Eight teams of high school students presented oral arguments in the Round of 8. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. My sincere thanks two Elizabeth Steeves (Yale) and Shemaiah DeJorge (Georgetown) for helping to judge the rounds. The top four teams announce to the championship round at the National Archives.

Match #1: Team #24266

Match #2:  Team #24346

Match #3: Team #24347

Match #4: Team #24348

Match #5: Team #24358

Match #6: Team #24627

Match #7: Team #24627

Match #8: Team #24629

Fourteen teams of high school students presented oral arguments in the semifinal round. The teams were superb. Truly, these high school students could compete in any law school moot court competition. My sincere thanks two Elizabeth Steeves (Yale) and Shemaiah DeJorge (Georgetown) for helping to judge the rounds.

The Round of 8 will be held the week of March 9, 2026. The championship round will be held at the National Archives in April.

Semifinal Match #1

Team #24081

Semifinal Match #2

Team #24266

Semifinal Match #3

Team #24346

Semifinal Match #4

Team #24347

Semifinal Match #5

Team #24348

Semifinal Match #6

Team #24354

Semifinal Match #7

Team #24355

Semifinal Match #8

Team #24357

Semifinal Match #9

Team #24358

Semifinal Match #10

Team #24359

Semifinal Match #11

Team #24360

Semifinal Match #12

Team #24627

Semifinal Match #13

Team #24628

Semifinal Match #14

Team #24629

Patriots v. Loyalists

Before The Honorable Continental Congress

Oral Argument Date: July 3, 1776

Statement of the Case

In honor of America’s 250th birthday, the Harlan Institute will host a very special Virtual Supreme Court Competition for the October 2025 Term. We will re-enact the debates over independence in the form of a moot court competition. Teams of two high school students will make the legal case for and against independence through written and oral advocacy. The top two teams that advance will present oral arguments in the case of Patriots v. Loyalists before a panel of federal judges in a very special location. 

Coaches can register their teams at the Institute for Competition Sciences.

Question Presented:

Should the United Colonies declare independence from Great Britain?

Primary Sources

This is a “closed” competition. Students will be limited to the use of the following primary sources that existed prior to July 4, 1776. Students cannot rely on the benefit of hindsight or knowledge of what happened after the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

Before 1773

1. 1690 – John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government – Chapters XVII (Of Usurpation), XVIII (Of Tyranny), XIX (Of Dissolution of Government)
2. March 22, 1765 – The Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament
3. May 29, 1765 – Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, by Patrick Henry
4. October 19, 1765 – Resolution of the Continental Congress in response to the Stamp Act (“The Stamp Act Congress”)
5. March 18, 1766 – An Act Repeaåling the Stamp Act by the British Parliament
6. 1768 – Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, to the inhabitants of the British Colonies concerning the Stamp Act by John Dickinson
7. March 1770 – The Bloody (Boston) Massacre by Paul Revere
8. November 20, 1772 – The Rights of the Colonists, Samuel Adams (Boston Committee of Correspondence)

1773

1. March 12, 1773 – Virginia Resolutions Establishing A Committee of Correspondence
2. April 9, 1773 – Committee of Correspondence (Transcription), Boston
3. May 10, 1773 – Tea Act Resolution by the British Parliament
4. May 28, 1773 – Resolutions of the Massachusetts House of Representatives Agreeing to the Virginia Proposal
5. October 16, 1773 – The Philadelphia Resolutions in response to the Tea Act
6. November 29, 1773 – Meeting of the people of Boston at Faneuil Hall to prevent the sale of East Indian Company Tea
7. December 16, 1773 – Tea, Destroyed by Indians
8. December 17, 1773 – Diary of John Adams after the Boston Tea Party

1774

1. March 31, 1774 – The Boston Port Act in response to the Boston Tea Party, by the British Parliament
2. May 13, 1774 – Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence
3. May 20, 1774 – The Massachusetts Government Act, by the British Parliament
4. May 20, 1774 – The Administration of Justice Act
5. May 20, 1774 – The Mecklenburgh (North Carolina) Resolutions
6. May 23, 1774 – Letter from the New York Committee of Fifty-One to the Boston Committee of Correspondence
7. May 27, 1774 – Association signed by 89 members of the late Virginia House of Burgesses
8. June 2, 1774 – The Quartering Act, by the British Parliament
9. July 1774, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, by Thomas Jefferson
10. July 18, 1774 – Fairfax County (Virginia) Resolves
11. July 19, 1774 – Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, New York
12. September 9, 1774 – Suffolk (Massachusetts) Resolves
13. September 9, 1774 – Heads of Grievances and Rights, Continental Congress
14. September 30, 1774 – Motion on Nonexportation and Defense, Continental Congress
15. October 10, 1774 – Message to General Gage, Continental Congress
16. October 14, 1774 – Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress (The Bill of Rights; a List of Grievances)
17. October 20, 1774 – Response from General Gage
18. October 20, 1774 – Continental Association, Continental Congress
19. December 1774 – Novanglus (John Adams) and Massachusettensis (Daniel Leonard)
20. 1774 – Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority by James Wilson
21. 1774 – A very short and candid appeal to free born Britons, an anonymous pamphlet

