Supreme Court Debate Project

Where students click

Holdings stay hidden until debrief. Prep materials use earlier precedent and the case record. Students may not quote this Court’s opinion, vote, or “the Court held…” until you switch Journeys to Debrief mode.

Other features

• Reading levels: Standard and Simplified follow the student across pages (saved in the browser). Simplified is the same argument in shorter sentences, not a different story. Set it on the home page or any case page.
• Hard-side coaching: On Brown (Board), Kennedy, and Arizona the case page tells students what a historically real argument looks like — and what they may not argue.
• Progress saving: Work in sort/weigh, Speak, vault, Debate Prep, and Compare autosaves. A chip says “Saved on this device” or “Saved to your account” after Google sign-in (@edmonds.wednet.edu).
• Mobile: A Menu button opens navigation on phones. Press Escape to close the menu or Prepare dropdown.

Planned Improvements

• More Cases: Expand beyond the current 7 cases to include additional landmark decisions (Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, etc.)
• Challenge Level: An advanced tier with more detailed case information, additional primary sources, and deeper constitutional analysis for students ready for more rigor
• Enhanced Sourcing: Better citation support so students can properly attribute evidence in their arguments
• Fact-Checking Tools: Built-in verification to help students distinguish strong evidence from weaker claims
• Printable Handouts: PDF versions of the digital activities for classrooms with limited device access
• Teacher Dashboard: View student progress, assign specific cases, and track completion

Have an Idea?

This project grows through teacher feedback. If you have suggestions for new cases, features, or improvements, I'd love to hear them. What would make this more useful for your classroom?

The Driving Question

When, if ever, should the government be allowed to limit a person's constitutional rights in order to protect the community?

This is the unit’s big question — and it fits some cases better than others. Tinker, T.L.O., Payton, and Mahanoy are genuine rights-versus-order fights. Kennedy is two religion clauses colliding. Brown is equal protection. Arizona is federal versus state power.

Tell students: use the unit question when it fits, and use each case’s own constitutional question (on the case card and Background tab) when it does not. Do not mash Brown or Arizona into “community safety.”

Weekly Breakdown

Week 1 Building Your Foundation

• Launch: Play "Do I Have a Right?" to see how courts protect our freedoms
• Learn the Language: Review vocabulary flashcards (safe before debate — they do not reveal holdings)
• Real Story: Discover how Wong Kim Ark fought for his rights all the way to the Supreme Court
• How It Works: Resources page — what the Court is, how a case gets there, and Law words (amendments, tests, petitioner/respondent). Safe before any holding is revealed.

Week 2 Choose Your Case & Get Creative

• Meet the Cases: Home page cards — amendment, question, and two sides. Students explore without opening Journeys Debrief or Review quizzes.
• Rank Your Choices: Case Selection Google Form
• Design Time: Create a movie-style poster introducing your case to the class
• Think Deep: Discuss which cases fit the unit driving question and which need their own frame

Week 3 Become a Lawyer

• Assign case and side first so students read with a job. Keep Journeys on Prep mode (holding hidden).
• Background: Facts, people, Know the law (the clause and what the fight is actually about), the case question, and the two competing tests. Students who miss a term can tap a dotted word or open Law words.
• Sort & weigh: No score. Students choose which side they would use (or Both), then rank, steelman, and explain dual-use facts in Weigh.
• Evidence Vault: Primary excerpts — students write how each side could use them
• Speak: The only 60-second case theory. Out loud, then hot-bench questions with a partner. Do not assign a second theory in Debate Prep.
• Write: Debate Prep is the written speech (opening, arguments that end “under our test…”, sources, rebuttals, closing). It recaps Speak; it does not replace it. Google Case Prep Files are optional paper/offline backup.

Week 4 Debate, then debrief

• Debate: Present as if the Court has not spoken (2 cases per day)
• Debrief: Switch Journeys to Debrief mode. Reveal the holding, dissents, and Connecting to Today.
• Compare: Use the Compare Cases page (or the pair box on the Today tab) so students can see how a test travels to different facts.
• Review: Now it is safe to use case multiple choice, short answer, and Blooket.

Student Role

Students are constitutional lawyers representing either the petitioner or respondent in a real Supreme Court case. Petitioner/respondent is a legal label only — it is not “the kid” vs. “the school.” In T.L.O. the State of New Jersey is petitioner and the student is respondent. In Mahanoy the school is petitioner and B.L. is respondent. Badges on the case page show the party name first, then the legal role.

Their job is to:

• Know the facts of the record (not the later holding)
• State the constitutional question and the clause at issue (Know the law / Law words if they freeze on the vocabulary)
• Name the test their side wants the Court to adopt
• Build arguments that end with “under our test, this fact matters because…”
• Anticipate the other side’s strongest point (steelman) and answer hot-bench questions
• Speak a 60-second theory without notes on the Speak tab, then write the speech (not a second theory) in Debate Prep

The 7 Cases

Questions and sides match the home page. Assign a case and a side.

Student speech

• Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — First Amendment
  May a public school ban silent political armbands because officials fear disruption?
  Students vs. Des Moines schools
• Mahanoy v. B.L. (2021) — First Amendment
  May a school punish a student for a vulgar weekend Snapchat about cheer and school?
  Mahanoy schools (petitioner) vs. B.L. (respondent)

Search, privacy, and the home

• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) — Fourth Amendment
  May a school official search a student’s purse without a warrant?
  New Jersey, the State (petitioner) vs. T.L.O., the student (respondent)
• Payton v. New York (1980) — Fourth Amendment
  May police enter a home to make a routine felony arrest without a warrant?
  Payton vs. New York

Religion in public schools

• Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) — First Amendment (Free Exercise and Establishment)
  May a public school stop a coach from praying at midfield after games?
  Coach Kennedy vs. Bremerton schools. This is two clauses colliding, not “community safety.”

Equal protection

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — Fourteenth Amendment
  May a state require racially separate public schools if it claims the buildings are equal?
  Brown family vs. Topeka school board. Not a safety-vs-rights case.

Federalism — who writes the rules?

• Arizona v. United States (2012) — Supremacy Clause
  May a state add its own immigration crimes and police duties when Congress already occupies that field?
  Arizona vs. United States. Federal vs. state power, not “is immigration good.”

Coaching the hard sides

Brown — Board of Education

Give respondents a historically real theory: Plessy is precedent; Topeka’s elementary schools were found substantially equal in facilities; education is a state function. Ban arguments that any race is inferior. Debrief after: why a unanimous Court rejected even the “polite” version of separate-but-equal.

Kennedy — both sides

Coach: short personal prayer after the whistle; Free Exercise and private speech. District: 50-yard line, school gear, a parent’s report to Principal Polm that a son felt playing-time pressure, the October 16 crowd (the district said band members and cheerleaders were knocked down), and Santa Fe v. Doe. Treat playing-time pressure and the crowd injuries as the district’s claims, not as undisputed facts. Do not let this become “religion is good/bad.”

Arizona

The issue is preemption — who writes immigration rules — not whether immigration is good or bad. “Helping enforce federal law” vs. “a second immigration code.”

T.L.O. — party labels

Students mix this up. New Jersey (the State) asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, so the State is petitioner. T.L.O. is respondent. “Petitioner” does not mean the student.

Holdings stay hidden until debrief

Prep materials use earlier precedent and the case record, not this Court’s vote. Case Journeys has a Prep/Debrief toggle. Review quizzes and Blooket that mention holdings are for after the debate.