When the lessons acquired from “Moot Court” are anything but “moot”

In today’s class, students took turns playing lawyers, members of the United States Supreme Court or spectators in the galley for each case. Every student will get a chance to take on every role at least once. A group of mainly seniors and a handful of juniors arrive into the classroom in free dress, although it is visibly business attire. Near the dry erase boards, five members of the class slip black robes over their suit jackets and blouses, because in this iteration of “Moot Court,” these classmates will represent members of the Supreme Court. Apart from them, desks are placed into two pods, representing the legal counsel for opposing sides of the cases that will be heard today. 

The docket for the class will cover an abbreviated version of three different landmark cases. First, New Jersey v. TLO, dealing with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Secondly, University of California v. Bakke, dealing with the complexities of affirmative action. And finally—the most well-known case—US v. Nixon which dealt with executive privilege and immunity of a sitting President. 

This “Moot Court” project has been spread over a few months and will be graded in three different categories. 1) Research material with reference lists 2) Written legal briefs 3) Oral presentation with class participation. The presentation in class today is the culmination of those months of work. And it is important to note: these proceedings are not pure reenactments. These students don’t embody historical figures and recite speeches from the long past. These assignments deal with critical thinking above all else. Students are expected to explore all the facts of the case, and when they are representing the lawyers, they can present their cases in the very real hope that they will be able to sway the high court, at least in the Mayfield classroom. 

Lily Fontes ‘22, who played the Chief Justice at one point in today’s class, said she found this assignment incredibly rewarding. She explained, “I think Moot Court helped to enrich our understanding of the actual Supreme Court because it showed how arguments made by the attorneys for each side could influence the court’s opinion. In many cases, our court decided differently than the real case because of how strong one attorney’s argument was.”

This ability to rewrite history was never more apparent in this class than the presentations inside the US v. Nixon presentation. Both sides of the legal counsels were well-prepared for their oral arguments. But Emily Vargas ‘22 and her teammate Nina Copado ‘22, who played the attorneys defending President Richard Nixon, had a major uphill climb because the ruling against their client in this case was already well-known by most in the class. However, Emily is active in Mock Trial, and her comfort in this artificial legal setting was evident. Still, Mock Trial and Moot Court are quite different. Whereas Mock Trial examines fake cases that allow students to create their own theories and approaches to the cases, Moot Court is much more research-based, since the official facts of the case have been legally decided already. The material that Emily and Nina had prepared was impressive, and Emily was especially nimble as she made her oral arguments.

Emily worked to direct the court’s attention away from the idea that tapes might be covering up wrongdoing, like the Watergate break-in etc. Instead, she and Nina talked about national security and the kinds of unique, sensitive and world-altering conversations that can take place in the Oval Office. They explicitly mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis, a period when many Americans were “fearful that America may cease to exist.’ At the time of the real Nixon hearings, the Vietnam War was ongoing, and this Cuban crisis was in very recent history. Emily mentioned that material from these tapes could be dangerous if released to the public, with potentially sensitive material discussing the war effort, suggesting that there was real peril in terms of international disasters. Emily admits, “There were not many sources supporting Nixon so my partner and I had to get creative. We had to use our historical and constitutional knowledge to construct our original arguments.”

And this seemed to work, because Block D’s Supreme Court took extra time for this Nixon hearing—they even came back into the classroom after some discussion for further questioning—before adjourning for their second, and final, deliberation. Ultimately, Mayfield’s court decided with the original ruling against Nixon. But, ever so briefly, it did seem that the former President might have a reprieve after all!

The way “Moot Court” can bring a reexamination and reimagination of even the most well-established moments in US history makes it clear why Ms. Zapata was willing to include it inside her lesson plan. This is not simply memorizing facts and figures. Ms. Zapata wanted to use this assignment for “a little more of a stretch” because it would require students to get “creative in (their) arguments.”

Eva Gullon ‘23, one of the few juniors in the class, talks about the way the subject material both challenged her and gave her opportunities for growth. Eva says, “The most exciting part about this assignment was the interactiveness, and being able to work as a team. It also gave me an opportunity to apply things we had been working on in class, in real life, and how this would be applied in a courtroom setting.” She adds, “It boosted my confidence, and pushed my limits to what I could have been comfortable with.”

Ms. Zapata has yet to decide if she’ll include this Moot Court assignment in next year’s AP curriculum. It takes a lot of time, something that is at a premium in an already packed class load. However, she was very pleased with the results and how the students “took this assignment seriously.” She plans to reassess at the end of year, to gauge if/how this activity improved the overall performances and understanding of her students. She has no regrets and says that it was “a valuable learning experience.” In short? Anything but moot.