By Mary A. Dempsey
FOR THREE QUARTERS OF A CENTURY, GW Law’s annual Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition—one of the most esteemed and enduring in the country—has stood out among competitions testing law students’ appellate advocacy skills. In the final round of Van Vleck, students argue before a panel of sitting federal judges, including, sometimes, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, as the competition marks its 75th year, that extraordinary tradition is on track to become a more regular fixture. In January, to close the 2024-25 finals, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson anchored the Van Vleck bench, and the law school has secured commitments from two other justices to judge the finals in the next two years.
“Starting with this coming competition, we hope to have a Supreme Court justice judge the finals of every competition,” said Dean Dayna Bowen Matthew. “Most lawyers never get to stand up and speak before the Supreme Court. I’ll never argue before the Supreme Court. Yet, over a three-year period, we will have 12 students who will have done so. This will be the first time in the school’s history that Van Vleck will host three justices in a row.
“On display will be our students’ intellectual sophistication, the excellence of their writing skills, the professionalism of their oratory skills, and the way our students support one another,” she added.
The dean said she is not at liberty to reveal which justices will take part in the 2026 and 2027 Van Vleck finals.
Justices of the Supreme Court have long been linked with the annual competition, an advantage that grows out of the faculty’s deep connections to the federal bench. Prior to Justice Jackson’s appearance in January, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Antonin Scalia, and Sonia Sotomayor judged the competitions as sitting justices. A second planned appearance by Chief Justice Roberts in 2020 was called off at the last minute when he was required to preside over the impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the U.S. Senate.
Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanagh, and Sonia Sotomayor also served as judges before they were named to the high court, sparking a joke inside GW Law that the competition is popular among justices, present and future.
“In the 24 years I have been involved with Van Vleck, there have been a lot of iterations but there is one consistency, the unique GW experience of being in DC. The presence of the Supreme Court justices really highlights that,” said David Johnson, GW Law’s assistant dean for advocacy programs. “Other law schools may have a justice bless a building or give a graduation speech, [but] there’s no learning going on with that. At the Van Vleck competition, GW Law students argue before legal intellectuals, three sitting federal judges. One may be a justice of the Supreme Court.”
“Engaging with them is our commitment to our students. And it distinguishes GW Law,” he continued. “I’ve overseen about a third of the Van Vlecks—this is my big life’s work—and I am proud to serve GW in this capacity.”
Distinguished Connections
GW LAW FACULTY MEMBERS ARE OFTEN INSTRUMENTAL in persuading the justices and federal judges to take part in the Van Vleck finals. Bradford Clark, the William Cranch Research Professor of Law, clerked for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, and he also served as a special master appointed by the Supreme Court to assist in the resolution of an original action between states. He was key in bringing Justice Kagan and the chief justice, as well as several federal judges, to Van Vleck.
Arranging the appearance of a justice can be a lengthy process—the lead time to get on a justice’s schedule is usually at least two years. Van Vleck’s reputation as a well-organized competition with excellent student advocates helps. GW Law faculty have also successfully tapped their connections to the federal bench, and alumni who sit on the federal bench or on state supreme courts often make Van Vleck appearances.
Sometimes serendipity also plays a part. Dean Matthew extended the invitation to one justice between courses at a formal dinner and he accepted on the spot. Justice Jackson decided to judge Van Vleck after a conversation with GW Law Senior Associate Dean Laurie Kohn, who is also the Jacob Burns Foundation associate dean for clinical affairs. The two women were long-time members of the same group of mothers who car-pooled each other’s children and helped one another out in multiple other ways, a relationship that Justice Jackson wrote about in her memoir, Lovely One.
“Shortly after Justice Jackson took her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, she and I spoke about her commitment to our local academic community,” Kohn said. “We discussed what would be the most appropriate and satisfying way to do that at GW. We talked about different options and Van Vleck was the one that was most exciting for her.
“She was enthusiastic about seeing the fruits of the students’ labors after they worked so many months on this competition. She was also excited about the opportunity to work with other judges on the panel, including GW law grads,” Kohn added.
Paul Schiff Berman, the Walter S. Cox Professor of Law, said faculty connections to the federal bench are not only useful in attracting judges to campus but they benefit students in a far-reaching way. Berman clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“Professors who have clerked for judges or justices can bring to the classroom a sense of how judges look at cases and how judges look at the world,” Berman said. “People tend to think of judges as politicians in robes voting for the Republican side or the Democratic side, but most judges do not look at the world that way. And to have professors who have seen from personal experience what it means to decide cases based on legal argumentation, rather than political preference, makes a big difference in the classroom.”
