mr. morrissey’s moot court 2017morrisseylaw.weebly.com/uploads/8/9/7/5/8975450/...chief justice...

Mr.Morrissey’s

Moot Court 2017

IAMANATTORNEYFORTHEFOLLOWINGCASE:

vs.

IAMASUPREMECOURTJUSTICEDECIDING:

vs.

2

YOUDECIDE:WereStudents’RightsViolated?

Werethestudents’rights

violated?

SITUATION YES NO

Theschool'sTVstationcoversanarticleonthenewpolicythatrequiresthatstudentswearIDs.Inthearticle,manyofthestudentsarecriticalofthepolicy.Theadvisorreviewstheshowandfindsthattherearemanyfactualerrorsregardingthepolicy.Hetellsthestudentsthatiftheywantthearticletoair,theymustreviseit.

Thedramaclubwantstoperformaplay.Becauseitinvolvessomesexuallyexplicitscenes,theysaytheywillperformitoff-campusatalocalrecreationcenter.Theprincipalsaysthisisnotallowedandtheymustselectanotherplay.

AstudentworksathometocreateaWebsitethatcontainscommentsthatarecriticalofhisteachers.Theprincipalsendshimtoin-schoolsuspensionfortwodaysandmakeshimwritealetterofapologytoeachofhisteachers.

Thestudentnewspaperpublishesanarticleaboutashopliftingincidentthatoccurredduringaschool-sponsoredfieldtrip.Theschoolboardcensorsthearticle,sayingitmakestheschoolsystemlookbad.

Theartclubplansashowcasenight.Oneofthestudentshaspaintedapictureofotherstudentsdrinkingalcoholataschoolfootballgame.Theartteachersaysthispaintingcannotbedisplayedattheschool'sshowcasenightbecauseitseemstoadvocatetheuseofalcohol.

Thenewspaperstaffwritesaneditorialinsupportoflegalizingmarijuana.Theiradvisortellsthemthatiftheywantittobeprinted,theymustpresentbothsidesoftheissue.

Studentsonthenewspaperstaffcreateanonlineversionoftheschool'snewspaper.Init,theyprovideadviceonwheretogetbirthcontrol.Theprincipaltellsthestafftodeletethearticlebecauseitscontentsarenotappropriatefortheyoungerstudentsintheschool.

TheStudentGovernmentAssociationwantstoholdarallyinsupportofabortionrightsintheschool'sauditorium.Theiradvisortellsthemtheycannotdothis.

3

WASITRIGHT?Law Firm of___________________________________________________Youandyourpartnersinthelawfirmhavereceivedcallsfromthefollowingpeople.Eachisastudentwhowasdisciplinedbytheschool,andeachfeelsthattheschooldidnothavetheauthoritytodisciplinethem.They’vecalledyoubecausethey’reinterestedinsuingtheschools,andwanttoknow:Dotheyhaveacase?Readthesummaryofeachclient’ssituation,anddecidewhetheryouthinktheycanwinincourt.1.KaraKara,aseniorinhighschool,createdaMySpacediscussionpageathome,andinvitedabout100ofherfriendstojoin.Overthecourseofthatevening,abouttwodozenofherfellowMusselmanHighSchoolstudentsjoinedthepage,andpostedphotosandcommentsofaparticularstudent.Thephotosandcommentssuggestedthatthisparticularstudentattheschoolhadherpes.Theyincludedaneditedpictureofthegirlwithreddotsdrawnoverherface.Somecommentscalledthegirla“slut”and“whore.”Thenextday,thegirl’sparentscomplainedtotheschooladministration.TheschoolofficialsconcludedthatKarahadcreateda“hatewebsite”inviolationoftheschool’santi-bullyingpolicy.Theysuspendedherfor5days,andbannedherfromparticipatinginschoolsocialeventsfor90days.DoyouthinkthattheschoolviolatedKara’sFirstAmendmentrights?Whyorwhynot?Willyoutakethecase?YESNO2.TimTimcreatedanoffensiveWebsiteintheschoolcomputerlabduringstudyhall.Itcontainedasectionon“losers”andthepicturesoftheboysthatTimclaimedwere“losers.”Timalsoaccessedhissiteonschoolcomputerstoshowtootherstudents.TheschoolsuspendedTim.DoyouthinkthattheschoolviolatedTim’sFirstAmendmentrights?Whyorwhynot?Willyoutakethecase?YESNO

4

3.KatherineKatherinewasaseniorinhighschoolwhenshecreatedagrouponFacebookaboutherteacher,SarahPhelps.Thegroupwascalled“Ms.SarahPhelpsistheworstteacherI’veevermet”andencouragedotherstoexpresstheirnegativefeelingsofMs.Phelps.ThegroupwascreatedafterschoolhoursfromKatherine’shomecomputer.Itwasnotaccessedatschoolanddidnotdisruptschoolactivities.Thepostingwasremovedaftertwodays.TheschoolprincipallaterlearnedofthepostingandsuspendedKatherinefromschoolforthreedays.DoyouthinkthattheschoolviolatedKatherine’sFirstAmendmentrights?Whyorwhynot?Willyoutakethecase??YESNO4.JoeandSamJoeandSamwroteanemailthatincludedobscenecommentsaboutanotherboyatschool.Italsoincludedphotosoftheboy,whichtheydigitallyeditedtomakethemvulgar.Thesenttheemailtoabout10otherstudentsfromtheschool,andthose10forwardeditontoanadditional50.Schooladministratorslearnedabouttheemailwhentheyfoundseveralprintedcopiesofitcirculatingamongstudentsduringclass.TheysuspendedJoeandSamforaweek,andprohibitedthemfromparticipatinginextracurricularactivities.DoyouthinkthattheschoolviolatedJoeandSam’sFirstAmendmentrights?Whyorwhynot?Willyoutakethecase?YESNO5.BeccaOneweekend,Beccasent12textmessagestoSarah.Inthetexts,shecalledSarahnames,toldherto“watchherback,”madeobscenecommentsaboutSarah,andthreatenedtostartrumorsabouther.OnMonday,Sarahwastooupsettocometoschool.OnTuesday,Sarah’sparentswenttotheschoolandcomplainedtotheprincipal.TheprincipalsuspendedBeccafortwodays.DoyouthinkthattheschoolviolatedBecca’sFirstAmendmentrights?Whyorwhynot?Willyoutakethecase?YESNO

5

MootCourtProceduresWhat’saMootCourt?

