All simulations

Oyez

Hear a real Supreme Court case. Argue. Deliberate. Vote. Compare to what really happened.
Get the Teacher Code - Free Already have the code? Go to your dashboard →
U.S. Government / Civics Grades 9-12 7 roles 55 min 1 class period
U.S. Government / Civics Grades 9-12 7 roles 55 min 1 class period
The U.S. Supreme Court chamber. The class hears oral argument in a real First Amendment case, deliberates as justices grouped by judicial philosophy, writes opinions, votes, and then compares to the real Court's outcome.

Students play attorneys and Supreme Court justice chambers in a real First Amendment case. The class reads briefs, advocates argue, chambers deliberate through assigned judicial philosophies, and the room votes - then the real Court's outcome is revealed and the class compares. Five teacher-selectable cases run on the same engine.

Get Free Teacher Access Already have access? Go to Dashboard

Class Time

55 minutes

Designed For

1 class period

Roles

7 roles

Class Sizes

Core (5 roles, 3 chambers), Standard (6 roles, 4 chambers), Full (7 roles, 5 chambers)

Learning Objectives

5 objectives

Standards

8 standards aligned

Where This Fits in Your Curriculum

Run this inside the AP Government required-cases unit. Tinker, Texas v. Johnson, Morse, Citizens United, and Mahanoy all run on the same engine, and two of them are on the required list. In a regular civics course it lands in the judicial branch or First Amendment unit. Students need to know that the Supreme Court hears appeals and that the First Amendment protects speech. They do not need to have read the case, do not need to know the holding, and do not need any prior exposure to originalism or living constitutionalism, because each chamber receives its philosophy as a working method rather than a vocabulary word. Identical facts produce different outcomes depending on which interpretive method you are required to use, which means the composition of the Court decides cases as much as the Constitution does.

What Students Will Learn

Social & Emotional Learning (CASEL)

Aligned to the CASEL framework's core competencies. These are the SEL skills students actively practice while playing.

Flexible Class Sizes

Core (5 roles, 3 chambers)
Petitioner team, Respondent team, and 3 justice chambers (Originalist, Living Constitutionalist, Pragmatist). Right for classes of 10-18 students.
Standard (6 roles, 4 chambers)
Adds the Textualist chamber. Right for classes of 19-26 students - more chambers makes votes harder to predict.
Full (7 roles, 5 chambers)
Adds the Judicial Restraint chamber. Right for classes of 27-36 students - all five philosophies represented.

How the Game Plays Out

Turn 1: Briefing
Read the case. Get ready.
"What does the Constitution say about this dispute? Read carefully."
Turn 2: Oral Arguments
The advocates speak. The chambers listen.
"Which side's argument best answers the question presented?"
Turn 3: Conference
The justices deliberate. The opinions get written.
"How does our philosophy answer each Question Presented?"
Turn 4: Decision & Reveal
The Court votes. The real Court is unmasked.
"Did we reach the same outcome as the real Court? Why or why not?"

Roles Your Students Will Play

7 roles across 2 factions. Each has different information, different goals, and different leverage. Click any role to see their background and what they are trying to accomplish.

Petitioner Advocates
advocates
You are the legal team representing the petitioner - the party that lost in the lower court and is asking the Supreme Court to reverse. You'll receive a brief and a set of precedents. Your job is to deliver an oral argument that wins a majority of the chambers.

Your team gets a brief, key precedents, and the petitioner's central legal theory. You speak FIRST in oral argument. Aim for a tight 3-4 minute opening. Chambers will write questions on paper and hand them to the Justice Presiding (the teacher), who may read the sharpest ones aloud - be ready to handle the tough ones.

Goals
  • Convince a majority of the justice chambers to give your side's answer (YES or NO) on every Question Presented - more than half the chambers in the room, whatever the class size.
  • Anticipate and answer the strongest objections from the respondent
  • Use your strongest precedent (the case most similar to yours that came out your way)
Respondent Advocates
advocates
You are the legal team representing the respondent - the party that WON in the lower court and wants the Supreme Court to AFFIRM that decision. You'll receive a brief and a set of precedents in your favor. Your job is to defend the lower court's ruling and hold a majority of the chambers.

Your team gets a brief, key precedents, and the respondent's central legal theory. You speak SECOND in oral argument - you've heard the petitioner's pitch. Use that. Chambers will write questions on paper and hand them to the Justice Presiding (the teacher), who may read the sharpest ones aloud - be ready.

Goals
  • Hold the lower court's ruling - convince a majority of the justice chambers to give your side's answer (YES or NO) on every Question Presented, more than half the chambers in the room, whatever the class size.
  • Refute the petitioner's strongest argument with a precedent or distinction
  • Show why a ruling for the petitioner would be unworkable or wrong
Originalist Chamber
chambers
Your chamber decides cases through the lens of ORIGINALISM. You ask: what did the constitutional text mean to those who ratified it? You believe judges should apply that original public meaning - not update the Constitution from the bench. If the meaning needs to change, that's for Congress and the states (via amendment), not for unelected judges.

