Moot Court Cases

Directions: Below are four scenarios. You will be asked to act as a lawyer arguing one side of the case before the Supreme Court. Your fellow students will serve as opposing attorneys and as the Supreme Court. This activity will take place in class.

You will be expected to present oral arguments in class. This includes making a coherent argument before the Court, citing precedent, identifying balancing tests, and being prepared to answer questions and hypotheticals from the Justices (and me). You will also be expected to turn in a 3 page brief summarizing your oral arguments and citing all relevant case law.

Commerce Clause Case: Mr. and Mrs. Jones own a small family restaurant that they operate out of their home in Springfield, WA. The restaurant, “The Dew Drop Inn” serves about 15 local families a day and is located over 100 miles from the nearest Interstate Hwy. Most of the food they serve is grown locally in town. Mrs. Jones has a garden and much of the other foodstuff is purchased from local farmers.

After September 11, 2001, the Jones put a sign out reading “We do not serve Arabs or Muslims”. Six months later, Mohammed Smith, visiting friends in Springfield, was denied a table at the Dew Drop Inn. Upon his return to Seattle, WA he, along with the ACLU field suit against Mr. and Mrs. Jones claiming they had violated The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned discrimination by race in public accommodations.

The initial attorneys for the Jones countered that the Dew Drop Inn is not engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress exceeded its delegated powers by subjecting the Jones to the Civil Rights Act. Subsequently, application of the Act to the Jones is unconstitutional.

Political Questions Case: According to the Oregon State Constitution, every child under the age of 18 is guaranteed “an adequate, free, public education.” Because of recession and overspending by the Oregon Legislature, the 2004 education budget was cut by 10%.

In response, parents John and Edna Taxpayer filed suit in Federal Court claiming they, and their child, had been denied a “liberty” by the State of Oregon but were not given any due process. They are asking the court to order the State of Oregon to reinstate the education funding.

Federalism Case: In the 1980s, federal officials became very concerned about decreasing voter participation rates. By 1980, less than half of all eligible citizens were voting in presidential elections. In response, Congress passed the Voter-Motor Bill. The bill required that state Departments of Motor Vehicles offer voter registration packets to each citizen getting a new license or renewing an old license. In addition, employees of the Departments of Motor Vehicles would have to assist people in filing out the forms and the Departments would take responsibility for sending the forms to the appropriate registrars.

Before the program was implemented, California Governor Joe Isolationist, filed suit in Federal Court claiming Congress had violate the 10^th Amendment. The governor argues that voter registration is not “necessary and proper,” the conduct of elections is specifically reserved for states in Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, and accordingly, the Court should declare the Voter-Motor Bill unconstitutional.

Presidential Power Case: In the days after September 11, 2001 the Bush Administration found itself in need of allies in the Middle East. Crucial to the War on Terror was the cooperation of Pakistan. Pakistan had excellent intelligence on Al Qeda and controlled the boarder with Afghanistan. Without the help of the Pakistani government, Taliban and Al Qeda could simply slip across the boarder and avoid capture from US forces.

In order to induce the Pakistani government to help the US, President George Bush via Executive Order declared that no Pakistani firm would have to pay import tariffs for a five year period. Such a benefit would help Pakistani firms gain an economic advantage in US markets.

In response, Senator Liberalinski filed suit in Federal Court asking the court to overturn the Executive Order as unconstitutional. The Senator argued that the President did not have the power to independently alter tax policy in the US. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress all power over bills concerning revenue and taxation.

The President’s lawyers counter that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has emergency powers that allow him a free hand in foreign policy.

Separation of Powers Case: According to the US Constitution, the President is empowered to appoint his cabinet, but only with the “consent of the Senate.” In the last few decades, confirmation hearings have become highly contested political events requiring nominees to become much more evasive about the answers they provide during hearings. In recent years, nominees have promised to behave, act, or make decision in a certain way, but then, after being confirmed, not acted as they promised during confirmation hearings. As a result of Congress’ frustration over such events, they passed the “The Revoking of Consent Act of 2005”. The Act provides that if a nominees, who is testifying under oath during a confirmation hearing, acts contrary to his testimony, while in office, is subject to having his/her confirmation revoked by a 60% vote of the Senate. If such an event occurs, the executive officer can be removed from office.

In 2006, Alberto Fernandez was appointed as the Attorney General of the United States by the President. One subject during his confirmation hearings was the treatment of terrorism suspect at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senator Mennedy from Massachusetts was concerned that the U.S was using torture as an interrogation technique. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Fernandez promised that using torture would not be allowed during his term as Attorney General. However, 10 months after being sworn in, a secret memo was discover, signed by the Attorney General, authorizing torture as an investigation technique. Upon hearing of such memo, Sen Mennedy immediately called for a vote on the Senate floor under the Revoking Consent Act of 2005 where he successful got 63 votes to revoke Mr. Fernandez’ confirmation as Attorney General.

However, Mr. Fernandez refused to leave office, and he was supported in this decision by the President. Sen. Mennedy got a District court order demanding the Mr. Fernandez leave office, where after, Mr. Fernandez appealed to the US Supreme Court. In his brief to the Court, Mr. Fernandez argued that Congress had violated the Separation of Powers doctrine by trying to interfere with the operation of the Executive branch and interfering with the President’s right to hire and fire Executive branch employees and appointees.

State Sovereignty Case: In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the “Equal Opportunity for the Blind in Education Act.” The Act required that all public universities post brail signs wherever English language signs existed. Furthermore, if universities used video TV screens to convey information, an audio system has to be set up as well. To enforce the act, Section 5 of the act granted citizens standing to sue their state governments if such “blind-friendly” signs were not posted. The act provided that citizens could sue for up to $5,000 per infraction.

In 2002, Malissa Jones, a blind student at Mississippi State University sued the Mississippi state government of 10 violations of the Act for a total of $50,000. According to her filed briefs, none of the University bathrooms signs were accompanied by a brail sign. As a result, Ms. Jones has accidentally walked into a male bathroom. The State of Mississippi responded to her briefs arguing that the State is immune under the 11^th Amendment from civil suits. The state argues that the Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution by passing the EOBE Act.