The Harlan Institute is pleased to announce the Fourteenth Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This competition offers teams of two high school students the opportunity to research cutting-edge constitutional law, write persuasive appellate briefs, argue against other students through video chats, and try to persuade a panel of esteemed attorneys during oral argument that their side is correct. This year, in honor of America's 250th Anniversary, the competition will focus on the case of Patriots v. Loyalists.

Patriots v. Loyalists

Before The Honorable Continental Congress

Oral Argument Date: July 3, 1776

 

Statement of the Case

In honor of America's 250th birthday, the Harlan Institute will host a very special Virtual Supreme Court Competition for the October 2025 Term. We will re-enact the debates over independence in the form of a moot court competition. Teams of two high school students will make the legal case for and against independence through written and oral advocacy. The top two teams that advance will present oral arguments in the case of Patriots v. Loyalists before a panel of federal judges in a very special location.  Coaches can register their teams at the Institute for Competition Sciences.  

Question Presented:

Should the United Colonies declare independence from Great Britain?  

Primary Sources

This is a "closed" competition. Students will be limited to the use of the following primary sources that existed prior to July 4, 1776. Students cannot rely on the benefit of hindsight or knowledge of what happened after the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

Before 1773

1. 1690 - John Locke's Second Treatise of Government - Chapters XVII (Of Usurpation), XVIII (Of Tyranny), XIX (Of Dissolution of Government)
2. March 22, 1765 - The Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament
3. May 29, 1765 - Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, by Patrick Henry
4. October 19, 1765 - Resolution of the Continental Congress in response to the Stamp Act ("The Stamp Act Congress")
5. March 18, 1766 - An Act Repeaåling the Stamp Act by the British Parliament
6. 1768 - Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, to the inhabitants of the British Colonies concerning the Stamp Act by John Dickinson
7. March 1770 - The Bloody (Boston) Massacre by Paul Revere
8. November 20, 1772 - The Rights of the Colonists, Samuel Adams (Boston Committee of Correspondence)

1773

1. March 12, 1773 - Virginia Resolutions Establishing A Committee of Correspondence
2. April 9, 1773 - Committee of Correspondence (Transcription), Boston
3. May 10, 1773 - Tea Act Resolution by the British Parliament
4. May 28, 1773 - Resolutions of the Massachusetts House of Representatives Agreeing to the Virginia Proposal
5. October 16, 1773 - The Philadelphia Resolutions in response to the Tea Act
6. November 29, 1773 - Meeting of the people of Boston at Faneuil Hall to prevent the sale of East Indian Company Tea
7. December 16, 1773 - Tea, Destroyed by Indians
8. December 17, 1773 - Diary of John Adams after the Boston Tea Party

1774

1. March 31, 1774 - The Boston Port Act in response to the Boston Tea Party, by the British Parliament
2. May 13, 1774 - Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence
3. May 20, 1774 - The Massachusetts Government Act, by the British Parliament
4. May 20, 1774 - The Administration of Justice Act
5. May 20, 1774 - The Mecklenburgh (North Carolina) Resolutions
6. May 23, 1774 - Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-One to the Boston Committee of Correspondence
7. May 27, 1774 - Association signed by 89 members of the late Virginia House of Burgesses
8. June 2, 1774 - The Quartering Act, by the British Parliament
9. July 1774, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, by Thomas Jefferson
10. July 18, 1774 - Fairfax County (Virginia) Resolves
11. July 19, 1774 - Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, New York
12. September 9, 1774 - Suffolk (Massachusetts) Resolves
13. September 9, 1774 - Heads of Grievances and Rights, Continental Congress
14. September 30, 1774 - Motion on Nonexportation and Defense, Continental Congress
15. October 10, 1774 - Message to General Gage, Continental Congress
16. October 14, 1774 - Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (The Bill of Rights; a List of Grievances)
17. October 20, 1774 - Response from General Gage
18. October 20, 1774 - Continental Association, Continental Congress
19. December 1774 - Novanglus (John Adams) and Massachusettensis (Daniel Leonard)
20. 1774 - Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority by James Wilson
21. 1774 - A very short and candid appeal to free born Britons, an anonymous pamphlet

