Supreme Court Simulation

Objective: To better understand the process by which the Supreme Court hears cases and makes
decisions about them as well as to become more familiar with important civil liberties and civil rights
issues and the constitutional questions they represent in recent cases

Directions: Students will be assigned one of two roles: Supreme Court justice or attorney. As a
lawyer, you must research your case, develop arguments for your side, present your arguments to
the justices, and answer questions posed by the justices. As a justice, you will develop a judicial
philosophy, read the background of the case, hear arguments from the lawyers, ask questions about
the case, discuss the case with your fellow justices, and issue an opinion.

As a justice, you will:

1. Research the justice you will act as in this simulation
2. Research both of the cases you will hear and identify the most persuasive arguments from
each side according to your judicial philosophy
3. Finish researching your cases and listing the most persuasive arguments/evidence for each
side according to your judicial philosophy
4. Listen to the oral arguments from the *real* Supreme Court case and prepare questions for the
attorneys
5. Listen to the arguments during both cases and ask questions of the attorney teams, then meet
after each oral argument and determine the court’s decision and announce it to the class with
a statement of your reasoning
(There will be one justice who will act as Chief. This individual will help organize the court and
facilitate discussions.)

As an attorney, you will:

1. Rank the cases and sides you would most like to represent
2. Research the case you are assigned to learn about the facts, previous rulings, and arguments
that will support your side
3. Read and analyze an amicus curiae brief from your case to identify arguments/evidence you
might use and counter arguments you should prepare for
4. Prepare your oral arguments and answers to anticipated questions from the Supreme Court
justices with your team
5. Present your oral arguments to the Supreme Court and answer any questions they may have
Supreme Court Simulation Day 1: Background Research

Attorneys – Get with your team and create a document that you all have access to. You will submit
this document at the end of the project, with all of your independent and group research, as part of
your grade in the project. 

Then, begin researching your case. You are responsible for answering the questions below as a
team, but everyone on your team must know all of this information. Do not split up the questions—
find the answers to each question and check that you have all found the same information.

Case Summaries

DC v. Heller (2008) Oyez Street Law

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008) Oyez Street Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) Oyez Street Law

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v.

Oyez Street Law
Pennsylvania (2020)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Oyez Street Law

Use the Oyez and Street Law summaries for your case to take detailed notes answering the following
questions:

1. When was your case argued?

2. Who is the petitioner? Who is the respondent?  Which side are you representing?
3. What are the facts (what happened factually and procedurally) of the case?
4. What is the constitutional issue being disputed?
5. How did the actual Supreme Court rule in this case, and why? (Please note that we do not give
a fig what the actual Supreme Court justices think in this simulation. This question is intended
to help you build arguments for your case, or anticipate counterarguments from the opposing
team.)
6. What rationale did the dissenting justices give for their decision in the case?
7. What are the relevant cases or laws that the justices will apply in this case?
8. Which precedents support your stance? Howso?

Go to the following site: http://www.scotusblog.com. Once you reach the home page, you should see
a search box in the upper right-hand corner. Search the name of your case and click on the “case
page” that comes up. Scroll down the page until you see a timeline of important events in the case.
Find the brief submitted by the attorneys representing your side (petitioner or respondent) to the
actual Supreme Court—this document will be titled “Brief of Petitioner” or “Brief of Respondent.” This
legal document includes a summary of the main arguments the lawyers presented to the real
Supreme Court when this case was argued.

9. Go to the table of contents page and read through the headings under the “Argument” section.
List the main arguments that you understand in your own words. These are the ideas that you
will build on and add to in order to present to the justices in our class.
10. Read the “Summary of Argument” section in the document. Add details to your list of
arguments based on the expanded information here, or—if this description helped you
understand more of the headings—add more arguments in your own words to the list.

If you finish this assignment, move on to the Attorney - Amicus Brief 1 assignment. 

Justices – Research the justice whose judicial philosophy you will be following in this simulation. You
completed some preliminary research for your application, but must now become an expert on your
justice and how they interpret and apply the Constitution. Answer the following questions for your
justice in a document that you can continue to access. You will submit, as part of your grade, a
document at the end of the project with the research you've conducted on your justice, on the cases,
and on the relevant precedents.