1775

1. January 13, 1775 – Address to New Jersey Provincial Assembly, by Governor William Franklin 
2. March 22, 1775 – Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq. On Moving His Resolution for Conciliation with the Colonies
3. March 23, 1775 – Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, Patrick Henry
4. July 6, 1775 – A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms by the Continental Congress
5. July 8, 1775 – Olive Branch Petition from the Continental Congress to the King
6. July 31, 1775 – Resolution, Continental Congress
7. August 23, 1775 – A Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition by King George III
8. November 9, 1775 – Agreement of Secrecy adopted by the Continental Congress
9. November 9, 1775 – Instruction to Delegates in Congress, The Pennsylvania Assembly
10. 1775 – Taxation no Tyranny, by Samuel Johnson
11. 1775 – Tyranny Unmasked: An Answer to a Late Pamphlet Entitled Taxation no Tyranny

1776

1. January 10, 1776 – Common Sense by Thomas Paine
2. March 1776 – Plain Truth by James Chalmers (Candidus), a response to Common Sense
3. April 12, 1776 – Halifax (North Carolina) Resolves by the North Carolina Assembly
4. May 13, 1776 – Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress, John Adams
5. May 15, 1776 – Preamble to Resolution on Independent Governments, Continental Congress
6. May 15, 1776 – Resolutions of the Virginia Convention Calling for Independence
7. June 7, 1776 – Jefferson’s Notes of Proceeding in the Continental Congress
8. June 7, 1776 – Lee Resolution introduced by Richard Henry Lee
9. June 10 and 11, 1776 – Journal of the Continental Congress
10. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence
    • Composition Draft
    • Fragment of the Composition Draft
    • Rough Draft of the Declaration
11. June 14, 1776 – Instruction to Delegates in Congress, The Pennsylvania Assembly
12. June 28, 1776 – Journal of the Continental Congress
13. June 29, 1776 – Constitution of Virginia
14. July 1, 1776 – Journal of the Continental Congress
15. July 1, 1776 – Arguments against the Independence of these Colonies by John Dickinson (Manuscript)
16. July 1, 1776 – Diary of John Adams
17. July 1, 1776 – John Adams to Samuel Chase
18. July 2, 1776 –  Journal of the Continental Congress
19. July 4, 1776 – Journal of the Continental Congress

Preliminary Round

Deadline: November 20, 2025 (11:59 PM ET)

All teams are invited to participate in the Preliminary Round. There will be a written component and an oral component. Submissions will be graded based on this rubric.

Written Component

Teams will be asked to answer the following ten questions in a neutral, objective fashion. At this point of the competition, teams are not yet advocating for or against a position. Each answer should be at least 200 words but no more than 1,000 words, and must cite at least two primary sources. This competition is “closed,” and students cannot cite any other sources. Carefully proofread the assignment for spelling, grammar, and usage. The use of generative AI is prohibited. Teams that are found to have used AI will be immediately disqualified.

1. Discuss the role that the Stamp Act played in the relationship between Great Britain and the Colonies from 1765 to 1772.
2. Discuss how the Colonies, and in particular the Committee of Correspondence, responded to the Tea Act Resolution of 1773.
3. Discuss how the Colonies responded to the Intolerable Acts of 1774 (The Boston Port Act, The Massachusetts Government Act, and the Quartering Act).
4. Discuss how the actions of the Continental Congress in 1774 moved the Colonies towards declaring independence. 
5. Describe the arguments advanced by patriots in pamphlets, speeches, and other writings from 1774–1776 that supported declaring independence.
6. Describe the arguments advanced by loyalists in pamphlets, speeches, and other writings from 1774–1776 that opposed declaring independence.
7. Discuss the Continental Congress’s efforts of reconciliation with Great Britain in 1775.
8. Discuss the deliberations of the Continental Congress in June and July 1776 that led to declaring independence.
9. Discuss how the text of the Declaration of Independence changed throughout different drafts in June and July of 1776.
10. Discuss writings, speeches, and other sources that influenced the Declaration of Independence.

