Thread by @bethwilensky

Mazel tov to AG Garland! In honor of his retirement from the DC Circuit, here's a #WilenskyOnStyle thread unpacking some of his writing choices from his final reported opinion. It's an admin law case, a great one to showcase how good writers handle complex regulatory schemes. /1

The case is Mirror Lake Village, LLC v. Wolf, an immigration case handed down in August 2020. Full opinion here: cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini… /2

Judge Garland developed lots of experience breaking down regs during his time on the bench. Here's how he works through law in three paragraphs: One para that describes the statutory terms, one for the regulatory terms, and one that describes how it works in practice./3

Even though the case is about interpretation of the regulation, he starts with the statute. And the topic sentences make sure the reader never gets lost. It's the sort of "invisible" organization that I love. /4

And let's look at the third topic sentence in particular. Usually I like topic sentences that do more substantive work in stating the key point instead of ones that say "I'm about to tell you something." But this one works to introduce a paragraph that walks through a timeline./5

Here's a nice example of an aside that's not legally relevant but gives the reader some useful context. Not every fact must tie directly to the legal analysis; sometimes it's nice to anticipate what your reader might be curious about - like why we call it the EB-5 visa./6

Now, the masterful way Judge Garland intertwines direct quotes from statutes and regs with his own prose. @legalwritingpro recently identified some examples from CJ Roberts's dissent that quotes case law. /7

https://twitter.com/legalwritingpro/status/1369353438132273152

The instinct to overquote from statutes and regs is strong! You might think "I need to include the entire provision." But look what Garland does. /8

To appreciate what he's done, you need to see the original statutory text. I've highlighted the pieces he quoted. Notice how they come from two separate provisions, and he wove them seamlessly into his own sentence. /9

Here's another example, where Judge Garland is quoting an agency regulation. /10

And the original regulatory text he pulls the quote from. /11

Here's another technique I like: The use of carry-over text to connect the legal rule to the conclusion. Notice how the phrase "reasonably explain" appears in both sentences? /12

And then, later, after describing the agency's purported explanation for its denial of the applicant's visas, Judge Garland drops the hammer, bringing back the word "explanation." He doesn't need to include "reasonably" bc his point is that there is no explanation at all. /13

Next, he breaks his main points - the two reasons he finds the agency's actions improper - into numbered sections, each with a clear topic sentence. We've already seen section one: the agency didn't offer a reasonable explanation for its actions. /14

Here's the second point. /15

My only beef with the organization? I have to wait until the *end* to learn what the two main points are. Here's the summary he provides after sections 1 and 2. I'd prefer to see this just before section 1, as a road map. /16

And finally, Judge Garland provides this nice pair of examples of when you should explain your abbreviations and when it's unnecessary to do so. He slips easily into describing Mirror Lake Village, LLC as simply Mirror Lake, and knows that we know what he's referring to. /17

But for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, he uses a parenthetical to tell us he'll refer to it as USCIS. While those familiar with immigration law don't need that explanation (bc the agency is commonly abbreviated USCIS), other readers might. /18

And here's an abbreviation that I think is unnecessary. Why? He doesn't mention DHS anywhere else in the opinion! So this is a place where he could simply say "According to the Department . . ." and the reader would know what Department he meant from the previous sentence. /19

That's it for today! Good luck to Attorney General Garland. I will miss you on the bench, but there's no one else I'd rather see taking the helm of DOJ at this moment. Thank for you doing so. /fin