Standing before a panel of judges in a mock courtroom, fourth-year Marcus Ortiz recited his arguments for a legal case that he and his partner attorney, third-year Jeremy Zide, had been researching for months. The pair had placed as top competitors in moot court tournaments at San Francisco State University and the University of New Mexico School of Law. But this time was different; their prior achievements had qualified them to attend the American Moot Court Association’s National Tournament at the Texas Tech University School of Law.

UCSB Moot Court team members participated at the tournament. Top row: Former team captain Evelyn Thurman, Michael Kwok, Joshua Zhang and former team captain Ella Stitzlein. Bottom row: Olivia Shen, Uremia Mandal, Mary Sarukhanyan and Madison Calvillo. Courtesy of Sanika Newdakar

Economics and philosophy double major Zide and statistics and data science and political science double major Ortiz ended up placing in the top 16 teams at the American Moot Court Association (AMCA) 2024–25 season’s national tournament, which was held earlier this year from Feb. 14-15 in Lubbock, Texas. It was the first time the two had made it to AMCA’s annual national tournament as members of the UC Santa Barbara moot court team.

Moot court competitions are simulated Supreme Court cases — students compete in pairs and deliver oral arguments in front of judges about a hypothetical court case that involves two constitutional issues. AMCA creates a new case each year, for which students extensively research real court cases to prepare their arguments for tournaments.

Ortiz said that moot court participants must apply their knowledge of constitutional law and legal analysis skills when competing in tournaments.

“We learn about all of the relevant precedent that goes along with it in order to be prepared to talk about the law,” Ortiz said.

UCSB Moot Court consists of 20 members who compete in tournaments across the country against schools ranging from fellow University of California campuses to East Coast private schools such as Yale University and Patrick Henry College. 

“It was really interesting interacting with all these people from all these different places,” Zide said. “In terms of the like-mindedness of the people there, it was definitely pretty extraordinary.”

The cases that AMCA creates are inspired by current court cases and legally relevant issues. The hypothetical case that Ortiz and Zide competed in earlier this year centered on a college student who repeatedly encouraged his girlfriend to commit suicide over text, which led to her suicide. The case was based on a 2019 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Carter, which involved defendant Michelle Carter who stood trial and was convicted for encouraging and instructing her boyfriend to commit suicide, resulting in his death. 

Ortiz said that arguing this case in tournaments involved two key legal issues. Firstly, whether or not the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when police officers unlock a suspect’s cell phone by holding it up to their face and obtaining information without a warrant. Secondly, whether or not the First Amendment right to freedom of speech applies to telling an individual to commit suicide, and if said suicide actually occurs, whether that amounts to involuntary manslaughter.

Beyond doing legal analysis, Ortiz said that active listening is crucial to creating coherent responses to questioning in tournaments.

“You don’t want to go up and recite 10 minutes of whatever you have prepared,” Ortiz said. “It’s best to be listening to what the other side has to say and trying to be responsive to that while also keeping the judges engaged. It’s a lot of balancing that on top of knowing the legal issue inside and out.”

Ortiz and Zide said they found participating in moot court tournaments to be a rewarding experience.

“The nationals tournament was the last round of all of the moot court tournaments,” Ortiz said. “Being there at the law school and meeting people and talking about law is a cool experience on top of, of course, competing, was very nerve-wracking, but overall pretty rewarding.”

Sanika Newadkar, a third-year political science major and president of UCSB Moot Court, said that the organization often attracts students interested in the pre-law professional emphasis. 

“It really prepares you for constitutional law [classes] and the basic fundamentals that you’ll have to do in law school, like reading court cases, legal analysis and applying the law in oral arguments,” she said.

According to Newadkar, what differentiates moot court from other activities involving public speaking and oral argumentation, like mock trial and debate, is that it emphasizes legal analysis. 

“You’re actually dealing with real-life cases and arguing based on them,” Newadkar said. “I think moot court makes you question the government a little bit more than mock trial does — it’s a little bit more political science-y.”

In the 2025-26 tournament season, competitors will argue in a case that relates to gender-based affirmative action, an issue that is currently legally relevant. According to Newadkar, the hypothetical case relates to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a 2023 United States Supreme Court case that ruled race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Newadkar expressed hope for the future of the team, which has sent members to AMCA’s national tournament every season since 2020. According to an AMCA Instagram post, the UCSB moot court team was ranked fourth in 2024 Overall Top Programs.

“Our team has done really well overall in our arguments in the past few years,” Newadkar said. “We’re really picking up steam.”

A version of this article appeared on p. 7 of the May 8, 2025 print edition of the Daily Nexus.