Oral Component

Teams will be asked to present their ten questions in the form of an oral argument. Each student will answer five questions. Students are to avoid reading off prepared remarks (whether on paper or on a device), and must maintain eye contact. These recordings will be uploaded to YouTube. The recording must last at least fifteen minutes.

The Semifinal Round

Deadline: January 29, 2026 (11:59 PM ET)

Teams that advance to the Semifinal Round will be asked to prepare a “Petitioner” brief on behalf of the Patriots in support of independence. Teams will use this template. The brief should address at least the following seven topics: (i) the Stamp Act; (ii) the Tea Act; (iii) the Intolerable Acts; (iv) writings in support of independence; (v) loyalist writings in opposition to independence; (vi) attempts at reconciliation; and (vii) whether the Declaration of Independence should be adopted.

Oral argument will be scheduled over Zoom during the week of February 10. 

The Round of 8

Deadline: March 19, 2026 (11:59 PM ET)

The top eight teams that advance will be asked to prepare a “Respondent” brief on behalf of the Loyalists in opposition to independence. Teams will use the same template.

Oral argument will be scheduled over Zoom during the week of March 23. 

The Round of 4

The top eight teams that advance will participate in the Round of 4 during the week of April 6, 2025.

The Championship Round

The top two teams will advance to the Championship round which will be held in Washington, D.C. in a very special location at the end of April or beginning of May. The Harlan Institute will cover airfare and hotel for the students and up to two chaperones per team.

Noah Ha and Liam Aranda-Michel from Lake Oswego High School in Oregon represented the Petitioner. Lauren Hohlt & Caroline Ready from Creekview High School in Texas represented the Respondent. After a well-argued round, the judges selected the Respondents as the Champions, with Caroline Ready as best oralist.

You can watch the round here:

We are pleased to share these comments from our participants:

“Competing in the Harlan Institute’s Moot Court program for the past three years has been one of the most impactful experiences of my high school career. It has helped me grow tremendously in legal writing, public speaking, and critical thinking, while also deepening my passion for constitutional law. The opportunity to argue in Washington, D.C. for my final tournament was an unforgettable way to conclude my time with high school moot court . This program has given me a strong foundation in the Constitution and our legal system—one that I’ll carry with me as I continue on the path toward law school.”—Caroline Ready

“The Harlan Institute competition has been an incredible opportunity for me to explore the law and understand how it changes over time. By writing and presenting arguments on real cases currently before the Supreme Court, I learned to research deeply and stay informed on current events so I could answer any question a judge might ask. I started Harlan my freshman year where the competition was SFFA v. UNC considered the constitutionality of race-based admissions, to my sophomore year in arguing Moody v. Net Choice and considering whether a Florida Social media regulation complied with the first amendment, to my junior year where I worked on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, focusing on Texas regulation of explicit websites. Along the way, I’ve learned so much from both student volunteers and experienced attorneys. Thanks to Harlan, I’ve become much stronger at building legal arguments and presenting them with confidence.”—Lauren Hohlt

“What sets the Harlan Institute apart from other moot court opportunities are the two factors that have the most impact on students’ experience in moot court: case quality and judge expertise. Since Harlan always uses a pending Supreme Court case and doesn’t limit students to a specific set of case materials, students are able to engage with the case at whatever level of experience they have, from beginner to expert. The quality of judges is exceedingly rare—not only are the judges familiar with the case law and facts, they have read the competitors’ briefs prior to oral argument—that is something unique to Harlan in the world of high school moot court tournaments. I really appreciate the opportunities Harlan Institute has brought to students across the nation.”—Jonathan Cartray, Coach of Creekview High School

My students have been participating in the Harlan Institute’s Virtual Supreme Court Challenge for years now and every time I am impressed by the depth and insight that the competition inspires. The Institute has great instincts in selecting real Supreme Court cases that hone into key Constitutional questions. The students then craft briefs and prepare oral arguments to compete against teams across the country. The ensuing online oral arguments are both rigorous while offering supportive critique and advice. The opportunity for high school students to compete at his level and outside of the classroom has been terrific. – Gerrit Koepping – Coach of Lake Oswego High School

