On Thursday, February 5th, the George Washington University Law School hosted the 76th Annual Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition in Lisner Auditorium. Named after the longest-serving dean of GW Law, the competition is the law school’s “largest and longest running upper level advocacy competition,” where law students are given the unique opportunity to present their arguments in front of a distinguished panel of renowned judges. This year’s panel included United States Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts, the Honorable Judge Joan L. Larsen of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Honorable Judge Barbara Lagoa of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
“GW’s Moot Court Program is one of the best in the nation,” said Dean Matthews after introducing the competition and thanking the faculty and attendees. “GW’s values can be described in three words: inspiration, influence and impact. And the Van Vleck competition is a shining example of [these] three.”
A moment of silence filled the room as the finalists took their places and the audience rose in unison as the judges entered. At the front of the stage stood a spotlighted podium awaiting this year’s finalists (all 3Ls) to bring forth their cases: Amanda Hichez and Braelyn Parkman, representing the petitioner, and Kyle Donohue and Cameron Menendez, representing the respondent.
In teams of two, the finalists gave oral arguments in a case where the State of New Columbia filed a complaint against AI-directed social media company, SocialAI, Inc., for violating the State’s Commonsense Artificial Intelligence Review Act (“CAIR Act”), which required human review of any flagged content. After a State resident was hospitalized following their viewing of an advertisement on SocialAI’s platform of a misleading medical “cure,” the State alleged that the AI moderation of the platform was insufficient under the CAIR Act. The petitioner, SocialAI, appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the CAIR Act violated their Communications Decency Act and First Amendment rights.
From the outset, the judges formed a hot bench and frequently posed challenging questions during each teams’ arguments, pushing them to respond to any nuances or policy considerations for or against the platform’s moderation by AI. After hours of well-polished arguments and rebuttals brought to the panel of judges, the petitioner team of Hichez and Parkman emerged as the winners. The judges thanked both teams for their participation and commended their skillful reasoning to the challenging questions throughout the competition.
In interviews with the Nota Bene, the four finalists reflected on their experiences competing this year and shared some of their thoughts about their participation.
Hichez, when considering what she has learned and what inspired her to switch over from mock trial to moot court, explained her preference for legal analysis over performance. “Moot court felt closer to analyzing the law, rather than the theatrics of mock trial,” said Hichez. “I didn’t have a specific interest in First Amendment law [when starting,] but the competition taught me more in depth than any class.”
Parkman, who also won Best Oral Advocate in the competition, shared her long engagement with oral advocacy and why moot court was a natural fit for her. “I was always in it for the oral advocacy; brief writing was just the step to get to the real fun,” Parkman said. “I’ve been doing advocacy competitions for a long time; mock trial and moot court made law school a natural next step.”
Donohue, building on his prior experiences with moot court, aimed to continue pushing himself outside his comfort zone and delving into a niche area of law. “I did the first year competition, and I had a lot of fun with it,” he said. “You are coming in and having to learn an entirely new area of law—it’s really a lot of work in the beginning, just sifting through thousands of cases to really find what the issue was.”
For Menendez, his everlong passion for constitutional law motivated him to participate this year and explore this year’s statutory issue surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Act. “I’m really into and passionate about constitutional law,” said Menendez. “The whole premise of [Section] 230 is that it was bringing the First Amendment constitutional law to the internet.”
The teams of finalists also offered advice for law students considering participating in future Van Vleck competitions for how to best set themselves up as a successful runner.
Menendez directed his advice to encourage students to seize the moment, reflecting on how participating helped him become a more confident public speaker. “This has been the most rewarding thing I’ve done through all of law school. The biggest thing that I grew through this competition was my confidence,” said Menendez. “Don’t count yourself out. Put yourself out there and do your best, and with any amount of skill and the smallest amount of luck, things will work out.”
His partner, Donohue, agreed saying, “You can’t allow your mistakes to make you stumble. They [the judges and the audience] don’t know your script, and they don’t know unless you make them know. So just take everything in stride and keep going.”
Hichez added the importance of finding alignment with the partners you pair with. “Being paired with Braelyn made all the difference,” noted Hichez. “Find a partner who has a similar work ethic and the same goal from the start.”
Lastly, Parkman emphasized being comfortable putting yourself out there as part of the learning experience. “This competition is a marathon, not a sprint,” said Parkman. “It takes grit and resilience. You have to embarrass yourself and be bad first—that’s how you get better.”
The content of this article is a synopsis of information made available to the GW Law student body and independent sources. All content is independently published by the Nota Bene team and should not be interpreted as a reflection of the values or opinions of the University or its faculty, staff, administration, organizations, or other students.
This article is not intended to reflect the opinions of the Nota Bene, its authors, or its Editorial Board. If there are topics you would like to see covered, we encourage you to reach out to our team at notabene@law.gwu.edu.