1. Describe (identify and define) the judicial philosophy typically used by your justice. (Your
answer should NOT be “judicial activism” or “judicial restraint.” These terms refer to the impact
of a decision, not necessarily to how a justice interprets the text of the Constitution.)
2. Describe a case your justice decided in which their ruling (be it for the majority or dissenting)
exemplifies their judicial philosophy. How does this case illustrate their judicial philosophy?
3. Describe a case in which your justice ruled differently than they were expected to. Why did
they rule in an unexpected way in this case? How did this ruling fit into or go against their
typical judicial philosophy?

Then, start researching the first case you will hear. Use the Oyez and Street Law summaries for your
case to take detailed notes answering the questions below. **You will continue working on
researching both cases tomorrow in class.**

Case Summaries

DC v. Heller (2008) Oyez Street Law

 Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008) Oyez Street Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) Oyez Street Law

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v.

Oyez Street Law
Pennsylvania (2020)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Oyez Street Law

1. When was the case argued?

2. Who is the petitioner? Who is the respondent? 
3. What are the facts (what happened factually and procedurally) of the case?
4. What is the constitutional issue being disputed?
5. What precedents/laws are relevant to this case? Write a sentence describing each precedent. 
6. How did the actual Supreme Court rule in this case, and why? (Please note that we do not give
a fig what the actual Supreme Court justices think in this simulation. This question is intended
to help you build arguments for your case, or anticipate counterarguments from the opposing
team.)
7. What judicial philosophy or philosophies did the majority justices use to arrive at this decision?
8. What judicial philosophy or philosophies did the dissenting justices use to arrive at their
decision?

Go to the following site: http://www.scotusblog.com. Once you reach the home page, you should see
a search box in the upper right-hand corner. Search the name of the case and click on the “case
page” that comes up. Scroll down the page until you see a timeline of important events in the case.
Find the brief submitted by the petitioner to the actual Supreme Court—this document will be titled
“Brief of Petitioner.” This legal document includes a summary of the main arguments the lawyers
presented to the real Supreme Court when this case was argued.

9. Go to the table of contents page for the Brief of Petitioner and read through the headings
under the “Argument” sections. What case precedents (if any) are mentioned in the
"Arguments" sections? Which of these cases do you think are applicable to this case, and
which are not? 
10. Now, go back to http://www.scotusblog.com and find the “Brief of Respondent.” Go to the table
of contents page for the Brief of Respondent and read through the headings under the
“Argument” sections. What case precedents (if any) are mentioned in the "Arguments"
sections? Which of these cases do you think are applicable to this case, and which are not? 
11. What standard of review do you think should be applied in this case? Explain your reasoning.
(You may find this resource helpful in answering this question.)
Supreme Court Simulation Day 2: Amicus Briefs & Background Research

Attorneys

Go to the following site: http://www.scotusblog.com. Once you reach the home page, you should see
a search box in the upper right-hand corner. Search the name of your case and click on the “case
page” that comes up. Scroll down the page until you see a timeline of important events in the case.
Each person in your group needs to select a different amicus curiae brief to read. The briefs are listed
as either supporting the petitioner or the respondent. The organization that submitted the brief is
listed in the title of the document. Use this information to differentiate the amicus briefs your team
selects--it is a good idea to build multiple types of arguments/evidence into your case, so you can
appeal to a variety of judicial philosophies. Can each person’s amicus brief help you build one or
more of the types of arguments listed below? Will these arguments appeal to the judicial philosophies
of our class justices?

Take detailed notes answering the following questions while you read the amicus brief. This portion of
the assignment is graded individually and must be submitted to the Attorney - Amicus Brief 1
dropbox. 

1. What organization filed this brief?

2. What type of arguments are presented in this brief?
3. What arguments and evidence are provided in this brief that support your side? (Your
response to this question should be the longest part of this assignment. Put the information in
your own words so you can articulate it to your peers in an accessible way.)
4. How can you use these arguments to appeal to a particular judicial philosophy?
5. What information from the brief helps you anticipate or respond to the arguments of the
opposing team?