Cite the original public meaning of the text. Look to founding-era practice and Framers' writings. Treat precedent skeptically when it departs from original meaning. Famous originalists on the real Court: Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett. Real originalists vary in strictness: some would overturn a long-settled precedent that conflicts with original meaning; others accept settled precedent and apply original meaning within it.

Goals
  • Decide each Question Presented through the lens of original public meaning
  • Write a chamber opinion that anchors your vote in the constitutional text as understood at ratification
  • Resist updating the Constitution to fit modern preferences - that's the legislature's job
Living Constitutionalist Chamber
chambers
Your chamber decides cases through the lens of LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM. You believe the Framers wrote the Constitution in general terms (liberty, equal protection, free speech) precisely so it could speak to each generation in its own voice. Judges should interpret the broad principles in light of evolving social understanding. The text endures; its application grows.

Cite the broad principle the text protects. Show how modern understanding informs its application. Use precedent as a record of the Constitution's growth. Famous living constitutionalists on the real Court: Brennan, Marshall, Ginsburg, Sotomayor.

Goals
  • Decide each Question Presented through a living-constitutional lens
  • Write a chamber opinion that anchors your vote in the document's broad principles, applied to today's facts
  • Show why a frozen 18th-century reading would betray the Constitution's purpose
Pragmatist Chamber
chambers
Your chamber decides cases through the lens of LEGAL PRAGMATISM. You ask: what consequences will this rule produce in the real world? A rule that produces unworkable outcomes - or that the country cannot live with - is a bad rule, no matter how cleanly it fits a theory. Pragmatist judges weigh costs and benefits and ask whether a holding will sustain itself.

Identify the real-world consequences of a yes vs. no ruling. Ask which rule the country can administer. Balance costs and benefits across affected parties. Famous pragmatists on the real Court: Breyer, O'Connor, Powell.

Goals
  • Decide each Question Presented by weighing the practical consequences of each ruling
  • Write a chamber opinion that grounds your vote in workability and real-world impact
  • Identify the rule the country can live with
Textualist Chamber
chambers
Your chamber decides cases through the lens of TEXTUALISM. You focus on the ordinary public meaning of the text itself - the words on the page, read as a literate person would have read them. You overlap with originalism but you're distinct: textualists focus on WORDS, not on legislative intent or broad purposes.

Start with the plain meaning of the text. Reject reading purposes or intentions into the text that aren't there. Avoid balancing tests when the text gives a clearer rule. Famous textualists: Scalia, Gorsuch, Hugo Black (a famous early First Amendment textualist).

Goals
  • Decide each Question Presented through close reading of the constitutional text
  • Write a chamber opinion that grounds your vote in the words actually on the page
  • Resist arguments that depend on unstated purposes or atmospheric intent
Judicial Restraint Chamber
chambers
Your chamber decides cases through the lens of JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. You believe unelected judges should overturn elected officials' choices only when the Constitution clearly requires it. You favor narrow rulings over broad ones, defer to legislatures on close calls, and respect precedent even when you disagree with it.

Ask whether the Constitution CLEARLY compels a result, or merely permits one. Decide cases narrowly. Respect precedent (stare decisis) heavily. Famous restraint-oriented justices: Frankfurter, Harlan II, White, Roberts (often).

Goals
  • Decide each Question Presented through the lens of judicial restraint
  • Write a chamber opinion that defers to elected officials unless the Constitution clearly forbids what they did
  • Where possible, vote for the narrower ruling - don't announce big new rules

Hand Each Student Their Own Sheet

One click on the teacher dashboard prints a dossier for every role - background, goals, key facts, and their confidential briefing - plus the primary-source packet and a vocabulary sheet. Print them, or save as PDF, so each student reads their role on paper instead of huddling around one screen. The app still runs the votes and the action; the paper just carries the reading.

Primary Sources

Every role includes real historical documents. Students read them because they need the information to make their case.

Petitioner's Brief
Respondent's Brief
On Originalism
On the Living Constitution
On Active Liberty
On Reading the Text
On Judicial Restraint

Key Terms Students Will Learn

petitionerrespondentmajority opiniondissenting opinionconcurring opinionstare decisisprecedentFirst Amendmentfree speechsymbolic speechsubstantial disruptionoriginalismliving constitutionalismtextualismlegal pragmatismjudicial restraintjudicial activismbrieforal argumentquestion presentedholdingoyezin loco parentis

After the Game: Debrief Questions

  1. Did the chambers split along philosophical lines, or agree?
  2. Whose argument changed your chamber's thinking - the petitioner's or the respondent's? What was the strongest move?
  3. The real Court had a specific composition. If two of those justices had been replaced with justices of a different philosophy, would the case have come out differently?
  4. Each philosophy has a discipline - things it forces you to do that you might not have wanted to. What did your chamber's philosophy force you to do today that surprised you?

Ready to run this in your classroom?

Get free teacher access in 30 seconds. No account needed - just a passcode that unlocks the full game library, teacher guides, and session tools.

Get Free Teacher Access Go to Dashboard