Auburn University's
Moot Court Experience

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court

The highlight of Auburn's constitutional law courses is the moot court that simulates the Court's oral arguments.  Modeled after Professor David O'Brien's popular moot court exercise at the University of Virginia, Auburn students serve as Justices, counsel, and amicus curiae on controversial cases that have been granted certiorari by the Supreme Court but have not yet been decided.

Each member of the class is given the facts of the moot court case and is required to write an opinion (if a Justice) or a brief (if counsel or amici) which considers the case in light of legal precedent.  While each of the students work on the same case, their papers all reflect a different perspective.  Counsel for each side, of course, puts forth arguments and legal analysis that support their position.  Amici, too, cite pertinent legal precedent and other information consistent with the decision they would like the Justices to render.  Those who choose to serve as members of the Court are required to incorporate their Justice's view into the paper, to that extent that such a position can be determined.

Oral arguments take place in the Eagles Nest on the top floor of the Haley Center.  Counsel for both parties to the case each argue for thirty minutes before the Court.  As in the actual Supreme Court, the Justices pepper counsel with questions.  The Justices hand down their decision a week later.

In the last year, Auburn students have participated in such landmark cases as Stenberg v. Carhart (Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortions), BSA v. Dale (the exclusion of gays from the Boy Scouts of America), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (student-led prayer before high school football games), FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco (the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco), and Illinois v. Wardlow (police pursuit of fleeing individual on the basis that flight alone justifies a temporary investigatory stop).