In the final round of NYU Law’s 52nd annual Orison S. Marden Moot Court Competition, four student finalists had to navigate the fiercely contested issues of book banning and teaching critical race theory in public schools during arguments before a panel of three federal appellate judges on March 13.
Abe Evans ’25, Charlotte Kahan ’25, Lauren May ’24, and Lydia Schiller ’25 argued both sides of a moot problem prepared by Isabella Sabri ’24. The problem presented two questions: whether a public school violates parents’ due process rights by teaching a sensitive topic without parental knowledge or consent, and whether students’ First Amendment rights are infringed when a school board limits the curriculum. Chief Judge David Barron of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Judge John Lee of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and Judge Holly Thomas of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit presided over the arguments.
In the case in question, petitioners Fern Arable, Avery Fussy, and Henry Fussy sued the respondent, Templeton School District, which had implemented an “America the Beautiful” program portraying American history in a positive light. At the same time, the district removed critical race theory materials from classrooms and suggested that students “switch to American names” and refrain from learning or speaking any language other than English, even at home.
On behalf of the petitioners, May argued that the district’s actions violated parents’ due process rights, while Schiller maintained that students’ First Amendment rights had been violated as well. On the respondent’s side, Kahan asserted that Templeton School District had not run afoul of parents’ due process rights, suggesting that allowing parents to dictate school curricula could lead to “a dangerously slippery slope.” Evans denied that the district had infringed on the First Amendment rights of students, arguing that curriculum and book selection was actually government speech.
After deliberation, the judges named Evans as best oral advocate and then offered their feedback to the students. Barron praised Evans’s ability to thread the needle between making the case sufficiently specific for judges who need to render an actual verdict and still defining a principle that would apply more broadly to similar cases. “It's a difficult mix,” said Barron, “because if all you’re telling us is, ‘Well, there are these facts that are different,’ then the judge says, ‘Well, I need some principle.’ So the judges are always pushing you back and forth. ‘Well, now you’re too specific.’ ‘Oh, now you’re too general.’ But I thought you did a really, really wonderful job of negotiating that tension.”
To the group, Barron added, “All of you, congratulations. I hope you continue being interested in appellate advocacy, because we depend on having lawyers before us who care about their work and are really good at it. You all have a great future ahead.”
Posted April 15, 2024
View photos of the 2024 Marden Moot Court Competition's final round:
