Remember to put emphasis on sections 5-7. Some questions to ask yourself (though this is not exhaustive of what you should analyze):
1. What is the rationale for the majority opinion?What type of arguments are they making? (How do they set up the legal questions the opinion is addressing? How much do they rely on precedent? Which precedents do they use, and which do they think do not apply? Why?
2. Why are there separate opinions? (Be clear about whether they are concurring or dissenting.) What are the points of disagreement? Do they disagree over what should count as evidence? Do they disagree about the legal issue? How does their decision to write a separate opinion affect the way the lower courts will respond and the likelihood of future challenges?
3. What type of case is it? (ex. Standing, Search and Seizure, Affirmative Action, etc.) How did the case affect the precedent in cases of that type? (ex. overturning precedent, developing a new test, expanding precedent, etc.) Is there any historical significance to the case or the attending circumstances? If you think the case should have been decided differently, go beyond the mere fact that you disagree with the ruling and explain why. Lastly, consider what the case tells us about the politics between the Court and the other branches (or separation of powers issues), or the court’s role in society (ex. is it acting like an un-elected legislature, its reaction to political pressure, its effects on our criminal justice system/democracy, or its attempts to maintain the institution’s efficacy).