Round of 4 Match #1

Team #20601 v. Team #20094

Round of 4 Match #2

Team #20133 v. Team #20129

Round of 10 Match #1

Team 20133 v. Team 20129

Round of 10 Match #2

Team 20149 v. Team 20241

Round of 10 Match #3

Team 20135 v. Team 20094

Round of 10 Match #4

Team 20133 v. Team 20608

Round of 10 Match #5

Team 20601 v. 20134

Semifinal Match #1

Team #20133 v. Team #20604

Semifinal Match #3

Team #20059

Semifinal Match #5

Team #20149 v. Team #20088

Semifinal Match #6

Team #20089 v. Team #20090

Semifinal Match #7

Team #20135 v. Team #20094

Semifinal Match #8

Team #19837 v. Team #20134

Semifinal Match #9

Team #20091

Semifinal Match #10

Team #20601

Semifinal Match #11

Team #20605 v. Team #20608

Semifinal Match #12

Team #20093 v. Team #20241

Semifinal Match #13

Team #20095

The Virtual Supreme Court Competition helps students gain the skills they need to understand, synthesize, and advocate for reasoned legal positions on timely and relevant constitutional issues, and in doing so deepens their commitment to the rule of law. The program directly supports the highest goals of the Center for Civic Education to develop enlightened and responsible members of our society, and it is a privilege to be a part of this important work. Christopher R. Riano President, The Center for Civic Education Member Board of Advisors, The Harlan Institute

Tournament Instructions

• Whether Texas House Bill 1181 should be reviewed with rational-basis review scrutiny or strict scrutiny?

Phase 1 – Research and Write Your Brief

1. Table of Cited Authorities: List all of the original sources, and other documents you cite in your brief.
2. Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less.
3. Argument: Structure your argument based on at least five Supreme Court precedents. The more authorities you cite, the stronger your argument will be–and the more likely your team will advance.
4. Conclusion: Summarize your argument, and argue how the Supreme Court should decide this issue.

• OT 2023 – Moody v. NetChoice
• OT 2022 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
• OT 2021 – New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
• OT 2020 – Torres v. Madrid
• OT 2019 – Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
• OT 2018 – Timbs v. Indiana
• OT 2017 – Carpenter v. United States
• OT 2016 – Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer
• OT 2015 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (II)
• OT 2014 – Zivotofsky v. Kerry
• OT 2013 – National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
• OT 2012 – Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (I)

Phase 2 – Virtual Mentoring

Phase 3 – Preliminary Round

Phase 4 – Virtual Rounds

• Semifinal Round: 2/10/25, 2/11/25, 2/12/25
• Round of 8: 2/24/25, 2/25/25, 2/26/25
• Round of 4: 3/24/25, 3/25/25, 3/26/25

Phase 5 – Championship Round Rounds

Instructions

The students and their coaches offered these generous comments about the competition:

“I have had the opportunity to compete in the Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court for the past two years, mooting both SFFA v. UNC and Moody v. NetChoice during this time. The competition has been one of the highlights of my junior and senior years, and given me an opportunity to thoroughly study the cases and experience the work of written and oral appellate advocacy. The trip to DC for the championship round was incredible; I greatly enjoyed both visiting the Supreme Court and arguing at Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute. Competing in Harlan has improved my legal writing and speaking skills, which I know will serve me well in years to come. I strongly recommend the competition to students considering a career in law, and wish next year’s participants all the best with the OT2024 case!”

-Kevin Bizily

“I’ve participated in many speech and debate-related activities throughout high school, but my time competing in Harlan’s Virtual SCOTUS Competition stands out. The competition gave me a unique outlet to expand my love for the Supreme Court, allowing me to experience the kind of oral arguments I love listening to from a new perspective. Even after spending hours preparing for difficult hypotheticals and fine-tuning answers, standing up at the podium for the championship round required something different: The entire experience was like playing 4-dimensional chess as I learned to sense the nuance implicit in the questions, reading each as a tea leaf for where a judge was trying to push me. I’ve always heard that oral advocacy is an art, but after Harlan, I think I really know what that means for the first time.”

-Maxwell Steinberg

“I had a wonderful time participating in the Harlan Institute’s moot court competition, and I will recommend it to all of my friends who are interested in constitutional law! I look forward to hearing the Supreme Court’s ruling on Moody v. Netchoice in June and comparing it to our own experiences arguing the case.”

-Edward Napoli

“It’s great that there’s an opportunity for high school students, not just students in college or law school, to participate in a Constitution-centered moot court. I look forward to participating again both next year and the year after!”

–Nathaniel Marks

” In a time of polarization and increasing lawlessness, it is inspiring to see young people grapple with complex legal issues intelligently and civilly.”

Coach Eric DiMichele

Here are the photos from the round:

And here are photos from the Supreme Court:

Round of 4

Round of 4 Match #1:  Team #17038 v. Team #16886

Round of 4 Match #2: Team #17485 v. Team #17050

Round of 8

Round of 8 Match #1: Team #17038 v. Team #16974

Round of 8 Match #2: Team #17067 v. Team #17050

Round of 8 Match #3: Team #16985 v. Team #16886

Round of 8 Match #4: Team #17485 v. Team #17350