Harlan W. Institute Ashbrook We are pleased to announce the 12th Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This competition provides teams of two high school students the opportunity to research the latest constitutional laws, write compelling appellate briefs, argue against other students through video chats, and attempt to convince a panel of esteemed attorneys during oral argument that their side is right. This year’s competition focuses on Modi v. NetChoice.
The competition is approved by the center Civic Education Competition: We the People:
The Virtual Supreme Court Competition helps students gain the skills they need to understand, synthesize, and defend reasoned legal positions on relevant and timely constitutional issues, thereby deepening their commitment to the rule of law. The program directly supports the Center for Civic Education’s higher goals of developing informed and responsible members of our community, and it is an honor to be a part of this important work. Christopher R. Riano is president of the Center for Civic Education and a member of the Harlan Institute’s Board of Advisors
Two teams of two high school students will write the appeal brief and present oral arguments to answer these questions:
- These cases relate to laws enacted by the states of Florida and Texas to regulate major social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). The two laws differ in some ways, but both restrict platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or curating user-generated content; Requiring platforms to provide individual explanations for certain forms of content moderation; It requires public disclosures about platforms’ content moderation practices.
- The questions asked are:
- 1. Whether the restrictions on modifying the content of laws are consistent with the First Amendment.
- 2. Whether the requirements for individual interpretation of laws are consistent with the First Amendment.
Petitioners He will argue that the laws’ content oversight restrictions and individual explanation requirements are consistent with the First Amendment.
Respondents He will argue that the laws’ content oversight restrictions and individual explanation requirements are consistent with the First Amendment.
Stage 1 – Research and write your summary
Coaches can register their teams at Institute of Competition Sciences (ICS). ICS will generate a number for each team. Odd-numbered teams will represent petitioners and even-numbered teams will represent respondents.
Teams will research and write their summaries. Carefully See the Lesson plan. The abstract must be no less than 2000 words. Please download this model. The abstract should contain the following sections:
- Table of Cited Sources: List all original sources and other documents you cite in your summary.
- Summary of Argument: Briefly state your position in 250 words or less.
- Argument: Build your argument based on at least five Supreme Court precedents. The more references you cite, the stronger your argument becomes, and the more likely your team is to advance.
- Conclusion: Summarize your argument, and discuss how the Supreme Court should decide this case.
Make sure you audit your work. The work must be your own, and you may not seek assistance from anyone else, including lawyers or law students. Students who submit plagiarized abstracts will be excluded.
Please check out the winning entries from previous years:
- Extra time 2022 —Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University
- Extra time 2021—New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruin
- OT 2020 – Torres vs Madrid
- OT 2019 – Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
- OT 2018 – Timbs vs. Indiana
- OT 2017 – Carpenter v. United States
- OT 2016 – Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer
- OT 2015 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (secondly)
- OT 2014 – Zivotowski vs. Kerry
- OT 2013 – National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
- OT 2012 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (I)
Phase 2 – Virtual Routing
Teams that register before November 3, 2023 will be invited to participate in a virtual orientation 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 in finalizing your summaries and preparing your preliminary round arguments.
Stage 3 – Preliminary Round
For the preliminary round, each team must prepare a YouTube video. The argument must be at least 15 minutes long. Trainers will ask their students ten questions from Lesson plan.
Teams will upload a file PDF From their summary, plus a link to their YouTube video to Institute of Competition Sciences. The deadline for the preliminary round is December 15, 2023. The brief video and preliminary round will be recorded based on this Title.
Phase Four — Virtual Tours
We will be holding virtual tours via Zoom:
- 2/19/24, 2/20/24, 2/21/24: Semi-finals
- 3/4/24 and 3/5/24: Round 8
- 3/18/24 and 3/19/23: Round 4
Virtual tours will be scored accordingly Title. This video provides five tips for preparing for oral argument:
Stage 5 – Championship rounds
Top teams will get a free trip to Washington, D.C., to argue the championship round before federal judges the week of April 29, 2023. https://youtu.be/EsCp4OI-Uqs?si=f9PkGvJIuX2Vl5V0
good luck! And Register today.
Members of the top petitioner and respondent teams will be invited to attend the Ashbrook Supreme Court and Constitution Academy in June 2024. Reasonable travel costs to the Academy will be covered by Ashbrook.
Coaches can Register Their difference in Institute of Competition Sciences. Read the problem, and get started! good luck. Please send any questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.