The Championship Round of the OT 2019 Harlan Institute-ConSource Virtual Supreme Court Competition

Thank you to Judges Costa and Willett and Justice Guzman. Congratulations to Curtis Herbert and Hayat Muse of Minnesota!


On the first Monday in October, the Harlan Institute and The Constitutional Sources Project (ConSource) announce the Seventh Annual Virtual Supreme Court Competition. This year, the tournament focused on Espinoza v. Montana v. Department of Revenue. Twenty-one high school teams advanced to the semifinal rounds. They prepared briefs, and presented live oral arguments via Zoom. These students are very impressive. Here are their entries, with links to their briefs.

In April we hosted the Semifinal Round and the "Elite Eight" Round. And on May 15, we hosted the Championship Round. The finalists were Curtis Herbert & Hayat Muse of Minnesota, who represented the Petitioners, and David Katz & Seldon Salaj of Connecticut, who represented the Respondents.

We were honored to have an august, all-Texas bench: Justice Eva Guzman of the Texas Supreme Court, and Judges Gregg Costa and Don Willett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After a competitive and lively argument, Curtis and Hayat were declared the winners. Congratulations to them! These students truly are remarkable. They could compete in any Law School moot court competition. We are so proud of them.

Here is the video of the competition:

And here are photos from the competition.

NEXT: A Nondelegation Challenge to Trump's Border Wall

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When I clicked on the hotlink for “entries” I was taken to the YouTube channel. Where is the link to the students’ briefs? Could you maybe reply here with that direct link or links?

    1. He makes a point of publicizing that he now no longer reads any comments or replies to his tweets, or any tweets where he’s tagged. (Probably a good move for mental health.) So I wouldn’t be surprised if he never reads or replies to the VC comment section. But a link to the material would be interesting. These high school students should be very proud of themselves. I love events like this.

      1. Agreed. I have volunteers for years and years to be a judge on my old law school’s Moot Court competitions. I especially enjoy reading the briefs. A real pity Josh’s solution for online incivility is to post and then run away. He certainly intended that we readers would have linked access to these student briefs. But, him sticking his head in the proverbial sand means that we will not have said access. A pity.

        Nick, thanks for the info on the good professor. I’ll remember that, for future responses to his OPs.

  2. What is a “juge”? A huge judge? A judge in a luge? A judge with jugs?

    1. Thanks — fixed this. (A juge is a French judge, but I appreciate that none of these actually was ….)

    2. Justice Al Coholic

  3. I see the VC finally got some nonwhite voices onto this blog, albeit in a roundabout way.

    1. The VC has always had a ton of nonwhites on this blog. Or are you talking only about Conspirators and guest bloggers? . . . lots of people who leave comments on the blog are not white and have been since forever.

Please to post comments