It’s not easy being an appellate lawyer. Cases can be highly technical and densely complicated, yet lawyers often speak about them at such a dizzying clip that untrained observers might feel as if they had somehow wandered into an Aaron Sorkin show. Add interruptions from the bench as judges pepper counsel with questions, and the tension ratchets up exponentially. Clearly, lawyers are more likely to succeed if they know the facts of their case, applicable laws and the relevant history backwards and forwards.
One of the most valuable opportunities for law students to rehearse arguments and polish their demeanor is the moot court competition. This point was forcefully and repeatedly made when GW Law hosted the 75th annual Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition’s final round in Lisner Auditorium on the George Washington University campus on Jan. 30, with a distinguished panel of guest judges evaluating the work of student advocates.
The triumvirate on the bench included Ketanji Brown Jackson, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. To her right sat Chief Judge David J. Barron of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. (He has a GW connection as the son of Jerry Barron, a former dean of GW Law.) To Justice Jackson’s left was Judge Roopali H. Desai of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where she is the first South Asian American judge to serve.
This trio could strike fear in the hearts of seasoned lawyers, but the four GW Law students appearing before them, all in their third year, were confident and carefully rehearsed. The thorny but fictional case they presented to the judges centered on the issues surrounding custody of a child, G.D., born in 2020 to a Caucasian mother and a Native American father. After the father is tragically killed in an automobile accident, the mother struggles to support her son. He is then placed in the foster care of Spencer and Tarra Addison, who two years later petition to adopt him. However, they are advised that G.D. is covered by a federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), passed in 1978 to protect the rights of American Indian children by ensuring they are placed in homes where their heritage will be reflected. The boy’s biological aunt, a Native American named Catherine Zhou, is willing to adopt him instead. She is awarded custody of G.D., now 4 years old, in 2023 over the Addisons’ objections.
Representing the Addisons, students Jordan Marcum and William Schubert argued that there was “good cause” to set aside the ICWA preference. Further, they argued that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause renders the preferences unconstitutional. The problem is further complicated because the “Chevron doctrine,” stating that federal agency regulations, such as those of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, should be given preference was scuttled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 in its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo. Students Claire Housley and Emma Stinson argued the opposite side of the case, that Zhou should be allowed to maintain custody of her nephew.
GW Law student Emma Stinson stands at the podium. With Claire Housley, seated at right, she represented the respondent. (Photo by Abdul El-Tayef)
Both teams performed well in a fraught contest. The competition is named for William C. Van Vleck, the longest-serving dean in the history of GW Law. This year, a record number of 124 upper-level students researched the problem. Each team of two competitors was required to submit a written brief and present oral arguments for each side in the case at hand. The competition as a whole is overseen by David Johnson, assistant dean for advocacy programs and professorial lecturer in law.
In a “half-time” session giving the panel of judges time to consider their response, GW Law Dean Dayna Bowen Matthew spoke with Johnson and a panel of alumni about the impact of the Van Vleck competition on their lives and what advice they would offer law students. They talked about the importance of being prepared and testified to how well the moot court competition helped them prepare. One of the most important professional skills for lawyers, they agreed, is being a good listener, and the moot court competition helps students practice that skill and others.
Acknowledging Johnson’s contribution to the program, Matthew said, “We put into our mission statement that this is a place of experiential education, and he makes it real.”
The complex and difficult problem involving G.D.’s adoption was devised by GW Law students Will Shorter and Brennan Sullivan, under the supervision of Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law and professorial lecturer in law.
When the panel of judges returned to the stage, they were full of praise for the students as well as for Matthew and for how smoothly the competition was run.
Justice Jackson congratulated both student teams for their excellent work and announced that the judges were giving three awards, the first to Marcum for best oral presentation. The second was to Housley and Stinson for best brief.
“A lot of work is done ahead of time to research the issues and to write a persuasive set of materials for the judges to review,” Justice Jackson said, before stressing the importance of writing well. Housley and Stinson were also named best overall team, though all competitors were roundly praised.
“You were all exceptionally poised and prepared,” Judge Barron said. Addressing audience members, he added, “You may be under the impression that this was a little bit easier than it actually looks because of how calm and collected they were.”
He praised the students for their agile responses to some tough questions from the bench. “You’re trying to win a case, but we’re trying to decide a case, and those are just very different enterprises,” he said.
Judge Desai also commended the students’ ability to recover when presented with challenging questions. In other comments, she praised them for knowing the judges’ names and pronouncing them correctly, which she said is “a small thing” that “makes a huge difference when you’re appearing in court.”
The fictional case they were arguing was “very, very difficult,” Justice Jackson said, involving complicated and nuanced issues. She lauded both teams for factoring very recent Supreme Court case law into their arguments.
Closing remarks were offered by GW President Ellen M. Granberg, who said this was the first moot court competition she has attended, but it won’t be the last. She, too, was full of praise for the competitors.
“May this be the first of many successes in your careers in the courtroom and your professional lives,” Granberg told them, before pivoting to congratulate everyone involved with the competition.
“I want to recognize the importance of your dedication to understanding and interpreting the Constitution,” Granberg said, “and to preparing yourselves for the challenges of defending rights and upholding the rule of law.”
