Case Study
Drafting legal documents
This is the list of files that our AI has access to for the purpose of demonstrating its capabilities.
All files are available to download: Opinions of the court
Please have a look at four examples
We have provided to our local instance of Paraleg.ai PDFs with recent opinions from Supreme Court and asked the following questions.
Create a boilerplate for a legal brief that aligns with the successful defense strategy in the ‘USA v. Texas’ case.
this task is too difficult for currently available offline models. Below Answer is provided by online GPT4
Answer (This example is from online GPT4)
Based on the information extracted from the Supreme Court’s opinion, the successful defense strategy in this case revolved around the following key points:
-
Enforcement Discretion: The defense emphasized that the Executive Branch, not the Judiciary, has the discretion to make arrests and prosecute offenses on behalf of the United States. This principle extends to the immigration context, where enforcement discretion implicates not only domestic law enforcement priorities but also foreign-policy objectives.
-
Article III Limitations: The defense argued that the plaintiff states lacked standing to sue. By concluding that the states lacked standing, the defense reinforced the proper role of the Federal Judiciary under Article III. The defense argued that accepting the plaintiff states’ novel standing argument would entail expansive judicial direction of the Department’s arrest policies, which would be a departure from the traditional role of the Federal Judiciary.
-
Selective Prosecution Claims: The defense noted that while the Court has adjudicated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause, these cases typically involve a party seeking to prevent their own prosecution, not to mandate additional prosecutions.
-
Separation of Powers: The defense stressed the importance of maintaining the separation of powers. They argued that the lawsuit, if successful, could lead to the Federal Judiciary directing the Executive Branch’s arrest policies, which would blur the lines between the branches of government.
Based on these points, a boilerplate for a legal brief could look like this:
I. Introduction
This brief seeks to uphold the principle of enforcement discretion vested in the Executive Branch and to maintain the separation of powers as mandated by the Constitution. The plaintiff’s lawsuit, if successful, would blur the lines between the branches of government and set a dangerous precedent for future cases.
II. Argument
A. Enforcement Discretion
The Executive Branch, not the Judiciary, has the discretion to make arrests and prosecute offenses on behalf of the United States. This principle extends to the immigration context, where enforcement discretion implicates not only domestic law enforcement priorities but also foreign-policy objectives.
B. Article III Limitations
The plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Accepting the plaintiff’s novel standing argument would entail expansive judicial direction of the Department’s arrest policies, which would be a departure from the traditional role of the Federal Judiciary.
C. Selective Prosecution Claims
While the Court has adjudicated selective-prosecution claims under the Equal Protection Clause, these cases typically involve a party seeking to prevent their own prosecution, not to mandate additional prosecutions.
D. Separation of Powers
The lawsuit, if successful, could lead to the Federal Judiciary directing the Executive Branch’s arrest policies, which would blur the lines between the branches of government. This would be a departure from our constitutional system of separation of powers.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court should uphold the principle of enforcement discretion and maintain the separation of powers as mandated by the Constitution.
Please note that this is a simplified version and actual legal briefs would be more detailed and specific to the facts and legal issues of the case.
Refference
> source_documents\SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES – Biden v. Texas.pdf:
6
BIDEN v. TEXAS
ALITO, J., dissenting
should have addressed in the briefs they filed before oral
argument. In its opening brief, the Government’s only dis-
cussion of this issue appeared in a footnote that reads as
follows in its entirety:
“In addition, the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to
grant injunctive relief under 8 U. S. C. [§]1252(f )(1).
This Court is considering the scope of Section
> source_documents\SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES – United States v. Texas.pdf:
Texas v. Biden, 20 F. 4th 928, 970–971 (CA5 2021). The
Court of Appeals held that the States had standing, ibid.,
and the majority in this Court, despite extended engage-
ment with other jurisdictional questions, never hinted that
Article III precluded the States’ suit. 597 U. S., at ___–___
(slip op., at 8–12).
If the new rule adopted by the Court in this case is sound,
these decisions and others like them were all just wasted
ink. I understand that what we have called “‘drive-by ju-
> source_documents\SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES – United States v. Texas.pdf:
(BARRETT, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 3–4), and I would not
do so here.
Second, even if Biden v. Texas could be distinguished and
——————
5Section 1252(f )(1) reads in full:
“Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the
party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme
Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the oper-
ation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the
> source_documents\SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES – Biden v. Texas.pdf:
10
BIDEN v. TEXAS
ALITO, J., dissenting
of MPP has contributed to the current border surge” by giv-
ing aliens the “perverse incentiv[e],” id., at 837, App. 196,
to cross the border illegally in hopes of being paroled and
released. Id., at 79. Thus, the Government is failing to
meet the statutory detention mandate, not only because of
limitations on its detention capacity but also because
Produce an initial draft of a petition for a case similar to ‘Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski‘.
this task is too difficult for currently available offline models. Below Answer is provided by online GPT4
Answer:
Based on the information extracted from the Supreme Court’s opinion, the key arguments and facts in this case revolve around the following points:
-
Interlocutory Appeal and Stay of Proceedings: The case primarily concerns the question of whether a federal district court must stay its pre-trial and trial proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on a motion to compel arbitration is ongoing. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Coinbase, stating that the district court must indeed stay its proceedings during the interlocutory appeal.
-
Arbitration Agreement: The case involves a dispute arising from Coinbase’s User Agreement, which contains an arbitration provision directing that disputes be resolved through binding arbitration.
-
Class Action: The case is a putative class action filed against Coinbase by Abraham Bielski on behalf of Coinbase users who allege that Coinbase failed to replace funds fraudulently taken from their accounts.
Based on these points, an initial draft of a petition for a similar case could look like this:
I. Parties
-
The petitioner, [Your Company], operates an online platform on which users can buy and sell [products/services].
-
The respondent, [Plaintiff], is suing on behalf of [Your Company]’s users who allege that [Your Company] failed to [fulfill a certain obligation].
II. Jurisdiction
- The [Your Company] seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the [Circuit] Circuit.
III. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved
- The case involves the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., particularly §16(a) which provides for an interlocutory appeal when a motion to compel arbitration is denied.
IV. Statement of the Case
-
[Your Company] and its users are bound by a User Agreement that contains an arbitration provision, directing that disputes be resolved through binding arbitration.
-
[Plaintiff] filed a putative class action against [Your Company] in the U.S. District Court for the [District], alleging that [Your Company] failed to [fulfill a certain obligation].
-
The District Court denied [Your Company]’s motion to compel arbitration. [Your Company] then filed an interlocutory appeal as provided by 9 U.S.C. §16(a).
-
The question before this Court is whether the district court must stay its pre-trial and trial proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability is ongoing.
V. Reasons for Granting the Petition
-
This case presents an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court.
-
The decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with decisions of other circuits on the question presented in this petition.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Please note that this is a simplified version and actual petitions for certiorari would be more detailed and specific to the facts and legal issues of the case.