Law Matters: A Conversation With Professor Ashley B. Armstrong

Professor Ashley B. Armstrong is advancing the contextual case method from theory to practice, demonstrating how pairing judicial opinions with supplemental texts can give students a fuller understanding of the law. She details this approach in “The Stories We (Don’t) Teach,” an article that will appear in the Journal of Legal Education, and in a co-authored chapter for the next edition of the Clinical Legal Education Association’s Best Practices series. These efforts build on her earlier publication, “The Stories We (Don’t) Tell: Using Case Briefing to Explore Bias and Oppression in the Law.” In this installment of Law Matters, Dean Jelani Jefferson Exum talks with Professor Armstrong about what drew her to this approach and how it prepares students to become more thoughtful, effective lawyers.

Learning to write case briefs is a key skill for law students. How does the contextual case method differ from the traditional approach to analyzing cases?

Traditional case analysis teaches students to identify the key parts of a judicial opinion, including the facts of the case, legal issues, what the court decided, and why. That’s an essential skill for lawyers. The contextual case method builds on that traditional approach by asking students to look beyond the court’s opinion and consider additional materials—like party briefs, reimagined opinions, legal scholarship, and social science research, among other sources. By studying these texts alongside judicial opinions, students identify what an opinion leaves out, why those omissions matter, and how context can deepen our understanding of a case and the law itself. The goal isn’t to replace the traditional case method, but to expand it so students better understand how courts frame and resolve legal issues.

What sparked your interest in this approach?

Before coming to St. John’s Law, I taught Lawyering at NYU, where we incorporated social justice themes alongside traditional learning goals. I was there during the pandemic and the protests following the murder of George Floyd. That period made me think more deeply about my responsibilities as an educator and the broader context surrounding the cases we teach. For me, the contextual case method isn’t just an intellectual exercise. Preparing students to practice law means helping them recognize bias, question assumptions, and consider different paths toward justice. I see that as an ethical responsibility, too. In its Model Rules, the American Bar Association reminds us that lawyers have “a special responsibility for the quality of justice.”

Can you give an example of a case that students understand differently when they consider the context beyond the judicial opinion?

One example is Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a U.S. Supreme Court workplace discrimination case involving Ann Hopkins, who was denied partnership at her accounting firm. Hopkins had an exceptionally strong record, but some of the partners evaluating her performance criticized her for not behaving the way they thought a woman should. In its opinion, the Court recognized their overtly gendered comments as evidence of sex discrimination. When I teach the case, I assign a social science article by Dr. Susan Fiske, who testified as an expert witness at trial. Fiske explained how seemingly “neutral” comments about Hopkins evidenced stereotyping, too—which the Court largely discounted in its opinion. In class, I also share excerpts from Feminist Judgments. The book’s reimagined Price Waterhouse opinion shows how the case could have been decided with greater attention to implicit bias.

How does learning to look at cases this way help students become better lawyers?

Analyzing cases in context allows students to see how race, gender, and other social forces have shaped the development and enforcement of law. More broadly, students learn that context is a fact of the case, even when it doesn’t appear in the opinion. That’s important—lawyers need to understand how legal rules operate in the real world, identify arguments or gaps a court may have overlooked, and make strategic choices when representing a client. Ultimately, the contextual case method teaches students to thoughtfully interrogate opinions and use a fuller understanding of law’s context to practice more effectively.

You regularly present on the contextual case method and continue to develop the approach on your own and with other law professors. How does that ongoing work reflect the Law School’s commitment to rigorous teaching, scholarly research, and innovative application of knowledge?

Presenting and writing about my teaching has made me a more intentional educator, while teaching has generated questions that drive my scholarship. Sharing that work with other professors gives me an opportunity to support them as they experiment in their own courses. To me, that’s a particularly meaningful way to advance the Law School’s mission: rigorous teaching generates scholarship; scholarship informs innovative teaching; and both contribute to student success. I’m grateful that St. John’s has given me the support and intellectual community to continue developing this approach.