Amootcourtisarole-playofanappealscourtorSupremeCourtoralargument.Thecourt,composedofapanelofjudgesorjustices,isaskedtoruleonalowercourt’sdecision.Nowitnessesarecalled,norarethebasicfactsinacasedisputed.Argumentsarepreparedandpresentedbythepetitionersandrespondentsonalegalquestion(e.g.,theconstitutionalityofalaworgovernmentaction).SincemootcourtsareNOTconcernedwiththecredibilityofwitnesses,theyareaneffectivestrategyforfocusingstudentattentionontheunderlyingprinciplesandconceptsofjustice.Whenstudentsparticipateinmootcourts,theylearnhowtoworktogethertoanalyzecomplextext,synthesizefacts,andformulatearguments.Studentsmustlistenandrespondtotheirpeersastheytakeontherolesofpetitioners,respondentsandjustices.Thesesimulationsofjudicialprocessespreparestudentsforciviclifeandbuildunderstandingofimportantdisciplinaryknowledge.MootcourtactivitiesalsoprovideanauthenticplatformtohelplearnersmeetseveralCommonCoreEnglishLanguageArtsobjectivesincluding:LiteracyinHistoryandSocialStudies,ReadingInformationalText,SpeakingandListening,andWriting(ifassigned).

MootCourtRules

1. StudentswillbeprovidedONEoffourSupremeCourtcases.Afterreceivingacase,yourgroupwillbedividedintotwoteams.Oneteamwillrepresentthepersonorgroupappealingthelowercourtdecision(thepetitionerorappellant).Theotherteamwillrepresentthepartythatwoninthelowercourt(therespondentorappellee).2. StudentswillalsobeassignedaDIFFERENTcase,ofwhichtheywillserveasanassociatejusticeontheSupremeCourt.Justicesshouldmeettodiscusstheissueinvolvedandanycaseprecedents.TheyshouldprepareATLEASTfivequestionsforeachsidethattheyneedansweredinordertoreachadecision.Thechiefjustice(Mr.Morrissey)willpresideoverthehearing.Thechiefjusticewillcallforeachsidetopresentitscase,aswellasrecognizeotherjusticestoaskquestions.

3. Eachteamoflitigantsshouldmeettoprepareargumentsforitssideofthecase,aswellaspreparetorespondtopotentialquestionsfromthejustices.Theteamshouldselectoneortwostudentstopresenttheargumentstothecourt.Theremainingstudentscanserveasassistantcounsel,helpingleadcounselpreparecentralargumentsandresponsestokeyquestions.Justicesmayaskquestionsatanytime,includingwhilepresentingarguments.Litigantsshouldrespondtothequestionstothebestoftheirability.

4. Participantsshouldconsideronlythefactsthathavebeenestablishedatthetrial.Teamsmaynotarguetheaccuracyofthefacts.

5. Argumentsdonotneedtobelegaltechnicalities.Anyargumentthatispersuasivefromaphilosophical,theoretical,conceptual,orpracticalstandpointcanbemade.TeamsshouldrelyprimarilyonprinciplesfoundorimpliedintheUnitedStatesConstitution.

7

CaseBrief:Hazelwoodv.Kuhlmeier(1988)__________

FACTSOFTHECASE:Petitioner:HazelwoodSchoolDistrictRespondent:CathyKuhlmeierTheschoolnewspaperofHazelwoodEastHighSchoolwaswrittenandeditedbystudentsandreviewedbybothanadviserandPrincipalRobertReynolds.AsReynoldsreviewedthepageproofsfortheyear’sfinaleditionoftheSpectrum,hebecameconcernedabouttwoarticles.Onearticlefocusedondivorceandcontainedpersonalanecdotesfromstudentsabouttheirfamilies.Reynoldsobjectedtothefactthatthesefamilymembershadnochancetorefuteorrespondtothenegativecommentsmadeaboutthem.Reynoldsalsoquestionedtheappropriatenessofasecondarticleaboutteenagepregnancy.Fearingthatchangingthearticleswouldforcethestudentstomisstheirdeadlineforpublication,Reynoldstoldthepaper’sadvisersimplytodeletethetwopagesthatcontainedthesearticles,despitethefactthattherewereotherstudent-writtenarticlesonthesepages.Districtofficialssupportedhisdecision.CathyKuhlmeier,astudenteditoroftheSpectrum,andotherstudentjournalistswereoutragedbywhattheyconsideredcensorshipoftheirwork.BelievingtheirFirstAmendmentrightshadbeenviolated,theytooktheircasetotheU.S.districtcourtinMissouri.Thedistrictcourtdecidedagainstthestudents,sayingthatiftheschoolhada“substantialandreasonablebasis,”itcouldplacelimitsoncurricularactivities,includingthepublicationoftheschoolnewspaper.

Thestudentsappealedthisdecisiontoafederalcourtofappeals,whichsidedwiththemandagreedthattheirFirstAmendmentrightshadbeenviolated.Thecourtnotedthatthenewspaperwasa“publicforumforstudentexpression.”Astudentpublication,suchasaschoolnewspaper,isa“publicforum”whenstudentshavebeengiventherighttomaketheirowndecisionsaboutcontent.Asa“publicforum”andachannelfor“studentviewpoints,”theSpectrumcouldnotbecensoredunlessitwas“necessarytoavoidmaterialandsubstantialinterferencewithschoolworkordiscipline...ortherightsofothers.”Theschoolappealed,andtheSupremeCourtagreedtohearthecase.LegalIssue:WastheSpectruma“publicforumforstudentexpression,”thereforemakingtheprincipal’sdeletionsofstudent-writtenarticlesaviolationofthestudents’FirstAmendmentrighttoFreedomofSpeech?PRECEDENT:Cantwellv.StateofConnecticut(1940)EssentialFacts:JesseCantwellandhisson,bothJehovah’sWitnesses,weredistributingreligiousmaterialsbyringingdoorbellsandbyapproachingpeopleonthestreetinapredominantlyCatholicneighborhood.TwopedestriansbecameangryaftervoluntarilylisteningtotheCantwells’anti-Catholicmessage.TheCantwellswerearrestedbothforviolatingalocallawthatrequiredapermitforsolicitationandforincitingabreachofthepeace.LegalIssue:Didthelocallawrequiringapermitforsolicitationorthe“breachofpeace”ordinanceviolatetheCantwells’FirstAmendmentrightstofreespeech?

