supreme court essay competition

2024 ESSAY CONTEST

The Honorable Robert A. Katzmann Justice For All: Courts and the Community Initiative & the Appellate Courts Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association In Honor of Second Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler

Contest Information and Prompt

Contest entry and rules.

In honor of Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and the 70th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown , the theme for this year’s essay contest is “70 years of Brown v. Board of Education : The Promise of Equal Protection of the Laws.” Consistent with this theme, students are asked to consider how the federal courts have interpreted and applied Brown since that decision was rendered, and to think critically about how the principles motivating that decision and the decision itself have influenced and continue to influence individuals, communities, and American society.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, includes the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that the state shall not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954), decided 70 years ago this year, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws that segregated students based on race violated the Equal Protection Clause. In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled an earlier decision in Plessy v. Ferguson , which held that if public facilities were equal, racial segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In articulating its landmark decision in Brown , the Supreme Court explained that it “must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation[,]” and could not view the problem before it by “turn[ing] the clock back to 1868 when the [Equal Protection Clause] was adopted, or even to 1869 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written.” According to the Court:

[E]ducation is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

The Court went on to explain that racial segregation is harmful in and of itself. Separating students “from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” And this “feeling of inferiority” may affect certain children’s ability to learn and deprive them of the benefits they would otherwise receive from their education.

The Court concluded that,

in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed

Decisions informing Brown or that apply Brown:

• United States v. Carolene Prod. Co. , 304 U.S. 144 (1938): In Carolene Products Company , the Supreme Court recognized that “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities” thus requiring judicial intervention.
• San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 1 (1973): In Rodriguez , the Supreme Court upheld Texas’s system of financing public schools through property tax assessments, which created a disparity in resources between wealthier and poorer tax districts, against a challenge under Brown and the Equal Protection Clause. In reaching this decision, the Court reasoned that “where wealth is involved, the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.”
• Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003): In Grutter , the Supreme Court held that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions” at least to a limited extent. The Court recognized that the benefits of diversity in an educational setting included enabling students to better understand persons of different backgrounds, and that a diverse student body helped make classroom discussion “livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting”.
• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. , 600 U.S. 181 (2023): In Students for Fair Admissions , the Supreme Court held that Harvard College’s and the University of North Carolina’s admission policies, which gave preference to certain applicants solely based on their race, were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court reasoned that the contested admission policies “further[ed] stereotypes that treat individuals as the product of their race, evaluating their thoughts and efforts—their very worth as citizens—according to a criterion barred to the Government by history and the Constitution”, thus contradicting the “core purpose” of Brown and the Equal Protection Clause.

You may want to consider one or more of the following prompts:

• Now, 70 years later, do you think that Brown’s promise of fully integrated public education has been achieved? If not, what else needs to be done?
• What does it mean to afford individuals “equal protection of the laws”?
• Brown concerned discrimination in school based on race. Do you think that students today face discrimination in school for reasons other than race? What can be done to change that?
• Are there circumstances under which the federal judiciary should not let popular views or positions influence its decision making? If so, what are they? If not, why not?
• When should the Supreme Court overrule prior cases, as it did when it overruled Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown?
• What types of diversity are meaningful in an educational setting?
• Are there other benefits like public education that we think are so important that they should be provided on an equal basis as a matter of right?
• In order to put their rulings into effect, judges often issue orders that require people or organizations to do certain things. Imagine you are a judge issuing an order to your school. What would you order to make your school a fairer place

Who May Enter : The contest will be open to high school students in New York. Students attending public, private, parochial, and charter schools, as well as home-schooled students of equivalent grade status, are all invited to participate. Note: Children of federal judges or federal judiciary employees are not eligible to participate.

Entry Information: Entries must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on April 26, 2024. Essays must be submitted electronically as a PDF to [email protected] . Please submit the contest entry form, available here , as a separate PDF in your email. Please do not put your name on your essay .

Length and Format : Essays must be between 500 and 1000 words. The essays must be double spaced and typed using size 12, easily readable font (e.g., Times New Roman, Garamond, etc.).

Judging : Judging will be based on the following criteria:

• Understanding of Brown v. Board of Education and how the federal courts have interpreted and applied Brown since that decision was rendered
• Analysis of how the principles motivating the Brown decision and the Brown decision itself have influenced and continue to influence individuals, communities, and American society
• Clarity and effectiveness in expressing the theme
• Grammar, spelling, and composition
• First place: $1,000
• Second place: $400
• Third place: $100

Winners will be presented with their awards at a federal courthouse. Additionally, the first-place essay will be published by the New York County Lawyers Association’s Appellate Courts Committee.

Release Forms : Contest finalists will be required to submit a release form allowing the Second Circuit to publish their essays in print publications and on public court websites (student essays published on public websites or documents intended for circulation to the public will be identified only by students’ initials).

Disqualification : Providing false information, failure to adhere to contest rules, plagiarism, off-topic essays, and failure to meet the submission deadline are all grounds for disqualification.

Essay Contest Flyer

These are just a few suggested resources. Students are encouraged to utilize other resources they may find as well.

