Ms. VeglianteAP GOVERNMENTMock Trial
DESCRIPTION: Before spring break, we learned about the judicial process of the Supreme Court. There is no better way to reinforce your understanding of how a case is heard and decided by the Supreme Court than to just have a mock trial of our own.
THE CASE: Fisher v. University of Texas. This case was heard in 2012 by the Supreme Court and the decision is set to be published this spring. If all aligns well, we will follow the case throughout the rest of the semester and see if our mock court decision is on target with what the Supreme Court says.
ROLES:will be assigned randomly
- Petitioner/Appellant: The person/organization/company who appeals the lower court decision to a higher court. (FISHER)
- Respondent/Appellee: The person/organization/company who argues that the lower court decisions were correct. (UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS)
- Supreme Court Justices: The federal judges who decide the case
- Amicus Currie Brief writers: You choose the lobby/special interest group to represent
PREPARATION: This mock trial will require extensive preparation outside of class, which means you will have to do your own research. Everyone will have an equal amount of work to do; however, the type of preparation- in conjunction with due dates- is dependent on which role you are given.
- Petitioner/Appellant: The lawyers on the Petitioners side will each write an argument of their own PRIOR to the mock court. The arguments should include prior court case precedents and dissenting and concurring opinions, as well as new arguments that can supported. The Petitioner lawyers will also come together and compile their arguments into one cohesive oral argument.
- Respondent/Appellee: The lawyers on the Respondent side will each write an argument of their own PRIOR to the mock court. The arguments should include prior court case precedents and dissenting and concurring opinions, as well as new arguments that can supported. The Petitioner lawyers will also come together and compile their arguments into one cohesive oral argument.
- Supreme Court Justices: Prior to the mock court, the members of the Supreme Court will be assigned to embody an actually member of the court. During mock trial, you are that person; therefore, you must research their judicial philosophy. PROIR to the trial, you will prepare a notecard that has a brief description of your philosophy. AFTER the mock court, the justices will decide who will write the majority opinion, and who will write dissenting and concurring opinions. Every justice will write an opinion.
- Amicus CuriaeBrief writers: In a Supreme Court case, many special interest and lobby groups write briefs to the court stating their opinions about the case. A few students will be writing these. PRIOR to the court, these students will get together and decide which side they will write briefs for. Each side must be represented. The groups writing these briefs do not necessarily have to be affiliated with the Petitioner or Respondent, but do have a stake in the outcome of the case.Students are allowed to decide which groups they will want to write a brief for. The Justices will take these brief opinions into consideration when deciding the case outcome.
PRODEDURES:
TODAY:Assign project; assign roles; group meetings to decide role within your role (10 minutes)
- Justices: Which justice will you embody?
- Lawyers: Which lawyer will give the oral argument?
- Brief writers: Which special interest group will you write for/ which side will you write for.
DAY OF TRIAL: Group Meetings for trial preparation (20 minutes)
- Justices: What questions will you ask? Based on the facts of the case, which way are you leaning prior to hearing arguments?
- Lawyers: Compile oral arguments
- Brief writers: Present to justices a summary of your brief (In real life, the justices would read your brief, NOT meet with you. For the sake of time, the brief writers will summarize for the court instead.)
DAY OF TRIAL: The trial itself
- Each side will present a 5-10 minute oral argument
- When the lawyers are presenting their cases, the Supreme Court is allowed to ask them questions to help clarify their arguments and further explain their ideas, BASED on their philosophies. The justices are allowed to ask questions at any time during either of the side’s presentation.
- After the oral arguments, the judges will deliberate for 5 minutes on what the outcome will be. They will also choose who is writing the majority, dissenting, and concurring opinions.
RUBRICS: The trial is worth 75 points: 25 points for your participation in the trial and 50 points for your written work. All written work, whether you are a justice, lawyer, or brief writer should be 2 pages typed.
- Justices:
Notecard with philosophy: 5 points
-Due day of trial
Majority, dissenting, or concurring opinion: 45 points
-Must be based on the judicial philosophy of your justice
-Due the class period after the test
Participation in trial procedures: 25 points
- Lawyers:
Argument Briefs: 50 points
-Due day of trial
-The arguments should include prior court case precedents and dissenting and concurring opinions, as well as new arguments that can supported.
Participation in trial procedures: 25 points
- Brief writers:
Amicus Curiae Brief: 50 points
-Opinions must be based on the stokehold of the interest group you choose
-Due day of trial
Participation in trial procedures: 25 points
FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - 2012
Facts/Background
In 1997, the Texas legislature enacted a law requiring the University of Texas to admit all high school seniors who ranked in the top ten percent of their high school classes. After finding differences between the racial and ethnic makeup of the university's undergraduate population and the state's population, the University of Texas decided to modify its race-neutral admissions policy. The new policy continued to admit all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes. For the remainder of the in-state freshman class the university would consider race as a factor in admission.
Abigail N. Fisher, a Caucasian female, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher was not in the top ten percent of her class, so she competed for admission with other non-top ten percent in-state applicants. The University of Texas denied Fisher's application.
Fisher filed suit against the university and other related defendants, claiming that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal protection cause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a violation of42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The university argued that its use of race was a narrowly tailored means of pursuing greater diversity. The district court decided in favor of the University of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Fisher appealed the appellate court's decision.
Constitutional Question
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions?
*Cited directly from: oyez.org
Essential Understandings:
Fourteenth Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”
Equal Protection:
The right, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to be treated the same, legally, as others in the same situation. If a law discriminates between one group of people and another, the government must have a rational basis for doing so. A law that discriminates on the basis of a supect classification -- that is, it makes a distinction based on race, gender, or another trait that has historically resulted in discriminatory treatment -- is constitutional only if there is a very compelling reason for the distinction.
Affirmative Action:
Policies of governments and other institutions, private and public, intended to promote employment, contracting, educational, and other opportunities for members of historically disadvantaged groups. Because they may favor some groups over others, affirmative action policies must be narrowly tailored to meet the institution's legitimate goals, such as remedying the effects of past discrimination or promoting full diversity in a school setting.