8

Holding:TheCourtheldthatthelocallawrestrictingsolicitationbasedonreligiousgroundsviolatedboththeFirstandtheFourteenthamendments.TheCourtalsoheldthataninteresttomaintainpublicordercouldnotbeusedtojustifythesuppressionof“freecommunicationofviews.”TheCantwells’message,thoughpossiblyoffensive,didnotthreaten“bodilyharm.”PRECEDENT:Eppersonv.Arkansas(1968)EssentialFacts:Ahighschoolbiologyteacher,SusanEpperson,filedsuitincourttochallengetheconstitutionalityofanArkansaslawbanningtheteachingofevolution.Thelawstatedthatto“teachthetheoryordoctrinethatmankindascendedordescendedfromalowerorderofanimals”wasamisdemeanorandwouldresultintheteacher’sdismissal.LegalIssue:Didthestatelawthatmadetheteachingofevolutionillegalviolateeithertheteacher’srighttofreespeechortheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClause?Holding:TheCourtdecidedthattheArkansaslawdidviolatetheFirstAmendment,aswellastheFourteenthAmendment.ItreasonedthatthelawviolatedtheEstablishmentClausebecauseitwasnota“manifestationofreligiousneutrality.”Inaddition,theCourtheldthatastate’srighttodictatethecurriculumofpublicschoolsdoesnotallowittoprohibitteachingascientifictheory.Initsholding,however,theCourtnotedthat“publiceducationinourNationiscommittedtothecontrolofstateandlocalauthorities.”Italsostatedthatfederalcourtsshouldnotordinarily“intervene

intheresolutionofconflictswhichariseinthedailyoperationofschoolsystems.”PRECEDENT:Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969)EssentialFacts:Twohighschoolstudents,JohnandMaryBethTinker,woreblackarmbandstoschooltoprotesttheVietnamWar.Theyweretoldthattheywouldbesuspendeduntiltheyagreedtoreturntoschoolwithoutthearmbands.LegalIssue:Didprohibitingstudentsfromwearingarmbandsinpublicschool,asaformofsymbolicprotest,violatetheFirstAmendment’sfreedomofspeechprotections?Holding:TheCourtheldthattheschool’sprohibitionofthearmbandswasaviolationoftheFirstAmendment.Forschoolofficialstojustifiablyprohibitsomeformofexpression,theymust“beabletoshowthatitsactionwascausedbysomethingmorethanameredesiretoavoidthediscomfortandunpleasantnessthatalwaysaccompanyanunpopularviewpoint.”BecausetheTinkers’actionsdidnot“materiallyandsubstantiallyinterferewiththerequirementsofappropriatedisciplineintheoperationoftheschool,”disciplinaryactionagainstthemcouldnotbesupported.TheTinkerswereprotectedundertheFirstAmendment,becausestudentsdonot“shedtheirconstitutionalrightstofreedomofspeechorexpressionattheschoolhousegate.”Initsopinion,however,theCourtreemphasizedtheneedtorecognizethe“authorityoftheStatesandofschoolofficials...toprescribeandcontrolconductintheschools.”

CaseBrief:Wallacev.Jaffree(1985)__________

FACTSOFTHECASE:Petitioner:GeorgeWallace,GovernorofAlabamaRespondent:IshmaelJaffreeIn1978,Alabamaenactedastatutethatallowedaone-minuteperiodofsilenceinpublicschoolsforthepurposeof“meditation.”In1981,thestatutewasrewrittentoincludenotonlymeditationbutalso“voluntaryprayer.”In1982,thestatutewasfurtheramendedtoauthorizeteacherstolead“willingstudents”inaprescribedprayerto“AlmightyGod...theCreatorandSupremeJudgeoftheworld.”In1982,IshmaelJaffree,aresidentofMobileCounty,Alabama,filedacomplaintonbehalfofhisthreeelementary-agedschoolchildren.Thecomplaintnamedschoolboardmembers,schoolofficials,andthethreeteachersasdefendants.JaffreesoughtajudgmentthatwouldpreventthedefendantsfromperformingorallowingregularreligiousprayerservicesorotherformsofreligiousobservancesintheMobileCountyPublicSchools.Hestatedthattheseprayerservices,thoughallowedbythe1981and1982statelaws,violatedtheFirstAmendment.Thedistrictcourtheldthatboththe1981andthe1982statuteswereconstitutionalbecauseAlabamahadtherighttoestablishastatereligionifitchoseto.Thecourtofappealsreversedthedecisionandheldthatbothstatuteswereunconstitutional.ThecasewasappealedtotheSupremeCourt.TheCourtunanimouslyheldthatthe1982statuteauthorizingteacherstoleadstudentsinprayerwasunconstitutional.Thatleftitwiththe1981statutetoexamineandthefollowingtodecide:

LegalIssue:DidAlabama’sstatelawauthorizingaperiodofsilencefor“meditationorvoluntaryprayer”violatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment?PRECEDENT:WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette(1943)EssentialFacts:InWestVirginia,refusingtosalutetheflagwasconsideredinsubordination,andstudentswhodidsowereconsequentlyexpelledfromschool.Variouscivicandreligiousgroupschallengedthisstatute.Theyarguedthatthestatutemadenoallowancesforreligiousbeliefs.LegalIssue:DidthemandatoryflagsaluteforchildreninpublicschoolviolatetheFirstAmendment?Holding:TheSupremeCourtheldinfavorofthepetitioners,notingthattheschooldistricthadviolatedtheFirstAmendmentrightsofstudentsbyforcingthemtosalutetheAmericanflag.TheCourtfoundthatthesalutewasameansofcommunicatingideas.RequiringthecommunicationofideaswentagainsttheintentoftheFirstAmendment.Indrawingthisconclusion,theCourtnotedthatschoolboardsmaynot“prescribewhatshallbeorthodoxinpolitics,nationalism,religion,orothermattersofopinion.”PRECEDENT:Engelv.Vitale(1962)EssentialFacts:NewYork’sStateBoardofRegentsdirectedtheirschoolstoreciteamorningnondenominationalprayerasapartoftheir“StatementonMoralandSpiritualTrainingintheSchools.”OnthegroundsthatthispracticewascontrarytotheirbeliefsandreligiouspracticesandthatitviolatedtheFirstandFourteenthamendments,theparentsof10studentsbroughtthisactiontotheSupremeCourt.