1775

1. January 13, 1775 - Address to New Jersey Provincial Assembly, by Governor William Franklin 
2. March 22, 1775 - Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq. On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies
3. March 23, 1775 - Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, Patrick Henry
4. July 6, 1775 - A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms by the Continental Congress
5. July 8, 1775 - Olive Branch Petition from the Continental Congress to the King
6. July 31, 1775 - Resolution, Continental Congress
7. August 23, 1775 - A Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition by King George III
8. November 9, 1775 - Agreement of Secrecy adopted by the Continental Congress
9. November 9, 1775 - Instruction to Delegates in Congress, The Pennsylvania Assembly
10. 1775 - Taxation no Tyranny, by Samuel Johnson
11. 1775 - Tyranny Unmasked: An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Entitled Taxation no Tyranny

1776

1. January 10, 1776 - Common Sense by Thomas Paine
2. March 1776 - Plain Truth by James Chalmers (Candidus), a response to Common Sense
3. April 12, 1776 - Halifax (North Carolina) Resolves by the North Carolina Assembly
4. May 13, 1776 - Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, John Adams
5. May 15, 1776 - Preamble to Resolution on Independent Governments, Continental Congress
6. May 15, 1776 - Resolutions of the Virginia Convention Calling for Independence
7. June 7, 1776 - Jefferson's Notes of Proceeding in the Continental Congress
8. June 7, 1776 - Lee Resolution introduced by Richard Henry Lee
9. June 10 and 11, 1776 - Journal of the Continental Congress
10. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence
    • Composition Draft
    • Fragment of the Composition Draft
    • Rough Draft of the Declaration
11. June 14, 1776 - Instruction to Delegates in Congress, The Pennsylvania Assembly
12. June 28, 1776 - Journal of the Continental Congress
13. June 29, 1776 - Constitution of Virginia
14. July 1, 1776 - Journal of the Continental Congress
15. July 1, 1776 - Arguments against the Independence of these Colonies by John Dickinson (Manuscript)
16. July 1, 1776 - Diary of John Adams
17. July 1, 1776 - John Adams to Samuel Chase
18. July 2, 1776 -  Journal of the Continental Congress
19. July 4, 1776 - Journal of the Continental Congress

 

Preliminary Round

Deadline: November 20, 2025 (11:59 PM ET) All teams are invited to participate in the Preliminary Round. There will be a written component and an oral component. Submissions will be graded based on this rubric.

Written Component

Teams will be asked to answer the following ten questions in a neutral, objective fashion. At this point of the competition, teams are not yet advocating for or against a position. Each answer should be at least 200 words but no more than 1,000 words, and must cite at least two primary sources. This competition is "closed," and students cannot cite any other sources. Carefully proofread the assignment for spelling, grammar, and usage. The use of generative AI is prohibited. Teams that are found to have used AI will be immediately disqualified.

1. Discuss the role that the Stamp Act played in the relationship between Great Britain and the Colonies from 1765 to 1772.
2. Discuss how the Colonies, and in particular the Committee of Correspondence, responded to the Tea Act Resolution of 1773.
3. Discuss how the Colonies responded to the Intolerable Acts of 1774 (The Boston Port Act, The Massachusetts Government Act, and the Quartering Act).
4. Discuss how the actions of the Continental Congress in 1774 moved the Colonies towards declaring independence. 
5. Describe the arguments advanced by patriots in pamphlets, speeches, and other writings from 1774–1776 that supported declaring independence.
6. Describe the arguments advanced by loyalists in pamphlets, speeches, and other writings from 1774–1776 that opposed declaring independence.
7. Discuss the Continental Congress's efforts of reconciliation with Great Britain in 1775.
8. Discuss the deliberations of the Continental Congress in June and July 1776 that led to declaring independence.
9. Discuss how the text of the Declaration of Independence changed throughout different drafts in June and July of 1776.
10. Discuss writings, speeches, and other sources that influenced the Declaration of Independence.

