United States v. Armstrong Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Defendants alleged racial bias in their federal prosecution for crack cocaine offenses. The Supreme Court held that to obtain discovery for a selective prosecution claim, defendants must provide credible evidence that the government declined to prosecute similarly situated individuals of a different race.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a rigorous threshold for defendants seeking discovery on selective prosecution claims. It requires a specific showing of differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, thereby reinforcing the strong presumption of regularity that protects prosecutorial discretion under the separation of powers doctrine.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondents, who were Black, were indicted on federal charges for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. They filed a motion for discovery, alleging they were selected for federal prosecution because of their race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In support, they offered an affidavit showing that in all 24 crack cocaine cases closed by the Federal Public Defender’s office in 1991, the defendants were Black. The Government opposed the motion, submitting affidavits from law enforcement and the prosecutor stating that race played no role in the investigation or charging decision. The Government argued the prosecution was based on legitimate factors, such as the quantity of drugs and the presence of firearms. The District Court granted the discovery order. When the Government refused to comply, the court dismissed the indictment. The Court of Appeals, en banc, affirmed, holding that a defendant is not required to demonstrate that the government has failed to prosecute similarly situated individuals to obtain discovery. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What evidentiary showing must a defendant make to be entitled to discovery on a claim that they were singled out for prosecution on the basis of their race?
The respondents failed to satisfy the threshold showing necessary for discovery on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute i
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
What evidentiary showing must a defendant make to be entitled to discovery on a claim that they were singled out for prosecution on the basis of their race?
Conclusion
United States v. Armstrong establishes a high evidentiary bar for defendants alleging Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Rule
To obtain discovery in support of a selective prosecution claim, a defendant Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, grounded its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To get discovery for a selective prosecution claim, a defendant must