10

LegalIssue:DidthereadingofanondenominationalprayerinpublicschoolviolatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment?Holding:TheCourtheldinfavoroftheparentsandstudents,notingthatdespitetheprayer’snondenominationalcharacterandthefactthatitwasvoluntary,itwasstillconstitutionallyunacceptable.Byprovidingtheprayer,NewYorkofficiallyapprovedreligion.PRECEDENT:Lemonv.Kurtzman(1971)EssentialFacts:ThiscaseinvolveddisputesoverlawsinPennsylvaniaandRhodeIsland.ThePennsylvanialawprovidedfinancialsupporttoprivateschoolsforteachersalariesandinstructionalmaterialsfornonreligioussubjects.InRhodeIsland,alawsupplementedthesalariesofteachersinnonpublicelementaryschools.

LegalIssue:Didthesestatelaws,byprovidingaidto“church-relatededucationalinstitutions,”violatetheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClause?Holding:TheCourtheldthatthestatestatutesdidviolatetheEstablishmentClause,becausetheFirstAmendmentwasdesignedtopreventthe“sponsorship,financialsupport,andactiveinvolvement...inreligiousactivity.”Initsholding,theCourtmadethefollowingdistinctionregardingstatestatutesthatmightconflictwiththeEstablishmentClause:“First,thestatutemusthaveasecular[nonreligious]legislativepurpose;second,itsprincipalorprimaryeffectmustbeonethatneitheradvancesnorinhibitsreligion;finally,thestatutemustnotfosteranexcessivegovernmententanglementwithreligion.”Becausebothstates’lawsincludedaidtononpublicschools,theCourtheldthatthisdirectlybenefitedthechurchesthatoperatedtheseschools,thusviolatingtheEstablishmentClause.Inaddition,becausethelawsrequiredclosesupervision,therewasanexcessiverelationshipbetweenthestateandreligion.

CaseBrief:BethelSchoolDistrictNo.403v.Fraser(1986)__________

FACTSOFTHECASEPetitioner:BethelSchoolDistrictRespondent:MatthewFraserInApril1983,MatthewFraser,a17-year-oldstudentatBethelHighSchool,stoodbefore600ofhispeersatarequiredstudent-bodyassemblytodeliveraspeechsupportinganotherstudent’snominationforstudentgovernment.Hisspeechwasfullofsexualreferencesandinnuendos.Priortohisdeliveringthespeech,twoofFraser’steacherswarnedhimthatthespeechwas“inappropriate”andthatshouldhedeliverit,hecouldfaceseverereprimanding.Acounselorwhowaspresentduringthespeechnotedthatsomestudentshootedandseemedsupportive,butthatothers,manyofwhomwere14-year-olds,seemedembarrassedorevenconfusedbythespeech.Oneteacherlaterstatedthatshefounditnecessarytospendclasstimediscussingthespeechwithherclass.Thefollowingmorning,theassistantprincipalcalledFraserintoherofficeandtoldhimthathehadbrokenaschoolrulethatprohibitedtheuseofobscenelanguage.Fraserwaspresentedwithletterswrittenbyteacherswhohadwitnessedthespeech.Hewasthengivenachancetoexplainhisconduct,duringwhichtimeheadmittedtoknowinglyusingtheobscenelanguage.Fraserwassuspendedfromschoolforthreedays,andhisnamewasremovedfromthelistofcandidateswhowouldspeakatthegraduationceremonies.Afterservingonlytwodaysofthesuspension,Fraserwasallowedtoreturntoschool.Fraser’sfatherfiledsuitwiththedistrictcourt,allegingthatFraser’ssuspensionviolatedhisFirstAmendmentrighttofreedomofspeech.The

districtcourtheldinfavorofFraser,awardedhimcompensationfordamagesandcourtfees,andorderedtheschooldistricttoreinstateFraserasagraduationspeaker.Onappeal,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtwasupheldonthegroundsthatFraser’sspeechwasthesameastheprotestarmbandswornbythepetitionersinTinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict.Theappealscourtrejectedtheschooldistrict’sargumentthatthespeechhadadisruptiveeffectontheeducationalprocess.LegalIssue:DidBethelHighSchoolauthoritiesviolatetheFirstAmendmentbydiscipliningahighschoolstudentforgivingalewdspeechataschoolassembly?PRECEDENT:Ginsbergv.NewYork(1968)EssentialFacts:TheownerofastationerystoreinNewYorkwasarrestedandconvictedofsellingobscenematerialtoa16-year-oldboy.HehadviolatedaNewYorklawthatmadeitunlawfulto“knowingly”selltoanyoneunder17either“anypicture...whichdepictsnudity...andwhichisharmfultominors”or“any...magazine...whichcontains[suchpictures]andwhich,takenasawhole,isharmfultominors.”LegalIssue:DidNewYork’sstatuteprohibitingthesaleofobscenematerialtominors,butnottoadults,violatetheFirstAmendment?Holding:TheSupremeCourtheldthatthegovernmentisentitledtorestrictchildren’saccesstocertainkindsofsexuallyexplicitmaterial,evenifthematerialisnotobsceneorillegalforadults.Initsopinion,theCourtreasonedthat“theStatehas

12

anindependentinterestinprotectingthewelfareofchildrenandsafeguardingthemfromabuses.”PRECEDENT:Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969)EssentialFacts:Twohighschoolstudents,JohnandMaryBethTinker,woreblackarmbandstoschooltoprotesttheVietnamWar.Theyweretoldthattheywouldbesuspendeduntiltheyagreedtoreturntoschoolwithoutthearmbands.LegalIssue:Didprohibitingstudentsfromwearingarmbandsinpublicschool,asaformofsymbolicprotest,violatetheFirstAmendment’sfreedomofspeechprotections?Holding:TheCourtheldthattheschool’sprohibitionofthearmbandswasaviolationoftheFirstAmendment.Forschoolofficialstojustifiablyprohibitsomeformofexpression,theymust“beabletoshowthatitsactionwascausedbysomethingmorethanameredesiretoavoidthediscomfortandunpleasantnessthatalwaysaccompanyanunpopularviewpoint.”BecausetheTinkers’actionsdidnot“materiallyandsubstantiallyinterferewiththerequirementsofappropriatedisciplineintheoperationoftheschool,”disciplinaryactionagainstthemcouldnotbesupported.TheTinkerswereprotectedundertheFirstAmendment,becausestudentsdonot“shedtheirconstitutionalrightstofreedomofspeechorexpressionattheschoolhousegate.”Initsopinion,however,theCourtreemphasizedtheneedtorecognizethe“authorityoftheStatesand