Oral Component

Teams will be asked to present their ten questions in the form of an oral argument. Each student will answer five questions. Students are to avoid reading off prepared remarks (whether on paper or on a device), and must maintain eye contact. These recordings will be uploaded to YouTube. The recording must last at least fifteen minutes.  

The Semifinal Round

Deadline: January 29, 2026 (11:59 PM ET) Teams that advance to the Semifinal Round will be asked to prepare a "Petitioner" brief on behalf of the Patriots in support of independence. Teams will use this template. The brief should address at least the following seven topics: (i) the Stamp Act; (ii) the Tea Act; (iii) the Intolerable Acts; (iv) writings in support of independence; (v) loyalist writings in opposition to independence; (vi) attempts at reconciliation; and (vii) whether the Declaration of Independence should be adopted. Oral argument will be scheduled over Zoom during the week of February 10.   

The Round of 8

Deadline: March 19, 2026 (11:59 PM ET) The top eight teams that advance will be asked to prepare a "Respondent" brief on behalf of the Loyalists in opposition to independence. Teams will use the same template. Oral argument will be scheduled over Zoom during the week of March 23.   

The Round of 4

The top eight teams that advance will participate in the Round of 4 during the week of April 6, 2025.

The Championship Round

The top two teams will advance to the Championship round which will be held in Washington, D.C. in a very special location at the end of April or beginning of May. The Harlan Institute will cover airfare and hotel for the students and up to two chaperones per team.

On May 1, 2025, the Harlan Institute held the championship round for the 13th Annual Virtual Supreme Court competition. The top two teams presented oral argument at the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute in the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Presiding were Judge Neomi Rao (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit), Judge Royce Lamberth (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), and Judge Matthew Solomson (U.S. Court of Federal Claims). Noah Ha and Liam Aranda-Michel from Lake Oswego High School in Oregon represented the Petitioner. Lauren Hohlt & Caroline Ready from Creekview High School in Texas represented the Respondent. After a well-argued round, the judges selected the Respondents as the Champions, with Caroline Ready as best oralist. You can watch the round here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LML6GTZgHWw&ab_channel=JoshBlackman We are pleased to share these comments from our participants: (more…)

The topic for the 13th Annual Harlan InstituteVirtual Supreme Court competition is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Yesterday, the top four teams presented oral arguments. The Championship Round will be held at the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute on May 1, 2025 between Teams #20601 and 20094.

Round of 4 Match #1

Team #20601 v. Team #20094 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYcEswIYPA

Round of 4 Match #2

Team #20133 v. Team #20129 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hknIY8qeIo  

The topic for the 13th Annual Harlan InstituteVirtual Supreme Court competition is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Last week, the top ten teams presented oral arguments. The Round of 4 will be held later this month. Round of 10 Match #1 https://youtu.be/qmdZv8k81V0 Team 20133 v. Team 20129 Round of 10 Match #2 https://youtu.be/teHdXxHz8EU Team 20149 v. Team 20241 (more…)

The topic for the 13 Annual Harlan InstituteVirtual Supreme Court competition is Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. Twenty-two teams of high school students presented oral arguments in the semifinal round. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. The Round of 8 will be held the week of February 24, 2025. Semifinal Match #1 Team #20133 v. Team #20604 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_HAERp78Lg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxrKEJBvctc (more…)

The Harlan Institute is pleased to announce the Thirteenth Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This competition offers teams of two high school students the opportunity to research cutting-edge constitutional law, write persuasive appellate briefs, argue against other students through video chats, and try to persuade a panel of esteemed attorneys during oral argument that their side is correct. This year the competition focuses on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. The competition is endorsed by the Center for Civic Education's We The People Competition:

The Virtual Supreme Court Competition helps students gain the skills they need to understand, synthesize, and advocate for reasoned legal positions on timely and relevant constitutional issues, and in doing so deepens their commitment to the rule of law. The program directly supports the highest goals of the Center for Civic Education to develop enlightened and responsible members of our society, and it is a privilege to be a part of this important work. Christopher R. Riano President, The Center for Civic Education Member Board of Advisors, The Harlan Institute

Tournament Instructions

Teams of two high-school students will write an appellate brief, and present oral arguments, addressing the following question:

• Whether Texas House Bill 1181 should be reviewed with rational-basis review scrutiny or strict scrutiny?

