As a way for students to have a more nuanced understanding of America’s constitutional debates, Joseph Juliano’s Political Science students participated in moot court cases. 

“These moot courts are a great way to understand the topic of civil liberties because they help take the general ideas of rights like ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ and make them more practical through real world examples,” Juliano said. “We can see how these rights are practiced in America on a daily basis and the process of defining the scope of our rights.” 

Students were placed in groups of nine, with five judges, two petitioners and two respondents. From a given list, groups were able to pick which Supreme Court case they would like to do a mock trial on ranging from a variety of different issues, such as the limits on student speech. 

“I was a petitioner and we chose to do the Mahanoy School District v. BL case which had to do with limiting student speech even outside school if it was a targeted statement,” senior Ivan Wu said. “This case was really interesting because as students, we post on Snapchat all the time and we could actually imagine this happening in our lives.”

Mirroring Supreme Court oral arguments, both attorneys had seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for a rebuttal. During this time, judges questioned the attorney’s statements and asked questions. 

“Although I was nervous to actually speak in front of the whole class, it was fun to answer the judges’ questions on the spot,” senior Ruth Shiferaw said. “The case my group chose was Maryland v. King and I was an attorney. I am hoping the judges side with us, but overall the moot court cases were a really good learning experience and it was better than when we did it the first time back in first semester.”

Students were able to understand the controversies of different interpretations that come with the Constitution. 

“Doing this type of mock trial is important because it also helps build skills like critical thinking, public speaking and civil discourse,” Juliano said. “Students are asked to go beyond reading about the case and therefore they need to come to a deeper understanding of the issues and what they personally think about them. When you’re in the shoes of a judge you see the true implications of a decision and therefore think deeper in forming your own opinion.”