In addition, Berman said professors can speak to the value of clerkships based on their own personal experience, motivating students to apply for judicial internships during law school and clerkships after graduation.
In considering judges for a Van Vleck final, Clark said a justice is always asked first.
“And when we have our justice lined up, we put on our thinking caps and think what other judges would make sense,” Clark explained. “Justice Scalia came to moot court twice while he was on the bench. One of the times, we invited [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge] Jeff Sutton, one of his former law clerks to sit with him. We thought that would make him feel welcome and ensure that he had a good time.”
At that January 2009 Van Vleck final, Justice Scalia and Judge Sutton were joined by Marsha Berzon, a senior judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as the third judge. In her appearance at Van Vleck, Justice Jackson was joined by Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit David J. Barron and Judge Roopali H. Desai of the Ninth Circuit, both of whom spoke favorably of their clerks who went to GW. Justice Jackson and Judge Barron, the son of former GW Law Dean Jerome Barron, both had clerked for Stephen Breyer.
Kohn noted that while some members of the federal bench who serve as Van Vleck judges may step forward because they are interested in giving back as GW Law alumni, “so many of the judges just have a true commitment to training the next generation of lawyers, as evidenced by their engagement in training and mentoring law clerks.”
There is a double benefit to having federal judges take part in the Van Vleck competition, which is named for the longest-serving dean in the history of GW Law. Students get to have contact with members of the federal bench, and the judges get to see how GW students hold up under questioning. After the Van Vleck competition, Justice Jackson told Dean Matthew that she would let others know about her experience at GW.
“We always hope that justices and judges visiting campus for Van Vleck will eventually hire a GW graduate in the future,” Clark said.
He cited the example of Jonathan Bond, JD ’08, whose team won the 2006-07 Van Vleck final before Justice Alito. Bond, now a partner at Gibson Dunn, later clerked for Justice Scalia. In private practice and as an assistant to the solicitor general, Bond has argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, Clark said.
While Justice Alito was on campus for the moot court competition, Clark made a point of introducing Ryan Watson, JD ’07, to the justice. Watson was Clark’s research assistant at the top of his class and had already secured a prestigious clerkship on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Two years later, Justice Alito hired Watson as one of his law clerks.
Students in the Van Vleck finals not only have the honor of arguing in front of a Supreme Court justice, but they receive feedback and, typically, they and their families get to meet the justice privately. And, of course, it’s something to add to their resumés.
Although the justices must read the brief and prepare questions—against the backdrop of their already busy schedules— GW Law’s location means they do not have to travel. The Van Vleck finals are always scheduled when the court is sitting so the justices are in town.
The Van Vleck competition is a for-credit elective course open to 2Ls, 3Ls, and 4Ls. It caps at 124 students, a level that is often reached when it is known that a Supreme Court justice will take part in the judging. Johnson said the competition faithfully mirrors the experience of being a lawyer, except that no real clients are involved.
The heart of the competition is focused on a case—The Problem—that raises two constitutional law issues. For about a decade, Alan Morrison, the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, has supervised two students each year in drafting the fictional U.S. Supreme Court case. Morrison, who co-founded the Public Citizen Litigation Group with Ralph Nader in 1972, argued 20 cases in the Supreme Court.
The Problem is made public in the second week of the semester and student teams have about a month to write and submit their briefs. During the 2024-25 competition, Johnson put into place a volunteer team of attorneys, many of them alumni, to serve as adjunct professor coaches for teams. The coaching will now remain a permanent part of Van Vleck.
Students are not required to consult with coaches—the most recent Van Vleck was won by a team that bypassed coaching—but Johnson said 70 percent of student teams opted for the extra learning opportunity and experiential learning credit on their academic record. Coaches can talk to students about their arguments or offer basic instructions on the law, but they are not allowed to see the briefs before they are submitted.
On a Saturday in early November of each year, two preliminary rounds begin. Students who wrote a brief for the petitioner go up against students who wrote a brief for the respondent. Each member of the two teams has 15 minutes to present. The hour-long format mimics the time limits for arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“In the preliminary rounds, we’ve got students spread out throughout the law school and being judged in as many as 31 classrooms by 93 judges. These are 2Ls and 3Ls, many of them doing this for the first time. They’re nervous,” Johnson said. “You may have a speech prepared, but two minutes into it you get interrupted with questions, the same as an attorney does in the Supreme Court.