Petitioners will argue that Texas House Bill 1181 should be reviewed with strict scrutiny. Respondents will argue that Texas House Bill 1181 should be reviewed with rational basis scrutiny.

Phase 1 - Research and Write Your Brief

Coaches can register their teams at the Institute for Competition Sciences (ICS). ICS will generate a number for each team.  Odd-numbered teams will represent the Petitioners and even-numbered teams will represent the Respondents. Teams will research and write their briefs. Carefully review the lesson plan. The brief must be a minimum of 2,000 words. Please download this template. The brief should have the following sections:

1. Table of Cited Authorities: List all of the original sources, and other documents you cite in your brief.
2. Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less.
3. Argument: Structure your argument based on at least five Supreme Court precedents. The more authorities you cite, the stronger your argument will be–and the more likely your team will advance.
4. Conclusion: Summarize your argument, and argue how the Supreme Court should decide this issue.

Be sure to proofread your work. The work must be yours, and you may not seek help from anyone else–including attorneys or law students. Students who submit plagiarized briefs will be disqualified. Please review the winning submissions from previous years:

• OT 2023 - Moody v. NetChoice
• OT 2022 - Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
• OT 2021 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
• OT 2020 – Torres v. Madrid
• OT 2019 – Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
• OT 2018 – Timbs v. Indiana
• OT 2017 – Carpenter v. United States
• OT 2016 – Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer
• OT 2015 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (II)
• OT 2014 – Zivotofsky v. Kerry
• OT 2013 – National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
• OT 2012 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (I)

Phase 2 - Virtual Mentoring

Teams that register before November 4, 2024 will be invited to participate in a virtual mentoring session. These sessions will be hosted during the week of December 2, 2024. The Harlan Institute will match each class with a mentor from our network. These sessions will be helpful to finalize your briefs and prepare your preliminary round arguments.

Phase 3 - Preliminary Round

For the preliminary round, each team must prepare a YouTube video. The argument must be at least 15 minutes in length. Coaches will ask their students ten questions from the lesson plan. Teams will upload a PDF of their brief, as well as a link to their YouTube video to the Institute of Competition Sciences. The deadline for the preliminary round will be December 16, 2024. The brief and preliminary round video will be scored based on this rubric.

Phase 4 - Virtual Rounds

We will hold the Virtual Rounds over Zoom: (more…)

On April 29, 2024, the Harlan Institute and Ashbrook held the championship round for the 12th Annual Virtual Supreme Court competition. The top two teams presented oral argument at the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute in the case of Moody v. NetChoice. Presiding were Judge Royce Lamberth (District Court for the District of Columbia), Judge Gregory E. Maggs (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces), Judge Emin Toro (United States Tax Court). Kevin Bizily and Maxwell Steinberg from Minnesota represented the Petitioner. Nathaniel Marks & Edward Napoli from Regis High School in New York represented the Respondent. After a well-argued round, the judges selected the Petitioners as the Champions, with Kevin Bizily as best oralist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBPlhZGX01k&ab_channel=JoshBlackman The students and their coaches offered these generous comments about the competition: (more…)

The topic for the 12th Annual Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court competition is Moody v. Netchoice. We have now held the Round of 8 and the Round of 4. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. The championship round will be held next month in Washington, D.C.

Round of 4

Round of 4 Match #1:  Team #17038 v. Team #16886 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycZYeqrYyQ Round of 4 Match #2: Team #17485 v. Team #17050 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CIqATgYZag&ab_channel=JoshBlackman

Round of 8

(more…)

The topic for the 12th Annual Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court competition is Moody v. Netchoice. Last week, twenty teams of high school students presented oral arguments in the semifinal round. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. The Round of 8 will be held the week of March 4, 2024.