 Share what you learned from your amicus curiae brief with your team members. As a group, you
must build together a document of evidence and arguments that you will present to the justices during
oral arguments. Your document should include

1. a section of arguments and evidence for your side, organized based on the type/category of
argument you are presenting, AND
 2. a section where you are anticipating specific counterarguments and crafting responses to
those arguments.

Justices

Continue researching the cases you will hear. Use the Oyez and Street Law summaries for your
first/second case to take detailed notes answering the following questions:

Case Summaries

DC v. Heller (2008) Oyez Street Law

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008) Oyez Street Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) Oyez Street Law

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v.

Oyez Street Law
Pennsylvania (2020)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Oyez Street Law

1. When was the case argued?

2. Who is the petitioner? Who is the respondent? 
3. What are the facts (what happened factually and procedurally) of the case?
4. What is the constitutional issue being disputed?
5. What precedents/laws are relevant to this case? Write a sentence describing each precedent. 
6. How did the actual Supreme Court rule in this case, and why? (Please note that we do not give
a fig what the actual Supreme Court justices think in this simulation. This question is intended
to help you build arguments for your case, or anticipate counterarguments from the opposing
team.)
7. What judicial philosophy or philosophies did the majority justices use to arrive at this decision?
8. What judicial philosophy or philosophies did the dissenting justices use to arrive at their
decision?

Go to the following site: http://www.scotusblog.com. Once you reach the home page, you should see
a search box in the upper right-hand corner. Search the name of the case and click on the “case
page” that comes up. Scroll down the page until you see a timeline of important events in the case.
Find the brief submitted by the petitioner to the actual Supreme Court—this document will be titled
“Brief of Petitioner.” This legal document includes a summary of the main arguments the lawyers
presented to the real Supreme Court when this case was argued.
 9. Go to the table of contents page for the Brief of Petitioner and read through the headings
under the “Argument” sections. What case precedents (if any) are mentioned in the
"Arguments" sections? Which of these cases do you think are applicable to this case, and
which are not? 
10. Now, go back to http://www.scotusblog.com and find the “Brief of Respondent.” Go to the table
of contents page for the Brief of Respondent and read through the headings under the
“Argument” sections. What case precedents (if any) are mentioned in the "Arguments"
sections? Which of these cases do you think are applicable to this case, and which are not? 
11. What standard of review do you think should be applied in this case? Explain your reasoning.
(You may find this resource helpful in answering this question.)

You will submit the following to the Justices - Research dropbox:

1. answers to the questions about your justice and their judicial philosophy
2. answers to the background research questions about Case 1
3. answers to the background research questions about Case 2
4. your questions that you could ask during the oral arguments for each case (at least two
questions for each case)
Supreme Court Simulation Day 3: Amicus Briefs & Background Research

Attorneys

Go to the following site: http://www.scotusblog.com. Once you reach the home page, you should see
a search box in the upper right-hand corner. Search the name of your case and click on the “case
page” that comes up. Scroll down the page until you see a timeline of important events in the case.
Each person in your group needs to select a different amicus curiae brief to read. Each person in your
group needs to select a second amicus curiae brief to readThe briefs are listed as either supporting
the petitioner or the respondent. Today, you might want to have at least one member of your team
read a brief for the opposing side so that you can anticipate the arguments you will hear from the
other team and build responses to those arguments. You could also choose to read a majority,
concurring, or dissenting opinion for your case (instead of an amicus brief) by finding the Justia page
for your case. 

Take detailed notes while you read the amicus brief. This portion of the assignment is graded
individually and must be submitted to the Attorney - Amicus Brief 2 dropbox. Your goal is to find as
many arguments/evidence as you can for your side, and anticipate the arguments from your
opponents that you will need to respond to. You do not need to answer all of the questions below, but
depending on the topic/author of your brief, your notes may address:

 What organization filed this brief? (Or, if you are reading an opinion from your case, which
justice wrote the opinion, and who did they rule for?)
 What type of arguments are presented in this brief?
 What arguments and evidence are provided in this brief that support your side (or the other
side, if you read an opposing brief)? (Your response to this question should be the longest part
of this assignment. Put the information in your own words so you can articulate it to your peers
in an accessible way.)
 How can you use these arguments to appeal to a particular judicial philosophy?
 What information from the brief helps you anticipate or respond to the arguments of the
opposing team?
 What arguments/evidence do you have to counter the information from this brief, if you read
one in support of the opposing side?