• Brown v. Board of Education
• United States v. Carolene Products
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
• Grutter v. Bollinger
• Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/conversation-constitution-brown-v-board-education

https://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/8/Brown-v.-Board-of-Education

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka

• Courthouse Visits
• Civic Education
• Student Contests
• Reenactments
• Civic Ceremonies
• Adult Education
• Learning Centers
• Courts of the Second Circuit
• Annual Reports

U.S. Court of Appeals Library Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

[email protected]

(212) 857-8930

2024 Justice For All: Courts and the Community Initiative

• Undergraduate Essay Competition

The Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy is pleased to announce its winners for our seventh annual undergraduate essay competition.  Each year, students are invited to submit essays on a timely question related to foundational freedoms and responsibilities in liberal democracies.

For 2024, we invited responses to the question:

Should citizens be required to pass the US citizenship test before they can vote?

Our 2024 winners are:.

Mallory Firari :  Earning Your Rights: A Case Against Voter Eligibility Tests

Mallory opposes the proposal. She argues that “mandating a citizenship test for voting undermines a fundamental tenet of liberal democracy: the inherent and inviolable nature of rights.”

Benjamin Rothove :  Towards a More Informed Electorate

Benjamin suggests further consideration of the proposal because “Democracy is an inherently weak system of government, while uninformed democracy is a dangerous system of government.”

Felicity Klingele :  Challenging Barriers to Suffrage: Critiquing the Proposal of Civics Tests for Voter Eligibility in the United States

Felicity argues that the proposal would pose undue barriers to participation in democracy. Any policy regarding voting, she argues, should advance both participation and education, without impeding either.

Previous Competitions

“Is it time to abolish lifetime tenure for US Supreme Court justices? If so, what should replace lifetime tenure? If not, why not?”

Winners: Bryce Mitchell , Matt Wadhwa , Kylie Ruprecht

“Should the federal government be allowed to mandate vaccines?”

Winners: Renxi Li , Aaron Dorf , Zachary Orlowsky , Taryn Hanson

“Should patriotism be taught at UW Madison?”

Winners: Jacob Bernstein , Nils Peterson , Lucas Olsen , Cleo Rank , Tony Mattioli

“Should the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which states that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside’—be repealed or modified to restrict more precisely the definition of who may claim citizenship?”

Winners: Dana Coggio , Ben Johnson , August Schultz

“Are the goals of fostering freedom of speech on campus and of fostering a welcoming environment for all students incompatible?”

Winners:   Joshua Gutzmann ,  Rebekah Cullum ,  Zawadi Carroll

“Should the United States make military or national service compulsory?”

Winners: Maxwell Ruzika , Dana Craig , Jonah Edelman , Ellen Stojak , Nicholas Carl

“Should social media platforms be permitted to censor controversial speech?”

Winners: Anitha Quintin , Lucas Olsen , Matthew Kass

“Should the U.S. Electoral College be abolished, reformed, or left to the states to determine?”

Winners: Ean Quick , Garrett McLaughlin , Joshua Gutzmann

FOR UNDERGRADUATES

• Sifting & Winnowing: The Wisconsin Undergraduate Journal of Law, Political Science and Public Policy

FOR GRADUATES

• Postdoctoral Fellowship
• First Book Manuscript Workshop

FOR FACULTY

• Visiting Scholars
• Manuscript Workshop

• A+ A- Text Size
• About the Court
• Judicial Conference
• Courts4Civics /
• Essay Contest

Banner Graphic Images: Background: U.S. Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. - Left: Excerpt from page 9 (emphasis added) of the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education , May 17, 1954. Courtesy of the National Archives & Records Administration - Right: A nearly empty hallway at Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas, during the time that it was closed to avoid integrating, Sept. 1958. Thomas J. O'Halloran, Courtesy of the Library of Congress

*Entries for the 2024 Essay Contest are closed.*

*CONTEST DEADLINE EXTENDED TO ...*

*2024 Essay Contest Winners Announced*

Seventy years ago, the Supreme Court held in Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954), that racial segregation in public schools violates the United States Constitution. The Court recognized that public education is "the very foundation of good citizenship," and Brown 's impact on education and society has been the subject of much discussion and debate in our nation's history.

Has the decision in Brown , viewed through the lens of 2024, achieved its purpose of ensuring equal opportunity in public education?

Consider one or more of these questions in preparing your essay:

• What purpose, or purposes, does Brown 's goal of diversity in schools serve in educating citizens in a democracy?
• What is the importance of Brown and the equal protection of the laws in later educational or societal changes?
• What institutions or groups should play a role in ensuring racial diversity in education, and how?
• How did the decision in Brown impact other landmark Supreme Court decisions?
• In deciding cases with a major impact on society, like Brown , should the Supreme Court consider public opinion on the subject at issue? If so, how would the Court evaluate the public opinion in making its decision?

Who May Enter

The Fourth Circuit Student Essay Contest is open to all students currently in grades 6 through 12 from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Note: Prior award winners as well as children, grandchildren, stepchildren, and members of the household of a federal judge or federal judiciary employee are excluded from the competition.

Submission Deadline

Your essay and entry form must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 31, 2024 . The contest entry form has instructions for submitting your essay. Your essay must be submitted at the same time as your entry form.