“You can see the case differently every time you go through a round. Students are competing with each other, but they’re also learning from one another. They’re taking things that they’ve heard in opposing arguments that can help them,” Johnson added.
The judges, consisting of alumni, coaches, and volunteer attorneys, provide feedback. Student scores determine their grades. The next day, the first advancement round of the Sweet 16 culminates in the quarter-finals. Two weeks later the semi-finals take place.
“All advancement rounds are kill or be killed,” Johnson said. “There are three attorney judges, and they are simply deciding who is the best advocate. In moot court, you are not necessarily being rewarded for being a silver-tongued devil, you are not being rewarded for the merit of your argument. You are being rewarded for putting time into your case.”
Johnson said as student teams survive each round, they get better “by leaps and bounds.”
“I can’t remember anything but excellence by the finals. The students are so excited and so prepared. They are doing what real lawyers do,” said Johnson. “And even if they are scared of the panel sitting before them, they know the case. They do not know the law better than the judges but they know their case better.”
The Van Vleck finals are a full-scale production, often held in Lisner Auditorium, with its more than 1,300-seat capacity. In February 2008, when Chief Justice Roberts and then-Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Guido Calabresi presided over the finals, the competition was simulcast on C-SPAN.
The feeling in the room during the finals is electric. There can only be one winning team—bringing home the lawyering lesson that you don’t win all your cases (although students can take the Van Vleck course more than once). The winners receive the Jacob Burns Award, which includes plaques and monetary prizes, over graduation weekend.
“We’re preparing legal leaders for the future. A lot of our graduating law students now have the opportunity not only to visit the Supreme Court and listen to arguments, but they can prepare for Van Vleck or apply for our new clinic that addresses issues before the Supreme Court,” said Dean Matthew. “Our school sits at the top echelons of the judicial food chain. Our students are being prepared at the highest levels.”
The Crux of the Competition
THE STUDENTS ARGUING BEFORE A PANEL OF FEDERAL judges in the finals of the Van Vleck Moot Court Competition draw the crowds, but there is an earlier—and equally important—element of the competition that also involves students: The Problem.
Alan Morrison, the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, supervises two students each year in drafting the problem, a fictional U.S. Supreme Court case that is the focus of the competition. The problem covers two constitutional issues. At times the fictitious cases have been harbingers of actual cases that later appeared before the high court.
“Sometimes I come up with the problem from watching what is going on in the court system and looking for issues that are open and interesting to students,” said Morrison, who has overseen the creation of the problem for the last 15 years.
In the three months before GW Law opens up registration for the Van Vleck Moot Court Competition each year, Morrison and two 3Ls selected from the school’s Moot Court Board—a student-run honorary society—immerse themselves in drafting the problem.
“I start by having the students do some basic research on the claims. Sometimes I tell them where to go to find information and sometimes they start on their own,” Morrison said. “We have to create everything. We usually don’t take existing statutes.”
The students, who often tackle the problem while juggling their summer jobs, receive academic credit for the work. They invent statutes and structure the case to ensure that the courts involved have proper jurisdiction, that the case issue hasn’t become moot and that there are no other potential glitches.
“Most are civil cases, and there usually is not a lot of real facts, just enough to make it interesting,” Morrison said. He said the work on the problem is, in a way, almost harder than the work of the competitors.
“I think that’s true,” said GW Law alumnus Jonathan Maier, who worked on the problem for the 2011-12 Van Vleck competition. “Writing the problem is a more serious role and exercise than arguing [in the competition]. Intellectually, it’s easier to be given a problem and then figure out your best arguments than to do the research and writing and thinking-through of a legal case.”
After the students finish writing the problem, they write a short summary of the case and its issues—a bench memo. They also prepare a series of questions for the first rounds of judges, who may not be steeped in the issues at play.
The experience adds valuable tools to students’ wheelhouses as they embark upon their legal careers. “I always tell students when they interview for a job to talk about something different. Students who work on the problem can say, ‘I had to create a Supreme Court case’ and then talk about the issues,” Morrison said.
Steppingstone to Love and Thriving Law Careers
FOR THE 2007-08 VAN VLECK MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 3L Melissa Colangelo and 2L Jeremy Glen found themselves with the same problem: their chosen partners were unable at the last minute to take part in the competition.
“Melissa and I didn’t know each other but we had a mutual friend who had been one of the Van Vleck winners the year before. He recommended that we do the competition together,” Glen said.
