.png)
 |
| Meagan Floyd and other moot court students from the McConnell Center |
By Meagan Floyd, Class of 2013
Upon mentioning that I am a member of a moot court team, most people respond with the classic, “Moot…meaning it doesn’t matter?” I then respond with a standard definition that moot court is similar to mock trial, however, unlike mock trial, moot court participants do not debate guilt or innocence of a defendant but rather the constitutionality of a circuit court decision.
Every year, the American Collegiate Moot Court Association creates a fictitious constitutional debate in Olympus State. Over the past four years, through the McConnell Center's Moot Court Team, I have come to know the ACMCA characters of Chester Commorfield and William DeNolf in a variety of roles–whether the two are partners petitioning for health care and same-sex marriage, college administrators writing an affirmative action plan, or a pair of friends running an undercover drug operation.
Each case is accompanied by 20 cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. Using this precedent, moot court competitors must craft an argument for both sides, the state and petitioners, and deliver a 10-minute oral argument in front of a panel of judges. However, the fictional case is perfectly crafted with enough loopholes that neither side could rightly win using only legal precedent.
My moot court partner Tyler Bosley, our coach Neil Salyer, and I recently returned home from ACMCA Nationals hosted at Regent University in Virginia. Although we were not the national champions, we couldn’t help reflect on the benefits of four years of moot court competitions.
Through moot court, I have learned more about the U.S. Constitution than any political science course could have taught me. I have learned to comb through hundreds of pages of legal decisions and apply the Bill of Rights to a number of modern-day problems. In the past few years, cases have featured the Affordable Health Care Act, life in prison for minors, and warrant requirements involved in online communications. By requiring participants to represent both sides of the case, I have been challenged in every belief and forced to think outside of the box in creating arguments that support my client. And beyond this preparation, moot court made me think on my feet. During that 10-minute oral argument, the judges can interrupt at any point–and they take full advantage of this privilege. This process causes me to stop mid-thought, answer what the judges want to hear through critically twisting and applying court precedent, and then dive back into me argument.
So though the name moot court may lend itself to the idea “it doesn’t matter,” and though Olympus State means nothing to the vast majority of the population, the lessons in constitutional history and critical thinking I have learned through participating in moot court are invaluable.
Meagan Floyd is a senior McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. She is studying political science and social change.