ofschoolofficials...toprescribeandcontrolconductintheschools.”PRECEDENT:FCCv.PacificaFoundation(1978)EssentialFacts:APacificaFoundationradiostationbroadcastcomedianGeorgeCarlin’srecordingof“FilthyWords.”ThefatherofayoungboywhohappenedtobelisteningtothebroadcastcomplainedtotheFederalCommunicationsCommissions,thegovernmentagencythatregulatesradioandtelevisionbroadcasting.Afterreceivingthecomplaint,theFCCreprimandedtheradiostationforviolatingregulationsthatprohibitedbroadcasting“indecent”materialandwarnedthatsanctionswouldbeimposediftherewerefurtherincidents.LegalIssue:CouldthepublicbroadcastingofindecentlanguageberestrictedbythegovernmentwithoutviolatingtheFirstAmendment?Holding:TheCourtheldthataradiostationcouldbeconstitutionallyrestrictedfrombroadcastingoffensivewords.However,certainfactorsshouldbeconsideredwheninvokingpenaltiesorsanctions,suchasaudience,medium,timeofday,andmethodoftransmission.TheCourtheldthatthePacificaFoundation’sbroadcastwas“indecent”andthattheFCCcouldprohibitsuchbroadcastsduringhourswhenchildrenwerelikelytobelistening.TheCourtcitedaninterestinbothshieldingchildrenfromoffensivematerialandensuringthatunwantedspeechdoesnotenterpeople’shomes.

CaseBrief:Morsev.Frederick(2007)__________

FACTSOFTHECASEPetitioner:DeborahMorse,etal.Respondent:JosephFrederickJosephFrederick,asenioratJuneau-DouglasHighSchool,unfurledabannersaying“BongHits4Jesus”duringtheOlympicTorchRelaythroughJuneau,AlaskaonJanuary24,2002.Frederick’sattendanceattheeventwaspartofaschool-supervisedactivity.PrincipalDeborahMorsetoldFredericktoputawaythebanner,asshewasconcerneditcouldbeinterpretedasadvocatingillegaldrugactivity.AfterFrederickrefusedtocomply,shetookawaythebannerandsuspendedFrederickfortendays.Shejustifiedheractionsbycitingtheschool’spolicyagainstthedisplayofmaterialthatpromotestheuseofillegaldrugs.Fredericksuedunder,allegingaviolationofhisFirstAmendmentrighttofreedomofspeech.TheDistrictCourtfoundnoconstitutionalviolationandruledinfavorofMorse.TheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitreversedthedecision,arguingthattheFirstAmendmentprotectedstudentspeechexceptwherethespeechwouldcauseadisturbance.BecauseFrederickwaspunishedforhismessageratherthanforanydisturbance,theCircuitCourtruledthepunishmentunconstitutional.LegalIssue:DoestheFirstAmendmentallowpublicschoolstoprohibitstudentsfromdisplayingmessagespromotingtheuseofillegaldrugsatschool-supervisedevents?PRECEDENT:Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969)EssentialFacts:Twohighschoolstudents,JohnandMaryBethTinker,woreblackarmbandstoschool

toprotesttheVietnamWar.Theyweretoldthattheywouldbesuspendeduntiltheyagreedtoreturntoschoolwithoutthearmbands.LegalIssue:Didprohibitingstudentsfromwearingarmbandsinpublicschool,asaformofsymbolicprotest,violatetheFirstAmendment’sfreedomofspeechprotections?Holding:TheCourtheldthattheschool’sprohibitionofthearmbandswasaviolationoftheFirstAmendment.Forschoolofficialstojustifiablyprohibitsomeformofexpression,theymust“beabletoshowthatitsactionwascausedbysomethingmorethanameredesiretoavoidthediscomfortandunpleasantnessthatalwaysaccompanyanunpopularviewpoint.”BecausetheTinkers’actionsdidnot“materiallyandsubstantiallyinterferewiththerequirementsofappropriatedisciplineintheoperationoftheschool,”disciplinaryactionagainstthemcouldnotbesupported.TheTinkerswereprotectedundertheFirstAmendment,becausestudentsdonot“shedtheirconstitutionalrightstofreedomofspeechorexpressionattheschoolhousegate.”Initsopinion,however,theCourtreemphasizedtheneedtorecognizethe“authorityoftheStatesandofschoolofficials...toprescribeandcontrolconductintheschools.”PRECEDENT:Texasv.Johnson(1989)EssentialFacts:In1984,infrontoftheDallasCityHall,GregoryLeeJohnsonburnedanAmericanflagasameansofprotestagainstReaganadministrationpolicies.JohnsonwastriedandconvictedunderaTexaslawoutlawingflagdesecration.Hewassentencedtooneyearinjailandassesseda$2,000fine.AftertheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedtheconviction,thecasewenttotheSupremeCourt.

14

LegalIssue:IsthedesecrationofanAmericanflag,byburningorotherwise,aformofspeechthatisprotectedundertheFirstAmendment?Holding:TheCourtheldthatJohnson’sburningofaflagwasprotectedexpressionundertheFirstAmendment.TheCourtfoundthatJohnson’sactionsfellintothecategoryofexpressiveconductandhadadistinctivelypoliticalnature.Thefactthatanaudiencetakesoffensetocertainideasorexpression,theCourtfound,doesnotjustifyprohibitionsofspeech.TheCourtalsoheldthatstateofficialsdidnothavetheauthoritytodesignatesymbolstobeusedtocommunicatedonlylimitedsetsofmessages,notingthat“[i]fthereisabedrockprincipleunderlyingtheFirstAmendment,itisthattheGovernmentmaynotprohibittheexpressionofanideasimplybecausesocietyfindstheideaitselfoffensiveordisagreeable.”PRECEDENT:Brandenburgv.Ohio(1969)EssentialFacts:Brandenburg,aleaderintheKuKluxKlan,madeaspeechataKlanrallyandwaslaterconvictedunderanOhiocriminallaw.Thelawmadeillegaladvocating“crime,sabotage,violence,orunlawfulmethodsofterrorismasameansofaccomplishingindustrialorpoliticalreform,”aswellasassembling“withanysociety,group,orassemblageofpersonstoteachoradvocatethedoctrinesofcriminal[activityforpolitical,industrial,orsocialchange].”LegalIssue:DidOhio’scriminallaw,prohibitingpublicspeechthatadvocatesvariousillegalactivities,violateBrandenburg’srighttofreespeechasprotectedbytheFirstandFourteenthAmendments?Holding:TheCourtheldthattheOhiolawviolatedBrandenburg’srighttofreespeech.TheCourtusedatwo-prongedtesttoevaluatespeechacts:(1)speechcanbeprohibitedifitis“directedat