Colangelo, who had aspired to be part of an all-female team, was skeptical.
“I thought, ‘Oh, c’mon. He’s a 2L,” she joked. “But if someone puts you on the same email, you have to meet them, so I went to the Uptowner. Jeremy and I met, started talking about the Red Sox and how we liked hiking in Colorado. We ended up saying, ‘Let’s do this.’
“When I walked out the door later, my life had changed.”
For five months, they prepared for a fictitious case of a physician-assisted suicide that addressed issues of free speech and the constitutionality of a state-sanctioned suicide prevention act. The Van Vleck finals unfolded before Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt, and U.S. Circuit Court Judge Randall Rader, a GW Law alumnus.
Petitioner team Colangelo and Glen defeated respondent team Michael Hissam and Bonnie Vanzler. Colangelo was recognized as the best oral advocate while Vanzler was named author of the best brief.
Now married with two sons, Colangelo and Glen acknowledge that the hours together practicing for the competition “made the magic happen.” They say this referring to their romance, but they also note that the skills they used for Van Vleck are the same ones they tap in their careers today.
As appellate director at the nonprofit Children’s Law Center in DC, Colangelo has argued about a dozen times before the DC Court of Appeals, where she clerked after law school. Glen is of counsel at Steptoe LLP, specializing in complex commercial litigation.
Colangelo came to GW Law knowing she wanted a law career focused on vulnerable children and families. Prior to taking part in the Van Vleck Moot Court Competition, she was on a team that made it to the finals of the Domenick L. Gabrielli National Family Law Moot Court Competition. Before law school, she spent three years as a high school history teacher.
Glen’s journey to GW Law—and Van Vleck—was a bit more serendipitous. He studied music and biology before applying for law school, “not knowing what I wanted to do.” As an admitted student, he received an email noting that the Van Vleck competition final—that year with Chief Justice Roberts— would be broadcast on CSPAN.
“I had no idea what the competition even was, but I watched it and was enthralled,” Glen recalled. “From that moment, there was no doubt in my mind that I wanted to do the competition, although I still had no idea what was really involved. I decided that before even beginning law school and had the great fortune to reach that goal with Melissa.”
Glen and Colangelo said there “were a lot of nerves” in the weeks leading up to their Van Vleck finals but on the day they stood before the judges, they felt calm.
“When we won, it felt magical,” Colangelo said. “At the reception afterward, we joked that the next time we’d have our picture taken that much and greet so many people would be at our wedding. And in 2010, it was.”
From Van Vleck to Today's Headlines
JONATHAN MAIER LOVED ARGUING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL law issues when he participated on the winning team in the 2010-11 Van Vleck Moot Court Competition. He has carried that enthusiasm into his career, where he works on cases involving constitutional law and other important issues that draw national headlines.
One of the most recent resulted in U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruling in March that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had to respond to a records request from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), where Maier is a senior litigation counsel, because DOGE is likely subject to open records laws.
During a hearing, Maier described Musk’s team as a “black box agency that’s designed and dedicated to drastically cutting federal spending at virtually any cost.” CREW also expressed concern about reports that DOGE deleted or failed to archive encrypted text messages and had used personal email accounts to transmit information in violation of federal law.
Maier described Van Vleck, which is taught as an academic course, as one of the pivotal learning opportunities he experienced at GW Law.
“I think any experiential classes that law students can take while they are in law school, especially if they’re going to be a practicing attorney or practicing litigator … help you learn the full range of what it takes to be an attorney,” said Maier.
Today, as an adjunct at GW Law and a moot court competition coach, he is quick to tell students that Van Vleck also helps them figure out what they might like doing within the field of law.
Maier was a 2L when he teamed up with his friend Sean Sherman to win a Van Vleck competition that started out with 112 students. The case involved a California film production company that lost most of its work in the fictitious state of New Columbia after a production tax credit program favored in-state companies. The film company challenged the constitutionality of the tax credit.
“We took a lot of things away from the competition,” Maier said. “It was a big confidence booster to go through that experience as a 2L…You needed the right work ethic and we competed with people who were ahead of us in school. It taught me the importance of putting in the work.
“And I think it definitely helped when applying for jobs. Mock trial, moot court, and competitions in general show applicants who are challenging themselves,” he added.
He said he added a touch of his own during Van Vleck argument—a habit he continues to use.
“I said something that made one of the judges laugh. It taught me to take advantage of opportunities to be lighthearted and stay conversational. It is something I still do today,” he said.