• Understanding of constitutional principles (35 points) Demonstrates a clear understanding of the historical context and significance of Brown v. Board of Education .
• Analysis and interpretation (25 points) Provides thoughtful analysis and considers competing viewpoints before reaching a conclusion.
• Clarity and organization (20 points) Presents ideas clearly and in well-structured paragraphs. Maintains focus on a central theme.
• Evidence and support (10 points) Identifies and attributes information from credible sources. Students will not be graded based on citation format, but the reader should be able to easily identify the source.
• Grammar, spelling, and composition (10 points) Uses appropriate vocabulary and sentence structure, with minimal spelling or grammatical errors.

Exceeding the word limit, missing the submission deadline, using AI-generated content, plagiarizing content, providing false entry information, and not adhering to the rules are grounds for disqualification.

Length & Format

Essays are limited to the length indicated for each grade group . Citations should be placed in footnotes, endnotes, works cited, or a bibliography and are excluded from the word count. Submit your essay without your name in the following format:

• Grades 9–12: Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF document
• Grades 6–8: Text typed or pasted into form section
• Do not submit your essay as a link.

Winners will be announced in August 2024, and the winning essays will be presented at the Fourth Circuit's Constitution Day Program in September 2024.

Contest Flyer

Contact the Clerk's Office at [email protected] or (804) 916-2715.

Submit Your Entry Form & Essay

Constitutional Law Research: Law Student Writing Competitions: Constitutional Law

• Starting Points
• Casebooks, Introductions & Study Aids
• Additional Books
• Scholarly Legal Articles
• Reports, Studies & Data
• U.S. States
• Link to "Legislative Branch/U.S. Congress" page in BLS U.S. Gov't. Information LibGuide This link opens in a new window
• Law Student Writing Competitions: Constitutional Law

Sponsors/facilitators of student writing competitions provide more detailed instructions and rules at their websites.  Students need to review the information and rules available at these websites.  

Constitutional Law

Church, State & Society Writing Competition (annual)

• Sponsor: Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School
• Topic: "Papers should be focused, broadly, on topics related to church-state relations, law and religion, and religious liberty.  For guidance on selecting a topic, students may wish to view our Program website and mission statement: https://churchstate.nd.edu/"
• Format in 2024 Competition was: "Papers must be between 9,000-13,000 words, including footnotes and/or endnotes."
• Eligibility requirements in 2024 Competition included: "The competition is open to law students in good standing, enrolled in a traditional law degree (J.D. or LL.B.), a Master’s degree (LL.M.), or a doctoral degree (S.J.D./J.S.D. or Ph.D.) program at an ABA-accredited law school within the United States.  The competition is also open to recent graduates not yet practicing law (i.e., those completing clerkships or engaged in similar pursuits are eligible).  Co-authored papers will not be accepted."
• Prizes in 2024 Competition were: "First Place, $3,000 cash award; Second Place, $2,000 cash award; Third Place, $1,000 cash award; Honorable Mention, $500 cash award."
• Deadline for submission in 2024 Competition was: April 12, 2024.

Constance Baker Motley National Student Writing Competition (annual)

• Sponsor:  American Constitution Society (ACS) & University of Pennsylvania Law School ACS Chapter
• Topic in 2024 Competition was: Law student papers "furthering and promoting a progressive vision of the Constitution, law, and public policy."  Topic examples include: "census report, civil legal aid, civil liberties, constitutional convention, consumer rights, criminal justice, disability rights, freedom of speech, immigration, indigent defense, money in politics (including judicial elections), labor law, LGBTQ+ rights, privacy, protection of health, safety, and the environment, racial equality, religion, role of state attorneys general, second amendment and guns, separation of powers and federalism, women’s reproductive rights and reproductive freedom, voting and political process, and whistleblower protection."
• Format in 2024 Competition was: "Submissions must be original unpublished academic works by one author. The length must be between 25 and 50 pages, including footnotes."
• Applicant Qualifications in 2024 Competition stated : The 2024 Competition was "open to all law students who are current, dues-paying ACS National members."  See: ACS > Membership .
• Prizes in 2024 Competition were: "The winning paper author will be awarded $3,000 and each of the 2 runners-up will receive $1,000. The winning authors of the top 3 papers will be featured during the 2024 ACS National Convention and on ACS’s website and social media platforms. The top paper also receives an offer of publication in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law."

Deadline to apply was: Monday, February 5, 2024.

Diane and Stephen Uhl Memorial Essay Competition for Law School Students (also referred to as: First Amendment Scholars - Law Student Essay Competition )

• Sponsor: Freedom From Religion Foundation
• Topic in 2024 Competition was: "Law school students will be asked to respond to recent Supreme Court decisions that ignore the Establishment Clause by proposing language for a 28th constitutional amendment that would bring the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses back into balance. Additionally, students will then analyze how the proposed language would alter the result in a recent Supreme Court case."
• Format in 2024 Competition was: "Essays must be no longer than 1,500 (not including footnotes)."  Web page links to a document titled: Essay Prompt, Requirements, Eligibility, and Awards.
• Eligibility requirements in 2024 Competition included: "The contest is open to all ongoing law school students attending a North American law school.  Students will remain eligible to enter even if they are to graduate from law school by spring or summer of 2024."
• Prizes in 2024 Competition were: "FFRF will award cash prizes to the top three essayists ($4,000, $3,000, $2,000) and optional honorable mentions ($500), if so deserving.  All eligible entrants will also receive a one-year complimentary student membership to FFRF, which includes a digital version of 10 issues of Freethought Today ."
• Deadline for entry was: March 15, 2024.