Share what you learned from your amicus curiae brief with your team members. In your shared
document (not in the document you submit here), you must compile the evidence and arguments
from your briefs that you will present to the justices during oral arguments. Your document should
include

1. a section of arguments and evidence for your side, organized based on the type/category of
argument you are presenting, AND
2. a section where you are anticipating specific counterarguments and crafting responses to
those arguments.
 

Justices

Continue researching the cases you will hear. Use the Oyez and Street Law summaries for your
first/second case to take detailed notes answering the following questions:

Case Summaries

DC v. Heller (2008) Oyez Street Law

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008) Oyez Street Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) Oyez Street Law

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v.

Oyez Street Law
Pennsylvania (2020)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Oyez Street Law

1. When was the case argued?

2. Who is the petitioner? Who is the respondent? 
3. What are the facts (what happened factually and procedurally) of the case?
4. What is the constitutional issue being disputed?
5. What precedents/laws are relevant to this case? Write a sentence describing each precedent. 
6. How did the actual Supreme Court rule in this case, and why? (Please note that we do not give
a fig what the actual Supreme Court justices think in this simulation. This question is intended
 to help you build arguments for your case, or anticipate counterarguments from the opposing
team.)
7. What judicial philosophy or philosophies did the majority justices use to arrive at this decision?
8. What judicial philosophy or philosophies did the dissenting justices use to arrive at their
decision?

Find the briefs submitted by the attorneys to the actual Supreme Court. You can find the “Brief of
Petitioner” or “Brief of Respondent” in the folder for your case linked below.

o DC v. Heller (2008)
o Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008)
o Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016)
o Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020)
o Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)

9. Go to the table of contents page for each brief and read through the headings under the
“Argument” sections. What case precedents (if any) are mentioned in the "Arguments"
sections? Which of these cases do you think are applicable to this case, and which are not? 
10. Which standard of review is applicable to this case? Why do you think that? 

You will submit the following to the Justices - Research dropbox:

1. answers to the questions about your justice and their judicial philosophy
2. answers to the background research questions about Case 1
3. answers to the background research questions about Case 2
4. your questions that you could ask during the oral arguments for each case (at least two
questions for each case)
Supreme Court Simulation Day 4: Preparation of Arguments & Questions

Attorneys

Today is your final day in class to work together to prepare your arguments. Case 1 will be argued
during the block this week. Check out the oral arguments procedure described on the calendar for the
block day this week.

Compile and organize your arguments and evidence that you will present to the justices later this
week. Determine who will say what during the presentation.

Justices

Today you should write at least two (2) questions for each case that you could ask of the justices
during their oral arguments. You may want to listen to the audio / read the transcript of the actual
Supreme Court case to get an idea of questions you might ask. The audio/transcript can be accessed
on the Oyez page for each case. You could also use the relevant precedents to write questions. 

Case Summaries

DC v. Heller (2008) Oyez Street Law

Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008) Oyez Street Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) Oyez Street Law

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v.

Oyez Street Law
Pennsylvania (2020)

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Oyez Street Law

 Supreme Court Simulation Days 5-6: Oral Arguments & Deliberations

Oral Arguments Procedure

Court Cry:
 A court marshal will begin the session by saying (while everyone else stands):
 “The Honorable, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court
of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now
sitting. God save the United States and this honorable Court.”
 When the cry is finished, the audience may be seated.

Oral Arguments
 The Chief Justice announces the title of the case, then asks if both sides are ready.
 Petitioner oral arguments: 12-15 minutes
o Justices may ask questions of the petitioner attorneys one-at-a-time at the end of this
section
 Respondent oral arguments: 12-15 minutes
o Justices may ask questions of the respondent attorneys one-at-a-time at the end of this
section
 Petitioner rebuttal: 2 minutes
 Respondent rebuttal: 2 minutes

**Please note:
 When a lawyer addresses the Court for the first time, custom dictates that he/she says: “Mr./Mrs.
Chief Justice, may it please the Court. My name is ____________.”
 An appearance before the Supreme Court is a give and take session between the lawyer and the
justices. Justices will have the opportunity to ask questions of the attorneys at the end of their
initial presentation.
 At times, the justices have been very hard on lawyers who don’t answer their questions or appear
to be unprepared. Usually the decision of the case lies not in the presentation but the manner a
lawyer fields questions from the Justices.
 While oral arguments are taking place, the opposing lawyer remains silent—no objections,
statements or references to the justices can be made. This is an appeal court. Although
confrontational, it is not the head to head struggle of a trial court.
 The respondent lawyer can either have a prepared statement or use the time to refute the
petitioner’s presentation.

