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 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:
Table of Cited Authorities: List all of the original sources, and other documents you cite in your brief.
Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less.
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.
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:
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
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.
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 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:
Table of Cited Authorities: List all of the original sources, and other documents you cite in your brief.
Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less.
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.
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:
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…)
On April 24, 2023, the Harlan Institute and Ashbrook held the championship round for the 11th Annual Virtual Supreme Court competition. The top two teams presented oral argument at the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute in the case of Students For Admission v. University of North Carolina. Presiding were Judge Gregory G. Katsas (D.C. Circuit), Judge Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit, Retired), Judge Trevor McFadden (District Court for the District of Columbia). Campbell Collins & Gabriella Lovins from Austin, Texas represented the Petitioner. Catherine Gutowski & Quinn Speck from the Joel Barlow High School in Connecticut represented the Respondent. After a well-argued round, the judges selected the Petitioners as the Champions, with Campbell Collins as best oralist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCp4OI-Uqs
The students and their coaches offered these generous comments about the competition:
The Harlan Institute Moot Court Competition transformed my high school experience. As a homeschooler, it was difficult to find opportunities for debate. Finding this program gave me a chance to research complicated issues and hone my writing and speaking skills in a way I never would have been able to otherwise. I've made great friends through the program, too, and connected with students from other schools. And the experience itself has been once-in-a-lifetime: mentorship from federal judges and Supreme Court attorneys, sitting in on a Supreme Court argument, and counting all the turtles in the Supreme Court building. My college and career trajectory has completely shifted because a friend and I decided to try moot court in 10th grade.Campbell Collins, Senior
The Harlan Institute fosters not only good speaking skills, but also the ability to think quickly and deeply to answer difficult questions. Each round presents a new set of challenges that force us to adapt. Through the competition, I've learned in depth about specific constitutional law topics but the skills readily transfer to debate and general presentations. Perhaps most importantly, the Harlan Institute is simply a lot of fun for anyone interested in law. Gabriella Lovins, Senior
Participating in the Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court was among the most rewarding experiences of my time in high school. Learning to argue three different, undecided Supreme Court cases has greatly improved my critical thinking, public speaking, and legal acuity over the past three years. Not only did this hands-on approach to studying law give me an awareness of the critical role constitutional law plays in our judicial system, it also ignited my interest in pursuing a career in the legal field.
Catie Gutowski, Senior
"The Harlan Institute's Virtual SCOTUS Competition is unique, and gives high school students the opportunity to truly explore relevant and interesting areas of law beyond the classroom in a thought-provoking and fun fashion. The opportunities that it offers, such as seeing a real Supreme Court oral argument and traveling to DC were incredible and the experience overall was once-in-a-lifetime." Quinn Speck, Senior
The Virtual Supreme Court offers unique challenges that push students to read, think, study, write, plan, and speak at their best. In terms of the number of skills and amount of civic knowledge it imparts, it is one of the most beneficial events I've participated in during my 20 years of coaching students for competitions in debate, speech, economics, and ethics.
Randall Smith, Coach
The students had a jam-packed day. In the morning they attended oral argument at the United States Supreme Court.
(more…)
Forget March Madness! Yesterday, the Harlan Institute and Ashbrook held the Round of 4 for the OT 2022 Virtual Supreme Court competition. The top four teams presented oral arguments in Students for Fair Admission v. UNC. We were honored to have three distinguished jurists preside: Judge Alice Batchelder (CA6), Judge Eric Murphy (CA6), and Judge Ken Lee (CA9). These students could have competed and prevailed in any law school moot court competition. They were remarkable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh-3zTCpo_A
Team 11762 v. Team 12823
The top two teams will face off against each other in person on April 24 in Washington, D.C. The championship round will be held at the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute.
The topic for the 11th Annual Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court competition is Students for Fair Admission v. UNC. In February, twenty-six teams of high school students presented oral arguments in the semifinal round. Last week, we hosted arguments from the top-twelve advancing teams. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. The Round of 4 will be held later this month.
Match #1Team #11965 v. Team #12048
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BM7btSa5Qw
(more…)
The topic for the 11th Annual Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court competition is Students for Fair Admission v. UNC. This week, twenty-six 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 in two weeks.
The Harlan Institute and Ashbrook are pleased to announce the Eleventh 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 Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina.
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
Using historical materials related to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the precedents of the United States Supreme Court, teams of two high-school students will write an appellate brief, and present oral arguments, addressing this question:
Is race conscious affirmative action consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Petitioners will argue that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state universities from using race conscious affirmative action.
Respondents will argue that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit states universities from using race conscious affirmative action.
Phase 1 - Research and Write Your Brief
Coaches can register their teams at the Institute for Competition Sciences. After registering, teachers should contact the Harlan Institute and Ashbrook at info@HarlanInstitute.org. We will assign teams to argue on behalf of the Petitioners or the Respondents.
Teams will research and write their briefs. The brief must be a minimum of 2,000 words. Please download this template. The brief should have the following sections:
Table of Cited Authorities: List all of the original sources, and other documents you cite in your brief.
Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less.
Argument: Structure your argument based on at least five primary historical sources and at least three Supreme Court precedents. The more authorities you cite, the stronger your argument will be–and the more likely your team will advance.
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:
Teams that register before November 1, 2022 will be invited to participate in a virtual mentoring session. These sessions will be hosted during the week of November 14, 2022. 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 the following ten questions:
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit race-conscious affirmative action?
How does legislation enacted by Congress in the 1860s and 1870s affect your answer to question #1?
Let's assume that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment concluded that race-conscious legislation was constitutional in the 1860s and 1870s. Would that argument still work more than 150 years later in a very different society?
Let's assume that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought that people of African descent deserve certain race-conscious privileges due to the unique context of slavery. Would the Framers have argued that members of other races, such as Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, could receive similar privileges?
What would the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment have thought about affirmative action policies that benefit people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?
Does Brown v. Board of Education (1954) prohibit race-conscious affirmative action? In your answer, please address Bakke and Grutter.
In 2003, Grutter observed that "25 years [after this case], the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." Will there ever be a point in time in which racial preferences are no longer needed? If not, should the Court allow racial preferences to go on forever?
Should Grutter v. Bollinger be overruled? Please address the Supreme Court's recent discussion of stare decisis in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
If the Court declines to overrule Grutter, can the Plaintiffs prevail?
If the Court overrules Grutter, will the military have difficulty recruiting a diverse armed service?
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, 2022. 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:
2/13/23 and 2/15/23: Semifinal Round
2/27/23 and 4/1/23: Round of 8
3/27/23 and 3/29/23: 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 on April 24, 2023.
Grand Prize - The Solicitors General of FantasySCOTUS
The members of top Petitioner and Respondent teams will be invited to attend the Ashbrook Academy on the Supreme Court and the Constitution in June 2023. Ashbrook will cover reasonable travel costs to the academy. Members of the winning team will each receive a $500 Amazon gift card. Members of the runner-up team will each receive a $250 Amazon.com gift card.
Semifinalists
Members of the and third-place and fourth-place finalist teams will each receive a $100 Amazon.com gift card.