Everytown Law Fund Law Student Writing Competition

• Sponsor: Everytown Law Fund
• Topic: "This competition asks students to consider how to advance gun violence prevention and gun safety through litigation in the civil and criminal justice systems."  Website provides examples of topics and links to descriptions/text of the 2023 winning submissions.
• Format requirements in 2024 Competition include: "Preferred submission length is 5,000 to 15,000 words, including footnotes, but may be as long as a law review note."
• Eligibility requirements in 2024 Competition include: "All submissions must be composed of original research and writing by currently enrolled law students at ABA accredited law schools. Law school notes and academic articles that you have submitted or you are planning to submit to law school reviews and journals for publication are eligible for submission. Note that submissions that have been previously published or accepted for publication are welcome but must be accompanied by written authorization for re-print to be eligible ."  " Employees of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, its affiliated organizations, and immediate family or household members of such employees are not eligible for the Competition."
• Prize Description in 2024 Competition: "Everytown Law may award up to three prizes: a first prize of $2,500 and two runners-up prizes of $1,000.  All three top papers may be eligible for publication on Everytown Law’s website or social media."
• Deadline: "All submissions must be received by Friday, May 31, 2024, midnight EST."   

Writing Prize for New Student Scholarship in Reproductive Rights & Justice (annual) - In future, check the website of If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice .

• Sponsors: If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, the Center for Reproductive Rights, & the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice.
• Suggested Theme in 2023 was: "The suggested theme for this year is  “A Different World Is Possible: Repro Health, Rights, and Justice Post- Dobbs .”   With the constitutional protection for abortion overturned by the Supreme Court, we encourage students to envision creative and expansive approaches to securing reproductive health, rights, and justice for all people.  Submissions might explore topics that intersect with If/When/How’s strategic initiatives, such as removing barriers to abortion access and supporting those who seek reproductive care outside the clinical setting, combatting criminalization, strategies for securing reproductive rights at the state or local level, and public funding of reproductive health care through an intersectional, reproductive justice lens.  All submissions on other reproductive rights and justice topics are welcomed."
• Format: In future, Information on how to apply and the length and type of accepted submissions should become available at the website of If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice .
• Prizes in 2023 were: "Winning authors will receive cash prizes: $750 (1st place), $500 (2nd place), or $250 (3rd place), and a copy of the textbook,  Cases on Reproductive Rights and Justice  (Murray & Luker). The first-place winning submission will also be granted a “presumption of publishability” and receive expedited review by the  Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice. "
• Deadline:  2023 Writing Prize Call for Submissions is closed.  A Feb. 29, 2024 email reply stated: "The Call for Submissions typically opens in August."
• << Previous: Link to "Legislative Branch/U.S. Congress" page in BLS U.S. Gov't. Information LibGuide
• Last Updated: May 10, 2024 6:27 AM
• URL: https://guides.brooklaw.edu/constitutional_law

Writing Competition

The  Harvard Law Review  is composed of second- and third-year law students who are selected via a six-day writing competition at the end of each academic year. The Review strongly encourages all students to participate in the writing competition, which consists of two parts:

• Subcite: this portion, worth 50% of the competition score, requires students to perform a technical and substantive edit of an excerpt from an unpublished article
• Case Comment : this portion, also worth 50%, requires students to describe and analyze a recent case

The competition uses a closed universe of materials provided to all competition-takers; no additional outside research of any kind is allowed or required. The use of any form of Artificial Intelligence during the competition is also strictly prohibited.

Based on the competition, fifty-four second-year students are invited to join the Review each year, including:

• Twenty selected based solely on competition scores
• Seven (one from each 1L section) selected based on an equally weighted combination of competition scores and first-year grades
• Three (from any section) selected based on an equally weighted combination of competition scores and first-year grades
• Twenty-four selected through an anonymous holistic review (see below for details)

The  Review  is committed to a diverse and inclusive membership and encourages all students to participate in the writing competition. Harvard Law School students who are interested in joining the  Review  must write the competition at the end of their first year, even if they plan to take time off during law school or are pursuing a joint degree and plan to spend time at another graduate school.

Timeline & Resources

The 2024 Competition will take place from Sunday, May 12 to Saturday, May 18 . Writing competition tips and Q&A sessions will be held in early and mid-April.

Registration will open in April 2024. We expect to invite editors to join Volume 139 over the course of several days in late July. Orientation for new editors is scheduled for the week of July 22nd and will take place remotely. Volume 139 will resume a past practice of an in-person Orientation for half a day near the start of the Fall 2024 Semester. Editors are expected to be fully available during this time. In August, editors will have Law Review assignments, but these assignments can be completed simultaneously with other commitments (internships, events, travel, etc.).

For more information about the competition, the following resources are available:

• The 2024 Application and Information Packet . The application information packet is designed to provide some specific guidance about approaching the case comment and subcite portions of the competition. Please note that the sample competition submissions included in the packet are merely representative and are by no means definitive examples.
• Tips Session and Q&A. Video of our April 1, 2024 writing competition tips session and our April 11, 2024 subcite Q & A session is available on our YouTube channel. The. This questions and answers document summarizes the Q&A portion of the April 13, 2023 session.
• Factsheet: This document responds to common questions and concerns we have heard.
• Sample Schedules: This includes a variety of writing competition schedules used by current editors.
• FAQ on Accommodations . See below for more information on disabilities and accommodations.

