Lucas Hanback, Matthew Yoeli, Christina Davis, and Julian Helisek competed in the 59th Annual Van Vleck Moot Court Competition.

On Thursday January 23, GW Law hosted the 59th Annual Jacob Burns Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot court Competition Championship. Van Vleck is the largest and longest running upper-level competition conducted by the Moot Court Board.Each year's Van Vleck competition begins in the fall, when competing teams write briefs and present oral arguments on behalf of both petitioner and respondent. This year had a record number of 124 participants that argued in front of practitioner judges.

Joined by appellate judges Marsha Berzon of the Ninth Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, Justice Scalia heard arguments from 2L Lucas Hanback and 3L Matthew Yoeli for the petitioner, and 3L Christina Davis and 3L Julian Helisek for the respondent.

Written by Michael Rhoads, Rachel Mandell-Rice, and Sara Brauner, the problem combined substantive and procedural questions of law for participants to research, evaluate, and advocate. Professors Amanda Tyler and Orin Kerr advised the preparation of the problem.

The case concerned the petitioner, Melissa Kelly, a political activist from the fictional state of Jackson. The first issue before the Court was her challenge of a government search and seizure of her laptop computer. FBI agents went to her home to investigate an arson involving a religious-themed memorial. Though Kelly was not at home, the FBI agents found her computer in the living room. The agents requested permission from her roommate, Megan Brady, to take the computer, make a copy of the hard drive, and search it for images relating to the arson. Brady consented at first, but later withdrew her consent, which formed the basis of the Fourth Amendment challenge.

The second question involved an objection to the Government's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a juror during voir dire. Kelly's defense counsel argued that the removal of the juror on the basis of her atheism violated the precedent set by Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibited the use of peremptory challenges based solely on race or gender. The question before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in declining to extend Batson to include religion as a protected affiliation.

As students, faculty, and community members filled the Lisner Auditorium, people appeared excited about the program, especially anticipating Justice Scalia's remarks. "I'm just hoping Scalia says Special Agent Fickey, that's all I'm hoping for," noted 3L Jessica Fickey, whose name was featured as one of the FBI agents in the problem.

Before the start of the proceedings, Dean Lawrence gave brief opening remarks, noting that whatever area of the law students participate in, they learn to analyze a set of facts and a case as well as the ability to persuade. Dean Lawrence called the ability to persuade a "hallmark of civilized society" and commended all four finalists for their hard work, saying they were "already winners."

Rhoads, acting as Court Crier, began the proceedings with the traditional opening, "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" The petitioners' counsel presented their argument first, with Hanback arguing the Fourth Amendment issue and Yoeli arguing the Batson issue. The respondents' followed with Davis presenting the Fourth Amendment issue and Helisek presenting the Batson issue.

The differences in the competitors' styles was apparent, with Hanback and Yoeli speaking quickly and casually concerning the problematic points of the respondent's arguments, while Davis and Helisek crafted deliberate and thorough answers. All four competitors agreed that appearing before such distinguished judges was the best part about the competition. Said Helisek, "Appearing before that panel was very thrilling. A once-in-a-lifetime experience."

The anxiety of competitors and audience supporters was palpable throughout the proceedings. The bench showed little mercy on the competitors, with Judge Berzon interrupting both sides during their initial roadmaps. Slight tension was apparent between Judge Berzon and Justice Scalia, with Justice Scalia frequently pressing his hands to his forehead, processing the competitors' arguments and finding questions. Judge Sutton attempted to soothe the atmosphere with frequent "softball" questions and an understanding tone, though he also probed competitors' arguments in detail. 2L Danielle Weiner noted, "Judge Sutton is the type of man I would want to coach my kids Little League team every day."

Audience members seemed pleasantly surprised at Justice Scalia's good humor throughout the proceedings, though he commanded a strict presence on the bench. At one point, Hanback interrupted one of the judge's questions with a response that he was about to bring up Kyllo v. United States, a seminal Fourth Amendment rights case authored by Justice Scalia. Without hesitation, Justice Scalia responded, "We don't care if you were about to bring up Kyllo," smiling as the audience laughed.

Helisek also found himself at the mercy of the justice's humor, when he dismissed the notion that some atheists also believe in God. "I have never heard anyone say 'I'm a God-fearing atheist,'" he quipped. At one point during Helisek's argument, Judge Berzon presented a hypothetical to show that not all Catholics are against the death penalty, using Justice Scalia as an example. Settling back in his chair and smiling at the audience, Justice Scalia interrupted, saying "Actually, I have taken no position on that - I just apply the law."

After a short deliberation, the bench honored Davis and Helisek as the winners of the final competition. Davis also was awarded Best Brief and Helisek took home the award for Best Oralist for both the final round and the overall competition.

"It was so exciting--albeit also mildly terrifying--to advocate in front of Justice Scalia and Judges Berzon and Sutton, said Davis afterwards. "Julian and I prepared for months, but I can honestly say that it was totally worth it. The experience was just so wonderful. We are particularly thankful that so many of our friends and members of our family could come support us."

The judges also had comments for the competitors following the presentation of awards. Noted Judge Sutton, "I can't think one time I had to pull a punch and I can think of a couple times I wish my punches were a little harder." He told them that he believed they were better than most advocates who come before him at the Sixth Circuit. As most judges give that comment at moot court competitions, Judge Sutton was eager to prove the veracity of his praise, giving the competitors the phone number of his clerk, telling them to call when they passed the bar and ask to be assigned to a case.

Justice Scalia kept his remarks brief, commending the competitors for their hard work and the student authors of the problem for crafting a well-balanced problem. He also remarked that it was an honor to sit with two of the most well-respected judges on the appellate level, saying "It's always better to sit with two judges than seven." Justice Scalia also advised students, "Don't take umbrage at hypotheticals." He noted that judges do not care about the case or client as much as they care about the hundreds of cases that come after the current one. He cautioned students to beware of inviting concessions in their arguments and to know the difference between malicious and helpful concessions. Though he declined to say that the competitors were better than those advocates who come before the Supreme Court - "some are better, some are worse" - he said that the process the audience witnesses is just like the Supreme Court, lots of questions and probing the argument for weaknesses.

After the competition, competitors and audience members convened at a reception in the Marvin Center Grand Ballroom, where Justice Scalia spent twenty to thirty minutes speaking with individual law students and posing for photographs. One student in the crowd noted, "Your opinions have changed my life."