Semifinal Match #1 (2/21/2024)

Team #16773

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVOaz-qGGTI

Semifinal Match #2 (2/21/2024)

Team #17038 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMctTh7uvmU (more…)

The Harlan Institute and Ashbrook are pleased to announce the Twelfth Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This competition offers teams of two high school students the opportunity to research cutting-edge constitutional law, write persuasive appellate briefs, argue against other students through video chats, and try to persuade a panel of esteemed attorneys during oral argument that their side is correct. This year the competition focuses on Moody v. NetChoice. The competition is endorsed by the Center for Civic Education's We The People Competition:

The Virtual Supreme Court Competition helps students gain the skills they need to understand, synthesize, and advocate for reasoned legal positions on timely and relevant constitutional issues, and in doing so deepens their commitment to the rule of law. The program directly supports the highest goals of the Center for Civic Education to develop enlightened and responsible members of our society, and it is a privilege to be a part of this important work. Christopher R. Riano President, The Center for Civic Education Member Board of Advisors, The Harlan Institute

Tournament Instructions

Teams of two high-school students will write an appellate brief, and present oral arguments, addressing these questions:

• These cases concern laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). The two laws differ in some respects, but both restrict platforms' ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or arranging user-generated content; require platforms to provide individualized explanations for certain forms of content moderation; and require general disclosures about platforms' contentmoderation practices.
• The questions presented are:
  • 1. Whether the laws' content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment.
  • 2. Whether the laws' individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

Petitioners will argue that laws' content moderation restrictions and individualized-explanation requirements do comply with the First Amendment. Respondents will argue that laws' content moderation restrictions and individualized-explanation requirements do comply with the First Amendment.

Phase 1 - Research and Write Your Brief

Coaches can register their teams at the Institute for Competition Sciences (ICS). ICS will generate a number for each team.  Odd-numbered teams will represent the Petitioners and even-numbered teams will represent the Respondents. Teams will research and write their briefs. Carefully review the lesson plan. The brief must be a minimum of 2,000 words. Please download this template. The brief should have the following sections:

1. Table of Cited Authorities: List all of the original sources, and other documents you cite in your brief.
2. Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less.
3. Argument: Structure your argument based on at least five Supreme Court precedents. The more authorities you cite, the stronger your argument will be–and the more likely your team will advance.
4. Conclusion: Summarize your argument, and argue how the Supreme Court should decide this issue.

Be sure to proofread your work. The work must be yours, and you may not seek help from anyone else–including attorneys or law students. Students who submit plagiarized briefs will be disqualified. Please review the winning submissions from previous years:

• OT 2022 - Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
• OT 2021 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
• OT 2020 – Torres v. Madrid
• OT 2019 – Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
• OT 2018 – Timbs v. Indiana
• OT 2017 – Carpenter v. United States
• OT 2016 – Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer
• OT 2015 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (II)
• OT 2014 – Zivotofsky v. Kerry
• OT 2013 – National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
• OT 2012 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (I)

Phase 2 - Virtual Mentoring

Teams that register before November 3, 2023 will be invited to participate in a virtual mentoring session. These sessions will be hosted during the week of November 27, 2023. The Harlan Institute will match each class with a mentor from our network. These sessions will be helpful to finalize your briefs and prepare your preliminary round arguments.

Phase 3 - Preliminary Round

For the preliminary round, each team must prepare a YouTube video. The argument must be at least 15 minutes in length. Coaches will ask their students ten questions from the lesson plan. Teams will upload a PDF of their brief, as well as a link to their YouTube video to the Institute of Competition Sciences. The deadline for the preliminary round will be December 15, 2023. The brief and preliminary round video will be scored based on this rubric.

Phase 4 - Virtual Rounds

We will hold the Virtual Rounds over Zoom:

• 2/19/24, 2/20/24, 2/21/24: Semifinal Round
• 3/4/24 and 3/5/24: Round of 8
• 3/18/24 and 3/19/23: Round of 4

The virtual rounds will be scored based on this rubric. This video offers five tips to prepare for oral argument:

Phase 5 - Championship Round Rounds

The top teams will receive a free trip to Washington, D.C. to argue the championship round before federal judges the week of April 29, 2023. [embed]https://youtu.be/EsCp4OI-Uqs?si=f9PkGvJIuX2Vl5V0[/embed]

(more…)