Competition & Membership Policies

Holistic consideration.

Applicants will have the opportunity to convey aspects of their identity which have led to the development of character qualities or unique abilities that can contribute to the Law Review , including but not limited to their racial or ethnic identity, disability status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. Applicants can do so by submitting an additional expository statement.  Statements will be considered by the Selection Committee only after grading of the competition has been completed. Statements will remain anonymous and will not be evaluated for quality of writing or editing, nor will they be assigned a numerical score.

Applicants are welcome to draft their expository statements before the competition week begins, and the prompt for the 200-word statement is as follows:

“You are strongly encouraged to use the space below to submit a typed expository statement of no more than 200 words. This statement may identify and describe aspects of your identity which have impacted your development of certain character qualities or unique abilities that can serve as an asset to the Law Review and are not fully captured by the categories on the previous page, including, but not limited to, racial or ethnic identity, socioeconomic background, disability (physical, intellectual, cognitive/ neurological, psychiatric, sensory, developmental, or other), gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, country of origin or international status, religious identity or expression, undergraduate institution(s), age, academic or career trajectory prior to law school, military status, cultural background, or parental/caretaker status. Additionally or alternatively, you may use this statement to identify and describe areas of academic or scholarly interest, career goals, or any other element of your identity that you would bring to your work on the Law Review .

Statements will be considered only after grading of the subcite and case comment sections of the competition has been completed. Statements will not be evaluated for quality of writing or editing, nor will they be assigned a numerical score. No applicant will be penalized in any way for not submitting an optional statement, and all optional statements are completely confidential.”

Deferral & Leave

Harvard Law Review will invite students to join Vol. 139 in mid-July. Students invited to join Vol. 138 who are taking a full-year leave of absence from HLS will be allowed to defer their membership in Law Review for the year. They may then join the Law Review as members of Vol. 140 in fall 2025 and serve as editors for two years. Editors typically serve for two full academic years to ensure ample time for training, acclimation to their roles on the Review , and opportunities to make collective decisions about our work.

Students invited to join Vol. 139 who are taking a fall-semester leave of absence from HLS are encouraged to still join as editors with Vol. 139. If joining with Vol. 139, editors will be expected to complete Law Review work during the fall, even though they are on leave from HLS. They will then serve as editors for two years. Alternatively, students taking a one-semester leave may wait to join until fall of the following year (fall 2025); in that case, they will have no Law Review obligations during the 2024-2025 academic year and will participate as Law Review editors for a single year.

Transfer Students

Prospective transfer students may take the competition at the same time as Harvard Law School 1Ls. Prospective transfer students are selected on the same anonymous grading basis as Harvard 1Ls and are eligible for 44 of the spots on the Review (in other words, all spots besides the 10 allotted to Harvard 1Ls for whom first-year grades play a role). Prospective transfer students may submit an anonymized, unofficial transcript when their 1L grades are released if they would like their grades to be considered in the Law Review ’s holistic review process. The Review ’s membership decisions do not affect the admissions decisions of Harvard Law School.

Recognizing that the competition schedule poses unique challenges to prospective transfer applicants, the Review also allows transfer students to take the competition at the end of their 2L year. Up to four spots are available for such students. However, no student may attempt the competition more than once, and this option is only available to transfer students who did not previously take the competition. Like prospective transfer students, rising third-year students may submit their grades, but they will not be eligible for the 10 slots that incorporate first-year grades.

Prospective 1L transfer students should email [email protected] for information about registering.

SJD Students

SJD students at Harvard Law School may serve as editors of the Law Review . To join, SJDs take the same writing competition as JD students and are eligible for 44 of the editorial positions (all spots besides those allotted to JD 1Ls for whom first-year grades play a role). SJDs should take the competition only if they are certain they have at least two years remaining in their program of study. Additionally, as with all candidates, SJDs are permitted to participate in the writing competition only once.

Disabilities & Accommodations

The Harvard Law Review is firmly committed to providing accommodations for students with disabilities and handles requests on a case-by-case basis. The Law Review is an independent entity and thus has its own accommodations system separate from Harvard Law School’s Dean of Students Office.

Accommodations requests can be submitted between Monday, March 11th and Friday, April 12th and will be processed on a rolling basis. Students are strongly encouraged to submit their accommodation requests as soon as possible even if they are not yet certain they will take the competition. Please see our answers to FAQ on accommodations to learn more about what documentation is needed.

The Law Review strives to keep information regarding disabilities and accommodations as confidential as possible. Nothing about your accommodations application or your receipt of accommodations will be part of the Competition entry that is considered in the selection process. All Competition grading is doubly anonymized. Jennifer Heath, a non-student HLR staff member manages the logistics related to our accommodations process, and accommodations recommendations to the Law Review are made by our testing consultant, Dr. Loring Brinckerhoff.

2021 Student Essay Competition Winner

The Chinese Exclusion Cases and Policing in the Fourth Amendment–Free Zone

By   trillium chang   on   september 16, 2021.

