by Mary Frost
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE.
(photos of mock court preparation by Tony Soll)
CADMAN PLAZA EAST — In a tense courtroom confrontation, nine blue-robed Supreme Court justices pondered an issue of far-reaching constitutional importance at the federal Bankruptcy Court yesterday morning.
It was docket number 93800, the case of the Denver Dispatch vs. The United States, and the justices were asked to rule on a case that pits a newspaper’s First Amendment right to publish against the government’s claim of national security.
A year ago, the Denver Dispatch printed the first in a series of articles revealing the presence of a secret government lab to produce anthrax-x in Bolder, Colorado — an issue of great community concern — and the U.S. government was seeking to block the rest of the series.
At this point it must be revealed that the attorneys for the Denver Dispatch (who sat on the left), the government’s team of lawyers (on the right) and the nine justices were actually role-playing seventh-graders from Brooklyn Friends School. The mock Supreme Court hearing was the culminating experience of a month-long study of the U.S. Constitution under the auspices of The Constitution Works, a project of The Constitutional Education Foundation.
Students of history teachers Ticia Vreeland, Tony Soll and Erin Mansur-Smith worked intensely for the past month, learning the ins and outs of the Constitution and its amendments, the role of the three branches of government, the specifics of this particular issue and relevant Supreme Court precedents. But while the hearing did not have the actual force of law and the events were fictional, the constitutional issues argued at the courthouse represent issues that have been grappled with by the Supreme Court for years.
After the judges signed an oath of office and the attorneys were sworn in, Rosa Taveras, the facilitator from Constitution Works, asked the students to explain what was at issue in the case. “Freedom of the press guarantees that we have the freedom to print this article,” said one attorney. “The First Amendment guarantees the right that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press,” said Taveras. “What does that mean?”
“It means Congress can’t make laws to stop us,” another student replied.
“Why Congress?” Taveras pressed. “What are they responsible for?”
“Making laws,” several students replied.
“We are a land of values,” Taveras said. “The people have set up borders on the government and how far it can go. On the other hand, [we’ve] entrusted the government with the responsibility to protect the people. The government is responsible for national security.”
The Trial Begins
Each side had 30 minutes to present its case, followed by a short rebuttal period. Taveras stressed that attorneys had to present constitution-related arguments. She also advised that 50 percent of the argument was the actual delivery. “It’s your responsibility to wake them up. A good attorney can make anybody interested in their arguments.”
The chief justice banged her gavel and said, “Order in the court,” and the hearing began.
“The first amendment says that Congress is not allowed to stop a newspaper from publishing," said one attorney for the Denver Dispatch, citing Justice Brennan. Another attorney argued that the more the community knew about the anthrax-x plant, the more they would be able to plan for an evacuation in case of a terrorist attack.
Yet another attorney for the newspaper cited a precedent from 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg gave the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. “Justice Black said it is wrong to put national security before the First Amendment. The New York Times won the case in the Supreme Court." Several times a huddle was called to iron out a point.
The respondents also had 30 minutes to make their arguments.
“We believe national security should be put above the First Amendment," said the lead lawyer for the U.S. He cited The University of Minnesota, 1931. “Justice Hughes stopped a newspaper from publishing the sailing dates of Naval ships. It’s important for our defense that it not be told to our enemies."
The issue of what constitutes a “clear and present danger" was debated, along with the issue of being at war. The question of starting a panic among the townspeople was also considered. The justices then had their chance to ask clarifying questions, and a five-minute rebuttal period began. “Look at your notes," Taveras advised the attorneys, who held intense whispered conversations before their turns.
Finally the gavel banged, and Docket 93800 came to a close. “The justices will write their decisions and deliver it to the classroom,” Taveras said as the judges disrobed and the attorneys packed their bags. She thanked the students and teachers for their intense study — and warned the attorneys not to try to bribe the justices.
“The nation is as strong as our democracy. If there’s no First Amendment, there’s no democracy. But if there’s no national security, the nation is at risk," she said. “This is a case that has been in the Supreme Court for years and the Supreme Court still does not have an answer."
Head of the Middle School Joan Rappaport said that the students were “intensely interested in their study of the Constitution. They stood up, presented … they’re totally motivated. They worked as a team. It makes them understand that the Constitution is a living document. They’ll never forget what case law is about. "