Your outline should contain your thesis statement, and a description of the main parts of your argument, as well as what sources and cases you will draw on. For example, below is an outline of a paper on the obligation to obey the law (I haven't filled in all the blanks, but the outline you turn in should be fairly detailed, with some specific page references). Note how each main part of the outline should logically flow from the previous part, so as to give an overall coherence to your paper.
 

1. Intro: There is no moral obligation to obey bad laws. If Jane enjoys running on a path that is on private property, but doing so doesn't bother anyone, then she doesn't act badly in trespassing, so long as she doesn't cause any harm. The mere fact that doing so violates the law against trespass does not make her a bad person since there is no moral obligation to obey laws just because they are laws, though there are often good moral reasons to comply with particular laws
2. Arguments that there is a moral obligation to obey the law
1. The contagion argument (Jones; Thomas). The contagion argument holds that if we let some people disobey the law, disobedience will spread, leading to the collapse of society (Jones, pp. 13, 21-24, 37).
1. example of speeding (Thomas, pp. 12, 57-61, 134-5)
2. empirical evidence that disobedience spreads (Tyler, pp. 105-35, especially the quote on p. 117 where he writes "There is a lot of empirical evidence that ....")
2. The fairness argument (Klosko (1979), Klosko (1983); Walker; Rawls)
3. The consent argument (...)
4. The gratitude argument (...)
3. Why these are each bad arguments
1. If Jane trespasses, disobedience won't spread, because
1.  
2.  
2. It isn't unfair of Jane to trespass, because
1.  
3. Jane never consented to obey trespass laws
4. The gratitude argument is a bad argument
1. Smith's criticism, which I agree with
2. Dundee's criticism, which I don't quite agree with...
4. Objections to my position
1.  Jane probably disturbs the property owners, and that means she is acting badly
2.  Jane wouldn't want people to trespass on her property
3.  
5. My response to these objections
1. Jane doesn't disturb the property owners, but if she did, I agree she would be acting badly. Whether she acts badly depends on the particular situation; but, my position is, merely the fact that she violates the law, in itself, doesn't mean she is acting badly.
2. Jane wouldn't care whether people trespass on her property, assuming the trespass was as equally nonintrusive as the trespass she commits.
6. Brief conclusion

Also include a working bibliography: include alphabetical list of sources so far, including of course the ones referred to in your outline, but also other sources you plan on using; you will no doubt find more sources as you continue, but this will be a starting point and help me to give you further suggestions.

For your paper you can either
1) use a bibliography, in which you cite books as follows:
Rawls, John. Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).
And articles as follows:
Smith, Bob. "Privacy in Bunuel's Phantom of Liberty," Film Criticism Review 17:10-35 (1988).
For law reviews use the format that is used in the court cases and law review articles we have read.
Include a list of cases with complete cites. If you do this, then in the text,  when you refer to a work you can either use parentheses, e.g. (Rawls, pp. 13-17)--the reference to Rawls will be given in your bibliography, and if you use more than one work by the same author, then you need to cite which one, using the date, e.g. (Rawls 1972, pp. 13-17); or you can use footnotes.

or

2) Use footnotes and no bibliography (though you need to turn in your working bibliography with your outline). Follow the model of the law review articles/court cases we have read, and be consistent in your style. When citing a case for the first time, you must give the complete citation, e.g. Smith v. Jones, 135 U.S. 332 (1897), at 345. Future citations can be briefer, e.g. 135 U.S. at 372.