Deliberations
 After oral arguments, the justices retire for their secret deliberations—no one besides the teacher
is permitted to listen in during this time.
 The justices will retire to write their opinions. The opinion of the Court will be announced on 11/23,
after each justice has submitted their opinion.
 Each just must submit their own individual opinion.
 Court Opinions
After deliberating and discussing with the rest of the court, each justice must write their own opinion
for each case in paragraph form. Your two opinions should have all of the requirements below:
 
Each opinion should start with ONE of the intros below--
 If you were part of the majority: Justice _______________, concurring:
 If you were part of the minority: Justice _______________, dissenting:

Then,
 State clearly which side you are ruling for, and a brief explanation of why. The following 3-4
paragraphs should expand on your reasoning.
 Describe the relevant constitutional clauses/amendments and your interpretation/application of
them in this case. Are you interpreting the Constitution according to the original intentions of
the Framers, according to the original historical meaning of the text, or according to modern
values and impacts? (This information and the following information about the case precedents
may be combined into a single paragraph, if you think it makes more sense to do so.)
 Identify and describe at least two relevant case precedents and how your decision builds on or
departs from each precedent. Why is the precedent applicable or not applicable to this
situation?
 Describe why you disagree with the arguments from the attorneys/justices for the opposing
side.
 Describe how your ruling lines up with (or possibly departs from) “your” judicial philosophy.
 
SCOTUS Simulation Reflection
Please take time to reflect on your experiences in this simulation and provide honest feedback. Your
responses help me improve this project for future classes.

This survey is anonymous, so please provide additional details about your case/side assignment or
your chosen justice IF you feel that information is necessary for me to understand your feedback.

Attorneys:
1. What aspects of the research and preparation did not go well for your team? What actions by
your team members or by the teacher could have made this go better for you?
2. What aspects of the research and preparation were successful for your team? What actions by
your team members or by the teacher supported/provided for this success?
3. What resource was the most helpful to you in this project? How did you use this resource?
4. Did your team create a script for your presentation? If so, how did you go about creating this
script?
5. Did you use any resources that were not assigned that you found helpful in this project? If so,
what were they?
6. How do you think your team did on the day of your case? What do you see as the major
contributing factors your performance? Please address at least one of the following aspects of
the project that you think impacted your performance, or include other information you think is
relevant:
a. your team’s level of communication
b. individual contributions
c. structure of the project
d. usefulness of the provided resources
e. collaboration in compiling and presenting your arguments
f. other information relevant to your experience in this project
7. Were you happy with your choice to be an attorney, and with your case/side assignment? Why
or why not?
8. Is there anything else you want me to know about how this project went?

Justices:
1. What aspects of the research and preparation did not go well for you? What actions by you or
by the teacher could have made this go better for you?
2. What aspects of the research and preparation were successful for you? What actions by you
or by the teacher supported/provided for this success?
3. What resource was the most helpful to you in this project? How did you use this resource?
4. Did you use any resources that were not assigned that you found helpful in this project? If so,
what were they?
5. Did you primarily work alone, or with other justices? In what ways did this choice support or
obstruct your understanding of the cases and how to apply the Constitution?
6. Which statements best describe your thoughts on playing a justice in this case? (You may
choose more than one.)
a. I learned a lot about the justice I was playing.
b. I never totally understood the judicial philosophy of my justice.
c. I found it helpful to use an actual justice’s judicial philosophy to guide my ruling.
d. I found it confusing trying to apply my justice’s judicial philosophy in the cases I heard.
e. I mostly ignored my justice’s judicial philosophy and ruled based on my personal beliefs.
f. I wish I had been an attorney instead.
7. Please explain why you selected the above statements.
8. Is there anything else you want me to know about how this project went?