Students Take Center Stage at Moot Court Competition

Authored by:

Students at the George Washington University Law Schoolperformed with distinction in the final round of the 76th annual Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court competition. That was the verdict issued by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States, leading a panel of three guest judges. He praised the students for their ability to appear steady under pressure, adding that even at the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers are sometimes palpably nervous.

"You may have been terrified, but you didn't show it," he told Amanda Hichez and Braelyn Parkman, arguing for the petitioner (Cindy Lieberman, attorney general of an imaginary state called New Columbia), and Kyle Donohue and Cameron Menendez, arguing for the respondent (a social media company called SocialAI).

The problem of the case, written by GW Law students Ryan Marcus, Khushal Shah and Andrew Wheelwright, centered on whether human review of social media content could be required under law. The students created the problem under the supervision of Jonathan Franklin, professorial lecturer in law and a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright U.S. LLP.

The problem involved SocialAI's fully automated platform, run by an artificial intelligence program called the BRaiN, short for Behavioral Recognition Artificial Intelligence Network. Foreseeing potential danger, the state of New Columbia enacted a law, the Commonsense Artificial Intelligence Review (Cair) Act, requiring human review of content flagged by users and, if requested, an explanation by a human of why problematic content is not removed. SocialAI failed to comply with this requirement and at least one user was hospitalized due to misleading advertisements promoted by BRaiN.

After New Columbia sued SocialAI for violating the CAIR Act, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the state's superior court. The motion was granted, then appealed to the state's supreme court, which affirmed the dismissal. In the final round of the moot court competition, the issue came before the "United States Supreme Court"-with the actual court's Chief Justice presiding.

Two other judges, both from the United States Court of Appeals, joined Roberts on the bench: Joan L. Larsenfrom the Sixth Circuit and Barbara Lagoafrom the Eleventh Circuit. The trio of judges peppered competitors with questions during their presentations, giving them and the many students in attendance a taste of what it is like for practicing lawyers to argue in a courtroom.

In welcoming remarks, Dean Dayna Bowen Matthewsaid that GW Law is distinguished by three words beginning with the letter "i"--influence, inspirationand impact, adding that the moot court competition "is a shining example of all three." After introducing the four finalists out of 124 upper-level law students who took part in this year's moot court competition, Matthew told them, "You have made your law school very proud."

The Van Vleck Moot Court Competition is named for a former dean, William C. Van Vleck, J.D. 1912, the longest-serving dean (from 1924 to 1948) in the school's history, remembered as an exacting teacher. A recruitment brochure for GW Law under his tenure included a sternly worded warning: "Examinations are graded severely with the purpose of weeding out the slothful, inattentive and incompetent."

Existing laws impinged on the problem's fictional ones. The students responded to difficult questions about whether New Columbia's CAIR Act violated the First Amendment protections afforded to SocialAI, and whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides some immunity to providers of interactive internet services, applied in this case.

While the judges took some time to mull over the arguments, a "half-time show" was presented by David Johnson, assistant dean for advocacy programs of GW Law. He commended students and faculty members for contributing to the success of the competition, presenting some with prizes. Chief Justice Roberts and the panelists then reconvened to issue their ruling.

"I don't know about the participants, but we're exhausted," he said, before praising the students for their briefing skills and oral arguments. "I was very impressed by your confidence and your ability to push back."

Though both teams did excellent jobs, he said, the judges ruled in favor of Hichez and Parkman, thus overturning the dismissals by the lower courts. Parkman was also awarded a prize for "best oral advocate" during the interval.

Student Christine Magume, president of GW Law's Moot Court Executive Board, presented the judges with tokens of gratitude before introducing President Ellen M. Granbergfor concluding remarks.

Granberg acknowledged the enormous amount of work done by the participants, particularly the finalists. She also thanked the GW Law faculty for preparing the students so well. "I want to recognize your dedication to defending the Constitution," she said, and to "opening the pathways of justice for everyone."

"Thanks to the Van Vleck Moot Court Competition this year, many will graduate from GW Law having argued in front of the Chief Justice of the United States," Granberg said. "GW Law gives them an experience like no other."