by Jeffrey Stanley

The nine justices approached the benches and donned their robes. The petitioner’s lawyers sat on one side of the room, the government’s team on the other, both facing the nine-judge panel. The Supreme Court of the United States was now in session.

“Because there’s no jury and no evidence, what kind of court is it? It’s a Constitutional court. The purpose of the court is to interpret the Constitution.” Rosa Tavares, the facilitator from Constitution Works who oversaw the day’s events, addressed teacher Ed Herzman’s seventh graders on the roles they had just assumed as participants in a Supreme Court case. The event, held at the Federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, was the culmination of the seventh graders’ rigorous, month-long study of the Constitution of the United States of America. (Reflecting the heightened security in post 9/11 New York, no cameras were permitted in the court building.)

Constitution Works is overseen by the Constitutional Education Foundation, the educational outreach branch of the Museum of American Constitutional Government based at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan. The organization works with the New York State and New York City schools to bring role-play workshops and events to students. This marks the first time in recent years that Brooklyn Friends School has participated in the program.

Rosa spent much of the morning going over proper courtroom behavior with the students. Procedure was indeed the theme for the first part of the morning, and there was lots of it. “Counselors, your responsibility is to convince this panel of judges to vote on your behalf. Remember, you cannot object. There is no evidence so there is nothing to object to; you can, however, rebut.”

She also explained the importance of good verbal communication skills. “The Chief Justice will admonish you twice to speak up. If you still cannot be understood the case can be thrown out. They don’t have time, they have a lot of cases to get through so speak clearly.”

Students were also required to address the justices with the phrase, May it please the court. “If you do not, you will be admonished to show proper respect for the court. If you are admonished three times for not showing proper respect your case can be thrown out.”

Finally, after the rules had been laid out, and after the enrobing and the swearing in of the justices, and the swearing in of the counselors, the justices were escorted out of the room.

As soon as the justices were gone the two teams of adversaries huddled on opposite sides of the court to confer in secret on the best ways to present their arguments and to capture the justices’ attention and sympathies. Meanwhile in the hallway Rosa gave the justices final coaching on what to look for, on remaining impartial, and on taking good notes (they’d need them later when they wrote up their final opinions).

The case centered on a fictional event in which a small Colorado newspaper, the Denver Dispatch, published an exposé on the existence of a secret US government anthrax research lab in the community. The article was the first of what was going to be a six-part series on safety conditions at the lab but the government, as part of its presumed wartime powers, has forbidden publication of the rest of the series claiming it would be a threat to national security.

One of the team of student lawyers representing the petitioner, the Denver Dispatch, began his opening statements. “How can we be at war with an emotion? A war on terror?” he asked. This was a case of freedom of speech and press, clear and simple. “A law which blocks free speech because of what might happen isn’t credible. Might is not true. There is no danger in printing these articles.”

But the nine student justices had done their homework and were versed in the issues, citing previous legal precedent in similar cases chapter and verse. “Isn’t saving lives more important than freedom of the press?” asked one justice. His question suggested that terrorists could read the newspaper article and exploit the information for destructive purposes.

Larger issues were also brought into the discussion; for instance, the United States is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which outlaws the use of biological weapons, so why does the facility exist at all? “This is not about the press creating a clear and present danger,” urged a lawyer for the newspaper. “This is about the government trying to save face.”

The petitioners were given thirty minutes to present their case, and then it was the government’s turn. Its lawyers took the position that in time of war, press freedom must be curtailed in order to prevent panic. “Civil strife created by the press will only further endanger the country.” The lawyers cited the preamble to the Constitution and its charge that the government must ensure domestic tranquility. Censoring these newspaper articles would be doing just that. “Like a parent, the government must keep some information from the people in order to protect them.”

“But,” one justice asked, “if a small, insignificant newspaper can get information on this facility so easily then couldn’t a powerful terrorist organization get it too? Why go after this small newspaper?”

Good question. The Middle School’s best brains worked through both sides of the issue, exploring the implications being raised by the justices’ questions. The case quickly dissolved from simple black and white to a murky gray.

This two-hour exercise in some ways resembled an old-school forensics meet, combining extemporaneous public speaking with debate skills and recitation. As the morning wore on and the sun beamed down on the students through the room’s high windows, their skills and composure were tested. Sometimes tempers flared.

“The Denver Dispatch is not trying to spark an uprising or a coup, it’s trying to inform the public what is going on in its own community!”

“But don’t you feel you’re putting our nation in danger?”

After concluding remarks were made on both sides, the judges were given their assignment: decide which side you’re going to vote for, and explain why in writing. “How do you think your vote for or against the Denver Dispatch will make the Constitution stronger?” asked Rosa.

They were given the night to write up their opinions as homework, due in their Chief Justice’s hands first thing the next morning. In the end, the court decided unanimously in favor of the newspaper.

However, this scenario was played out simultaneously in another courtroom in the building among the rest of the seventh graders, overseen by teachers Tony Soll and Ticia Vreeland. That group voted 8 to 1 in favor of the US Government.

Teacher and history department head Ed Herzman ruminated on lessons he hoped the students learned from these results. “I think the justices weighed their decisions pretty heavily on the effectiveness of the lawyers as orators,” he said. “People can interpret the same information in different ways.”