The Chinese Exclusion Cases created a world in which an entire class of noncitizens could be deported or excluded from the United States. Today, the ghost of the Chinese Exclusion Cases is still alive and well, interwoven into the lives of many citizens and noncitizens in the United States. Because of the Plenary Power Doctrine sanctioned by the Chinese Exclusion Cases, two-thirds of the U.S. population live in a Fourth Amendment–free zone where border officials can conduct warrantless searches with impunity. Minority populations, in particular, are subject to constant policing and suspicion: an experience that would not have been foreign to Mr. Chae Chan Ping and Mr. Fong Yue Ting.

Volume 73 (2020-2021)

Priam’s Folly

United states v. alvarez and the fake news trojan horse, by   michael p. goodyear   on   september 16, 2021.

In legal scholarship over the past few years, fake news has been criticized and pondered repeatedly. In many ways, 2020 was a year of reckoning which brought to the fore the myriad problems posed by fake news. This Essay uses the context of 2020 to critique the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Alvarez , the latest Supreme Court ruling on the issue of whether fake news is protected by the First Amendment. Alvarez was decided in 2012, before the true dangers of fake news during the Internet Age were made fully apparent to the public. While Alvarez upheld the noble idea of truth ultimately triumphing in the marketplace of ideas, in reality, Alvarez opened the gates to the pernicious dangers posed by fake news.

Background Essay: The Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights

Guiding Question: How has the Supreme Court decided cases in controversies related to the Bill of Rights?

• I can identify the role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil liberties.
• I can explain how the Supreme Court’s role has changed over time.

Essential Vocabulary

During the last 60 years, the Supreme Court has become perhaps the central defender of civil liberties, or freedoms that government is not allowed to restrict, in the United States. This role has been a relatively recent development that marked a distinct change from the Founding, when the Court mostly addressed government powers. The evolution of this role for the Court has greatly expanded popular expectations of enjoying individual rights. However, it has also been fraught with numerous difficulties, both for the constitutional order and for the Supreme Court itself, as it has become the center of controversy about rights.

Limited Government and the Supreme Court

The original Founding understanding of the Bill of Rights was that it limited the powers of the federal government to violate the rights of the people. When originally ratified, the Bill of Rights only applied to the national government, not to state governments. State governments had their own bills of rights to protect their citizens. This reflected the constitutional principle of federalism, or the separation of powers between state and national governments. The Supreme Court endorsed this Founding view that the Bill of Rights applied only to the national government in the case Barron v. Baltimore (1833).

Moreover, this also represented the principle of limited government, one of the foundations of protecting liberties. The national government had certain enumerated and implied powers that the three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—exercised in making, executing, and interpreting the law. Enumerated powers are those listed explicitly in the Constitution. Implied powers are those that government has that are not written in the document. The national government could not exceed these powers to violate the liberties of the people. To further this protection, states had their own bills of rights. The Declaration of Independence asserted that the ultimate protection of the people’s liberties is the overthrow of a tyrannical government after a long train of abuses.

The role of the Court was to hear all cases arising under the Constitution. After the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court’s role expanded to include determining the constitutionality of governmental laws and actions. However, there was debate over whether or not the other branches also had the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.

It is important to note that although the Court could rule a law or action unconstitutional, it was not necessarily the final word on the Constitution. In a speech critical of the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, Abraham Lincoln quoted Andrew Jackson, saying, “The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.” Lincoln was arguing that the Court’s authority and just precedents , or earlier laws or rulings, should be respected, but the Supreme Court was not necessarily the final word on the meaning of the Constitution and could make errors, as it did in Dred Scott . All the branches must interpret the document in the exercise of their constitutional powers for the ends of liberty, equality, and justice.

The Supreme Court, Incorporation, and the Bill of Rights from the Twentieth Century to Today

The due process clause of the 14th Amendment led to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, which meant that the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states. During the first half of the twentieth century, the Court incorporated the Bill of Rights selectively in a few cases. For example, it extended the First Amendment right of free speech against state violation in Gitlow v. New York (1925) and freedom of the press in Near v. Minnesota (1931).

The popular understanding of the Court as the protector of individual rights became widely accepted during the Warren Court (1953–1969) and after. Many of the decisions were controversial because Americans viewed the issues involved differently. Some Americans questioned whether the Court was the appropriate branch to define rights or whether it should be left to the other branches of government or the amendment process. The Court also controversially overturned the laws and common values of states and local communities for one uniform, national standard.

The Court expanded the application of the Bill of Rights (incorporated) to the states in several areas and protected civil liberties in new ways. For example, the Court banned school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading in public schools in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), respectively, for violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The Court protected the rights of students in local public schools in other ways. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Court decided that students had the right of free speech to protest the Vietnam War under the First Amendment. The students had worn black armbands to protest the war despite a warning not to, and the school suspended them.

The Court protected the rights of the accused in major cases during the mid-1960s. The Court stated that criminal defendants are entitled to an attorney in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). The Court excluded, or left out, illegally seized criminal evidence under the Fourth Amendment in Mapp v. Ohio (1964). In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court decided that police officers must provide a “Miranda warning” informing accused people of their rights before questioning them about a crime.