incitingorproducingimminentlawlessaction”and(2)itis“likelytoinciteorproducesuchaction.”Thecriminallawmadeillegaltheadvocacyandteachingofdoctrineswhileignoringwhetherornotthatadvocacyandteachingwouldactuallyinciteimminentlawlessaction.ThefailuretomakethisdistinctionrenderedthelawoverlybroadandinviolationoftheConstitution.PRECEDENT:VeronicaSchoolDistrictv.Acton(1995)EssentialFacts:AnofficialinvestigationledtothediscoverythathighschoolathletesintheVeronicaSchoolDistrictparticipatedinillicitdruguse.Schoolofficialswereconcernedthatdruguseincreasestheriskofsports-relatedinjury.Consequently,theVeronicaSchoolDistrictofOregonadoptedtheStudentAthleteDrugPolicy,whichauthorizesrandomurinalysisdrugtestingofitsstudentathletes.JamesActon,astudent,wasdeniedparticipationinhisschool’sfootballprogramwhenheandhisparentsrefusedtoconsenttotesting.LegalIssue:DoesrandomdrugtestingofhighschoolathletesviolatethereasonablesearchandseizureclauseoftheFourthAmendment?Holding:No.Thereasonablenessofasearchisjudgedby“balancingtheintrusionontheindividual’sFourthAmendmentinterestsagainstthepromotionoflegitimategovernmentalinterests.”InthecaseofhighschoolathleteswhoareunderStatesupervisionduringschoolhours,theyaresubjecttogreatercontrolthanoverfreeadults.Theprivacyinterestscompromisedbyurinesamplesarenegligiblesincetheconditionsofcollectionaresimilartopublicrestrooms,andtheresultsareviewedonlybylimitedauthorities.Furthermore,thegovernmentalconcernoverthesafetyofminorsundertheirsupervisionoverridestheminimal,ifany,intrusioninstudent-athletes’privacy.

15

CaseBrief:BoardofEducationofWestsideCommunitySchoolsv.Mergens(1990)

__________FACTSOFTHECASEPetitioner:WestsideCommunitySchoolBoardofEducationRespondent:BridgetMergensBridgetMergens,astudentatWestsideHighSchoolinNebraska,askedschoolauthoritiesifshecouldstartaChristianclubatthehighschool.Whenherrequestwasdenied,shefiledsuit.ShebasedherclaimontheEqualAccessAct,alawpassedbyCongressin1984.Underthisact,schoolsthatreceivefederalfinancialassistanceandthathaveatleastonestudent-led,noncurriculumclubthatmeetsoutsideofclasstimemustallowotherclubstoorganize.However,theseclubsmusthavevoluntaryattendance,mustbestudentledandinitiated,andcannotbepromotedbyateacherorschoolofficial.WestsideHighwasapublichighschoolthatreceivedfederalfinancialassistance.Italsoalreadyhadanumberofrecognizedgroupsandclubs—includingachessclub,ascubaclub,andaserviceclub—thatmetafterschoolhoursonschoolgrounds.Theschooldistrictrequiredtheseclubstohavefacultysponsorship,adirectviolationoftheEqualAccessAct.ThedistrictfeltthatallowingMergenstoformaChristianclubwouldviolatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment.Onthosegrounds,theschoolboardvotedtodenyMergens’srequest.Shortlyafterward,MergensandseveralWestsidestudentsfiledsuit.Thedistrictcourtheldinfavoroftheschooldistrictbecauseitexaminedtheextracurricularclubsavailabletostudentsattheschoolandconcludedthattheywereallcurriculumrelated,makingtheEqualAccessActnullandvoid

inthiscase.Thecourtofappealsreversedthedecision,holdingthatseveralexistingstudentclubswereindeednoncurriculumrelatedandthatthereforeMergensshouldhavebeenallowedtoorganizeaChristianclubandhaveitreceiveofficialschoolrecognition.Inaddition,itrejectedtheclaimthattheformationofaChristianclub—aswellastheEqualAccessActthatalloweditsformation—violatedtheEstablishmentClause.LegalIssue:DidtheEqualAccessAct,whichrequiresthatschoolspermittingnoncurriculumclubsalsoallowreligiousclubs,violatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment?PRECEDENT:Lemonv.Kurtzman(1971)EssentialFacts:ThiscaseinvolveddisputesoverlawsinPennsylvaniaandRhodeIsland.ThePennsylvanialawprovidedfinancialsupporttoprivateschoolsforteachersalariesandinstructionalmaterialsfornonreligioussubjects.InRhodeIsland,alawsupplementedthesalariesofteachersinnonpublicelementaryschools.LegalIssue:Didthesestatelaws,byprovidingaidto“church-relatededucationalinstitutions,”violatetheFirstAmendment’sEstablishmentClause?Holding:TheCourtheldthatthestatestatutesdidviolatetheEstablishmentClause,becausetheFirstAmendmentwasdesignedtopreventthe“sponsorship,financialsupport,andactiveinvolvement...inreligiousactivity.”Initsholding,theCourtmadethefollowingdistinctionregardingstatestatutesthatmightconflictwiththeEstablishmentClause:“First,thestatutemusthaveasecular[nonreligious]legislativepurpose;second,itsprincipalorprimaryeffectmustbeonethat

16

neitheradvancesnorinhibitsreligion;finally,thestatutemustnotfosteranexcessivegovernmententanglementwithreligion.”Becausebothstates’lawsincludedaidtononpublicschools,theCourtheldthatthisdirectlybenefitedthechurchesthatoperatedtheseschools,thusviolatingtheEstablishmentClause.Inaddition,becausethelawsrequiredclosesupervision,therewasanexcessiverelationshipbetweenthestateandreligionPRECEDENT:Widmarv.Vincent(1981)EssentialFacts:AttheUniversityofMissouriatKansasCity,astateuniversity,registeredstudentgroupswerepermittedtouseschoolfacilitiestoconductmeetings.Aregisteredstudentreligiousgroupthathadreceivedpermissiontousethefacilitieswastheninformedthatitcouldnolongerdosobecausetheuniversityprohibitedtheuseofuniversitybuildingsorgrounds“forpurposesofreligiousworshiporreligiousteaching.”Thisgroupsuedtheschool,assertingthattheirFirst

