And May It Please the Court
Listening to U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Instructions for Teachers
- Prior to listening to oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, have your students prepare by reading the facts of a case and looking at the issues that will be presented before the Court, which are available at SCOTUSblog. Click on the case title on that page for more information about the case.
- Each student should access the graphic organizer linked here and on the case page. Review the prompts on the organizer with your students prior to listening to the oral arguments to give them an idea of what to listen for.
- You can also preview the format for them: First, the petitioner has two minutes to present their main arguments. Next, the justices ask questions in order of seniority (for two minutes apiece). The process lasts a total of 30 minutes. Then, the same process is repeated for the respondent. Finally, the petitioner has three minutes for rebuttal at the end.
- Using information from the case page, students should complete the top portion on the organizer for petitioner and respondent information.
- While listening to the oral arguments from attorneys and questions from the justices, students should take notes using the graphic organizer.
- After students listen to the oral arguments, debrief the case with them. Discuss how they would decide the case and why (the last section on the graphic organizer). Ask if they heard anything while listening to the oral arguments that helps them predict how a majority of the justices will vote in this case, either for the petitioner or for the respondent.
Past Cases
Chiafalo v. Washington — May 13, 2020, 10:00 AM (ET)
| Constitutional Provision(s) at Issue: First Amendment | Download Graphic Organizer |
Facts
This case deals with the issue of so-called faithless electors in the 2016 presidential election. In each political party’s state primary, a slate of electors is chosen who pledge that if their party’s nominee wins the general election in that state, they will cast their vote in the Electoral College for that nominee. Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the state of Washington in 2016, and so the Democratic Party’s slate of electors in that state was chosen to cast their electoral votes for her. But three electors ultimately cast their votes for neither Clinton nor her Republican rival Donald Trump. Instead, they voted for former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. They were each fined $1,000 for failing to fulfill their pledge under the laws of the state. (The case below, Colorado Department of State v. Baca deals with faithless electors, too, and has oral arguments scheduled for the same day. )
Questions Presented Before the Court
Is a fine imposed on electors who vote contrary to their pledge under state law a violation of those electors’ First Amendment right to free speech?
Legal Vocabulary
faithless elector (n.) – an elector in a state who votes in the Electoral College contrary to his or her pledge to vote with that state’s popular vote. (Click here for more details.)
Additional Resources
Click here for two-lesson series on the Electoral College. Activities include a civic scenario in which students make recommendations on what (if anything) should be done about this controversial institution, and a Civil Conversation on the question of slavery’s role in the creation of the Electoral College.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca — May 13, 2020, 10:00 AM (ET)
| Constitutional Provision(s) at Issue: Article II, Section 1; 12th Amendment | Download Graphic Orgainizer |
Facts
This case deals with the issue of so-called faithless electors in the 2016 presidential election. In each political party’s state primary, a slate of electors is chosen who pledge that if their party’s nominee wins the general election in that state, they will cast their vote in the Electoral College for that nominee. In the 2016 presidential election, Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the state of Colorado. An elector in that state had, therefore, pledged to cast his vote for her but instead attempted to vote for then-Ohio Governor John Kasich (a Republican). The state removed that elector and replaced him with someone who then voted for Clinton. (The case above, Chiafalo v. Washington deals with faithless electors, too, and has oral arguments scheduled for the same day.)
Questions Presented Before the Court
Does a faithless elector who is prevented from casting his or her electoral vote have standing to sue their state? And if so, do Article II and the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibit a state from requiring electors to vote in accordance with the state’s popular vote?
Legal Vocabulary
faithless elector (n.) – an elector in a state who votes in the Electoral College contrary to his or her pledge to vote with that state’s popular vote. (Click here for more details.)
standing (n.) – the capacity of a party (person or group) to bring a lawsuit against another party. (Click here for more details.)
Additional Resources
Click here for two-lesson series on the Electoral College. Activities include a civic scenario in which students make recommendations on what (if anything) should be done about this controversial institution, and a Civil Conversation on the question of slavery’s role in the creation of the Electoral College.