The Court also made key decisions on moral issues that were fiercely debated in American society. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court asserted that a “right to privacy” exists and is implicit in several amendments of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Court declared a state law banning birth control unconstitutional. The decision was a precedent for the use of the right to privacy argument in Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a right to abortion.

In recent decades, the Court helped protect gay rights. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court invalidated state laws banning homosexual acts. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court made gay marriage a right when it required states to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states.

The Supreme Court has left a mixed record regarding its decisions related to the Bill of Rights. On one hand, Court rulings have protected what seem like reasonable and fundamental individual liberties. On the other hand, the Court has made rulings on cultural, social, and moral disputes that often did little to resolve the wider debate over the issues and maybe even fueled division among Americans. In recent decades, for better or worse, Americans have increasingly looked to the Supreme Court as the protector of civil liberties and the final word on the Constitution.

Related Content

Background Essay Questions: The Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights

Supreme Court Case Scenarios: How Would You Decide?

The Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights

How has the Supreme Court decided cases in controversies related to the Bill of Rights?

• Skip to Primary Navigation
• Skip to Content
• Go to the home page
• Go to Latest news
• Go to the sitemap page
• Go to search
• Go to the Decided cases
• Go to the Current cases
• Go to the Complaints Policies and Judicial Conduct
• Go to the terms and conditions page
• Go to the contact us page
• Go to the accessibility statement page
• Accessibility
• Press office

The SUPREME COURT

The student writing competition.

• The Supreme Court
• Decided cases
• Court procedures
• Visiting The Court
• About The Supreme Court
• Latest news
• Current cases
• Ask a Justice
• Debate Days
• Introductory film
• Learning resources
• Legal Landmark films
• Student writing competition
• Visits for schools, colleges and universities
• Visits from overseas education institutions

The UK Supreme Court writing competition is a great way for those with a keen interest in law and the UK justice system to get involved and put their skills of persuasion to the test.

Students in year 12 or 13 in England and Wales, S5 or S6 in Scotland and Year 13 or 14 in Northern Ireland are eligible to apply for this fantastic opportunity and the chance to meet a Supreme Court Justice.

Applications for the 2020 competition have been marked by our judicial assistants and the winners have been selected.

• Alice Mumford
• Yana Imykshenova
• Beatrice Munro

We received a whopping 84 entries this year and our judicial assistants were extremely impressed with the quality of the essays from students across the United Kingdom. Well done to all who entered.

If you are interested in applying for the 2021 writing competition, please keep up to date with the Supreme Court website for information.

If you have any questions, please email [email protected] .

Useful documents

• Student writing competition information pack (PDF)
• Student writing competition entry form (DOC)

• Current Programs
• Past Programs

Student Writing Competition

The Society sponsors the CSCHS Selma Moidel Smith Law Student Writing Competition in California Legal History to promote research and writing on the California Supreme Court and the state’s legal history. The articles are judged by a panel of American legal historians and lawyers.

The winning entries from past competitions are listed below (as PDFs):

The 2024 Student Writing Competition

The California Supreme Court Historical Society is pleased to present the announcement of the 2024 CSCHS Selma Moidel Smith Student Writing Competition in California Legal History.

The 2024 Student Writing Competition Announcement

The 2023 Student Writing Competition

  The 2023 Student Writing Competition Announcement   The California Supreme Court Historical Society is pleased to announce the winners of the 2023 CSCHS Selma Moidel Smith Student Writing Competition in California Legal History.

1st:   “The End of Free Land:  The Commodification of Suscol Ranch and the Liberalization of American Colonial Policy.” Kyle DeLand

2nd:   “California’s Constitutional university:  Private Property, Public Power, and the Constitutional Corporation, 1868-1900.” Michael Banerjee

3rd:   “A Shameful Legacy:  Tracing the Japanese American Experience of Police Violence and Racism from the Late 19th Century Through the Aftermath of World War II.” Miranda Tafoya

Honorable Mention:  “White v. Kwock Sue Lum:  Chinese Adoption and U.S. Immigration Law in the Exclusion Era.” Michael Callahan, Josh Fuhrman, Alex Heffner, Grace Hwang, Henry McGannon, Abby Morris, Emma Peddrick, Maddux Reece, Christopher Sosnik and Jackson Warmack

This Daily Journal story covered the meeting announcing the writing contest winners.

The 2022 Student Writing Competition

2022 Student Writing Competition Announcement

The California Supreme Court Historical Society is pleased to announce the winners of the 2022 CSCHS Selma Moidel Smith Student Writing Competition in California Legal History.

