the IEEPA and the extensive language of the president’s orders, all while making the decision comprehensible to legal and non-legal audiences alike. Trump’s approach had been to leverage IEEPA to address trade deficits and illegal drug influxes with tariffs, but the legal question was whether these actions had Congressional endorsement.
Roberts employed a storytelling technique that many legal writers could learn from, shifting focus from statutory abstractions to human actions. By centering on the President as a narrative actor, he transformed a potential quagmire of legal jargon into an accessible narrative. In all but five sentences of one section, Roberts’ prose cast the President in an active role. For example, “the President must identify,” and then “he must declare” an emergency, effectively keeping President Trump’s actions at the forefront of the legal narrative.
This narrative structure contrasts with the conventions often seen in legal writing, such as those used by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). A CRS report on IEEPA exemplifies a more traditional style, laden with abstract language and preferring legislative text to storytelling. The report served its purpose but without the narrative elements that might engage and clarify for its readers.
Roberts’ strategy underscores a broader lesson about legal communication: engaging, well-structured narratives can enhance understanding and retention, even in judicial opinions. When legal professionals take the time to integrate storytelling techniques into their writing, they elevate clarity and accessibility. As the discussion in SCOTUSblog highlights, chief amongst these techniques is ensuring central characters are the subjects who drive the legal narrative forward.
For legal practitioners, adopting such methods might involve revisiting basic English composition strategies—prioritizing subjects as characters and actions as verbs. This approach promises not only to enhance the readability of legal texts but also to make them more persuasive by humanizing otherwise dry legal material. Ultimately, by weaving the law into compelling stories, legal writers can significantly improve the delivery of their arguments.