Amendmentrightstoreligiousfreeexerciseandfreespeechhadbeenviolated.LegalIssue:DidtheuniversityviolatetheFirstAmendmentbyprohibitingareligiousgrouptouseitsfacilities?Holding:TheSupremeCourtheldthatbyexcludingthereligiousgroupfromusingitsfacilities,theuniversityviolatedthe“fundamentalprinciplethatastateregulationofspeechshouldbecontentneutral.”TheEstablishmentClausedoesnotrequirestateuniversitiestolimittheaccessofreligiousorganizationstotheirfacilities.An“equalaccess”policywouldnotoffendtheEstablishmentClauseifitcouldpassthefollowingthree-prongedtest:(1)Ithasasecularlegislativepurpose.(2)Itsprincipalorprimaryeffectwouldbeneithertoadvancenortoinhibitreligion.(3)Itdoesnotfoster“anexcessivegovernmententanglementwithreligion.”

CaseBrief:Wisconsinv.Yoder(1972)__________

FACTSOFTHECASEPetitioner:StateofWisconsinRespondent:JonasYoderandWallaceMillerJonasYoderandWallaceMiller,membersoftheOldOrderAmishreligion,wereconvictedofviolatingWisconsin’scompulsoryattendancelaw.Thislawrequiredthemtosendtheirchildrentoschooluntilreachingtheageof16.Thedefendants,YoderandMiller,whohadchildrenages14and15,refusedtosendthemtoschoolaftereighthgrade.TheyclaimedthatattendanceathighschoolinfringeduponthefreeexerciseoftheirreligionasprotectedundertheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.Duringthetrial,YoderandMillertestifiedthattheirchildren’sattendancetschoolwascontrarytotheAmishreligionandwayoflife.Theybelievedthatsendingtheirchildrentohighschoolwouldendangertheirownsalvationandthatoftheirchildren.TheAmishreligionteachesthatsalvationrequireslifeinachurchcommunity,separationandapartfromtheworldandmoderninfluences.Thus,theAmishbelievethatsendingtheirchildrentoschoolbeyondtheeighthgradeplacestheminahostileenvironmentwherestudentsarepressuredtoconformtomodernstyles,manners,andcustoms.Theyalsobelievethathighschoolemphasizescompetitioninclassworkandsportsandtakestheirchildrenawayfromhomeduringtheformativeadolescentperiodoflife.Duringthisperiod,theAmishwanttheirchildrentoacquireattitudesfavoringtheAmishreligionandbeliefs.EvidencepresentedatthetrialalsoindicatedthattheAmishdidnotobjecttoelementaryschoolattendance(throughgradeeight).TheyagreedthattheirchildrenneededbasicskillsinordertoreadtheBible,tobegoodcitizensandfarmers,andtodealeffectivelywithnon-Amishpersons.Also,itwasshownthattheAmishprovidecontinuing

informaleducationofavocationalnaturetotheirchildren.Finally,theAmishshowedtheirexcellentrecordaslaw-abidingandgenerallyself-sufficientmembersofsociety.InchargingYoderandMillerwithviolationoftheWisconsinlaw,thestatearguedthatithadacompellinginterestinestablishingandmaintaininganeducationalsystemandthatthisinterestoverrodethedefendants’righttofreeexerciseoftheirreligion.Further,thestatecontendedthattheAmishreligion,howevervirtuousandadmirable,couldnotstandasabarriertoreasonableregulationofeducation.ThetrialcourtjudgeagreedwiththestateandconvictedYoderandMillerofviolatingthestatelaw.YoderandMillerappealed.TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthattheconvictionsofYoderandMillerwereinvalidunderthefreeexerciseclauseoftheFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.ThestateappealedthecasetotheSupremeCourt.LegalIssue:DidWisconsin’srequirementthatallparentssendtheirchildrentoschooluntilatleastage16violatetheFirstAmendmentbycriminalizingtheconductofparentswhorefusedtosendtheirchildrentoschoolforreligiousreasons?PRECEDENT:Braunfieldv.Brown(1961)EssentialFacts:TheStateofPennsylvaniahadalawthatrequiredstorestobeclosedonSundayinordertoprovideauniformdayofrestforallworkers.Mr.Braunfield,anorthodoxJewishmerchant,becauseofhisreligiousbeliefs,kepthisstoreclosedonSaturday,thedayhecelebratedtheSabbath.HearguedthatSundayclosinglawshurthisabilitytoearnalivelihoodbecauseofhisreligiousbeliefs.

18

LegalIssue:DidthePennsylvanialawviolatetheFirstAmendment’sprotectionoffreeexerciseofreligiousbeliefs?Holding:TheSupremeCourtheldthatthePennsylvanialawdidnotviolatetheFreeExerciseClause.Thefreedomtoholdreligiousbeliefsandopinionsisabsolute;however,thefreedomtoact(eveninaccordancewithreligiousconvictions)isnottotallyfreefromgovernmentrestrictions.TheCourtfoundthattheSundayClosingLawhadasecularbasisanddidnotmakeanyreligiouspracticesunlawful.Thelawisvaliddespiteitsindirectburdenonreligiousobservanceunlessthestatecanaccomplishitsseculargoalofprovidingauniformdayofrestforallthroughothermeans.PRECEDENT:Piercev.SocietyofSisters(1925)EssentialFacts:In1922,Oregonpassedalawthatrequiredchildrentoattendpublicschool.Privateschools(bothreligiousandnonsectarian)challengedtheconstitutionalityofthelaw,arguingthatthelawconflictedwith:(1)theparent’srighttochooseschoolswherechildrenwouldreceive“appropriatementalandreligioustraining”;(2)thechild’srighttoinfluencetheparent’schoiceofschools;and(3)therightofschoolsandteacherstoengageinausefulprofession.LegalIssue:DidtheOregonlawviolatethelibertyofparentstodirecttheeducationoftheirchildren?Holding:Yes.TheSupremeCourtheldthat“thefundamentallibertyuponwhichallgovernmentsinthisUnionreposeexcludesanygeneralpoweroftheStatetostandardizeitschildrenbyforcingthemtoacceptinstructionfrompublicteachersonly.”Theycontinued,“Wethinkitisentirelyplainthattheactof1922unreasonablyinterfereswiththelibertyofparentsandguardianstodirecttheupbringingandeducationofchildrenundertheircontrol.”PRECEDENT:Reynoldsv.UnitedStates(1879)

EssentialFacts:Mr.Reynoldswasconvictedin1876ofviolatingafederallawwhichprohibitedbigamy(marryingonepersonwhilestilllegallymarriedtoanother).Inhisappealoftheconviction,hearguedthatitwashisreligiousdutytoaccordingtotheteachingsoftheMormonreligiontopracticebigamy.LegalIssue:Doesthefederalanti-bigamystatuteviolatetheFirstAmendment’sfreeexerciseclausebecausepluralmarriageispartofreligiouspractice?Holding:No.TheSupremeCourtupheldhisconviction,nothingthatthestatutecanpunishcriminalactivitywithoutregardtoreligiousbelief.TheFirstAmendmentprotectedreligiousbelief,butitdidnotprotectreligiouspracticesthatwerejudgedtobecriminalsuchasbigamy.Thosewhopracticepolygamycouldnomorebeexemptfromthelawthanthosewhomaywishtopracticehumansacrificeaspartoftheirreligiousbelief.PRECEDENT:Sherbertv.Verner(1963)EssentialFacts:AdeilSherbert,amemberoftheSeventh-dayAdventistChurch,wasfiredfromherjobaftersherefusedtoworkonSaturday,theSabbathDayofherfaith.Inseekingemployment,sherefusedtoacceptanyjobinvolvingSaturdaywork.ShefiledforunemploymentcompensationinSouthCarolina.However,theEmploymentCommissiondeniedherbenefits,findingunacceptableherreligiousjustificationforrefusingSaturdaywork.LegalIssue:DidthedenialofunemploymentcompensationviolatetheFirstandFourteenthAmendments?Holding:Yes.TheCourtheldthatthestate’seligibilityrestrictionsforunemploymentcompensationimposedasignificantburdenonSherbert’sabilitytofreelyexerciseherfaith.Furthermore,therewasnocompellingstateinterestwhichjustifiedsuchasubstantialburdenonthisbasicFirstAmendmentright.

19

PreparingYourCase

Whatdoeseachside(party)want?Whataresomeargumentsinfavorofyourside?Whataresomeargumentsinfavorofyouropponent’sside?Howwillyoucounteryouropponent’sarguments?

20

Whichargumentsarethemostpersuasive?Why?Whatarethelegalprecedentsandhowdotheyinfluencethiscase?Whatmightbetheconsequencesofeachpossibledecision?Toeachside?Tosociety?Arethereanyalternativesbesideswhateachsideisdemanding?

21

IAMASUPREMECOURTJUSTICEDECIDING:

vs.

QUESTIONSFORTHEPETITIONER QUESTIONSFORTHERESPONDENT1.) 1.)2.) 2.)3.) 3.)4.) 4.)5.) 5.)

22

MOOTCOURTPERFORMANCERUBRIC

Position:Petitioner Justice Respondent

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY3points

ADEQUATE2points

INEFFECTIVE1point

Arguments&Questions:• Clarity• Logic

Studentpresentsthoughtful,clearandconcisearguments

orquestions.

Therewasnoroomformisinterpretationbecauseideaswerewellexplained

Studentmostlypresentsclearargumentsorquestions.

Thejusticesorlawyersmayhavesomequestionsbecausetheexplanationofargumentsorquestionswereincomplete.

Student’sargumentsorquestionsareillogicalor

unclear.

Argumentsandquestionsarehardtofollow

becausetheexplanationismissingisconfusing.

Evidence:• Specific• Relevant

Evidence

Specificandrelevantevidenceisusedtoillustrate

andsupportargument.

Someevidenceisusedbutitisnotstrongorspecificenough

tobefullyconvincing.

Argumentisunsupportedorisvaguelysupported.Littleproofisoffered.

UsesKnowledge:• History• Philosophy• Precedents• Constitution• Theory• Factsofcase

Studentlinksthefactsofthecasetorelevant

constitutionalissues,philosophy,precedentsand

historicevents.

Studentattemptstolinkthefactsofthecasetorelevant

constitutionalissues,philosophy,precedentsand

historicevents.

Studentliststhefactsofthecaseorrelevantconstitutionalissues,philosophy,precedentsandhistoriceventsbutfailstodemonstrateaconnectionbetween

them.

Persuasion• Significanceof

case• CounterArg.

Studentargumentsandquestionsarecompelling.

Theyrecognize,addressandprobebothargumentsand

counter-arguments

Studentargumentsandquestionsarecompellingbut

seemtobeonesided.

Studentsargumentsandquestionsarenotcompellingor

demonstratebias

JusticeWork• Quality

questions• Active

engagement

Studentisactivelyengagedandismakingcompellingcommentsashearingprogresses.Questions

demonstratecriticalthinkingandaddressdeeper

philosophicaland/orpracticalapplications.

Studentisactivelyengagedinthetrial,butstudent’s

questionsareunderdevelopedandonlyaddressbasic

information.

Studentiseithernotactivelyengagedincourthearingand/ordoesnotanyquestionsofthe

litigants.

Total

___/15

AdditionalComments:

23

MAJORITY/CONCURRING/DISSENTINGOPINION

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Circle

One

24

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Sources:CaseBriefings:Hart,Diane,andBertBower.GovernmentAlive!:Power,Politics,andYou.RanchoCordova,CA:Teachers'CurriculumInstitute,2014.Print.CaseBriefings:IITChicago-KentCollegeofLaw,Web.<www.oyez.org>MootCourtProcedure(Text):StreetLaw.orgMootCourtProceduralFlowChart:Hart,Diane,andBertBower.GovernmentAlive!:Power,Politics,andYou.RanchoCordova,CA:Teachers'CurriculumInstitute,2014.Print.PreparingYourCaseQuestions:StreetLaw.orgPerformanceRubric:LauraHoneywood,AcademyofthePacificRim,Massachusetts.2015.

mr. morrissey’s moot court 2017morrisseylaw.weebly.com/uploads/8/9/7/5/8975450/...chief justice...

Documents