1st:   “More than Moratoriums:  The Obstacles to Abolishing California’s Death Penalty.” Leah Haberman

2nd:   “San Fernando Valley Secession:  How a Quest to Change the Law Almost Broke L.A. Apart (and Whether It Still Could).” Ryan Carter

3rd:   “Wind of (Constitutional) Change:  Amendment Clauses in the Federal and State Constitutions.” Simon Ruhland

The 2021 Student Writing Competition

2021-Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “Surveying the Golden State (April 1850-June 2020):  Vagrancy, Racial Exclusion, Sit-Lie, and the Right to Exist in Public.”   Kayley Berger

2nd:   “Getting to Tarasoff :   A Gender-Based History of Tort Law Doctrine.”   Brook Tylka

3rd:   “California Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Law:   A History That is Still Being Written.”   Kelly Shea Delvac

The 2020 Student Writing Competition

  2020-Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “Ronald Reagan v. CRLA:   Politics, Power, and Poverty Law”    Taylor Cozzens

2nd:   “Breaking California’s Cycle of Juvenile Transfer”   Gus Tupper

3rd:   “Stop! Turn the Car Around Right Now for Federalism’s Sake! The One National Program Rule and How Courts Can Stop Its Impact”   Brittney Welch

The 2019 Student Writing Competition

  2019-Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “Right of Publicity in the Era of Celebrity:  A Conceptual Exploration of the California Right of Publicity, as Expanded in White v. Samsung Electonics, in Today’s World of Celebrity Glorification and Imitation”    Sarah Alberstein  

2nd:   “The Right of Free Speech in Privately Owned Premises:  Following up with the Robins v. Pruneyard Judgment”    Parthabi Kanungo  

2018-Announcement of Winning Entry

“How a California Settler Unsettled the Proslavery Legislature of Antebellum Louisiana”   Alexandra Havrylyshyn

2017-Announcement of Winning Entry

“California’s No-Duty Law and Its Negative Implications” Michaela Goldstein

2016 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “A Model for Juvenile Parole Reform: California’s Youth Offender Parole Hearings Challenge the Modern Parole System and Apply the Fundamental Principles in Graham and Miller to the Release Decision-Making Process” Courtney B. LaHaie  

2nd:   “Equal Protection and California Public School Finance” John James Daller  

3rd:   “Hinkley Groundwater Contamination — How Pacific Gas & Electric Avoided Negotiation:A Reassessment of the Changing Scope of Historical Mass Tort Cases” Cory Baker

2015 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “Laura’s Law: Concerns, Effectiveness, and Implementation”   Jorgio Castro

2nd:   “Inverse Condemnation: California’a Widening Loophole” David Ligtenberg

3rd:   “The Death Penalty Debate: Comparing the United States Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to that of the California Supreme Court’s and a Prediction of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Glossip v. Gross”  Kelsey Hollander

2014 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “The (F)law of Karma: In Light of Sedlock v. Baird”    Bradford Masters

2nd:   “California’s Anti-Revenge Porn Legislation”    Lauren Williams

3rd:   “Virtual Cloning”     Shannon Flynn Smith

2013 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “The Vine Vote: Why California Went Dry”     Jonathan Mayer

2nd:   “The Chinese Must Go”     Greg Seto

3rd:   “Is that a Laptop in your Pocket”     Jacob True

2012 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “All the Other Daisys”     Catherine Davidson

2nd:   “What’s Sunday All About?”     Jeremy Zeitlin

3rd:   “California Agricultural Labor Relations Act”     David Willhoite

2011 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “Devilishly Uncomfortable: CA Supreme Court …”     Mike Beitiks

2nd:   “The Taco Truck Rush”     Jaime Massar

3rd:   “Fed Gov’t Exceeds its Power to Regulate … ”     Pantea Rahbar

2010 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “The Case of the Black-Gloved Rapist”     Sara Mayeux

2nd:   “Jerry’s Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty”     Joseph Makhluf

3rd:   “The Last of the Beaches”     Justin Dickerson

2007 – Announcement of Winning Entries

1st:   “Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor’s Tax Philosophy”     Mirit Eyal-Cohen

2nd:   “Mosk and Capital Punishment”     Amber A. Trumbull

3rd:   “The Rise and Fall of Rose Bird”     Patrick K. Brown

• California Supreme Court Historical Society
• 4747 N. First Street, Suite 140
• Fresno, CA 93726-0517
• p: 800.353.7537

Princeton Legal Journal

Spring 2024 High School Essay Competition

Central to the PLJ’s mission is to provide opportunities for students to explore their own legal interests and to develop their personal editing and writing skills. As a result, the PLJ runs a writing competition for high school students to extend this engagement and accessibility to the law.

Spring 2024:

Topic: The First Amendment in Public Life

Winners: Matt Berkery, Maclain Conlin, & Luke Hwang.

Honorable Mentions: Ekaterina Chasovnikova, Ellie Sohn, & Pranav Gorty.

Speak Up: Speech First, Inc v. Sands, the Supreme Court, and Free Speech on College Campuses

Limiting Corporate Speech without Coercion?

Online Defamation: First Amendment Rights and Legal Standards for Unmasking the Identities of Anonymous Defendants

Spring 2023:

Topic: Emerging Issues in Law and Technology

Winners: Beatrice Neilson, Caroline Quirk, & Kaylee Yang.

Honorable Mentions: Deirdre Chau, Carson Loveless, Erica Yip, & Yike Zhang.

Carpenter v. United States, the Stored Communications Act, & the Third Party Doctrine in the Digital Age

The High Stakes of Deepfakes: The Growing Necessity of Federal Legislation to Regulate This Rapidly Evolving Technology

Google Monopoly: Searching for a Tech Competition Precedent

Essay Contest

2022-2023 Essay Contest Awards Ceremony, CT Supreme Court, June 2023

L-R: Justice Steven D. Ecker, Justice Gregory T. D’Auria, Hon. Barry F. Armata, Runner-up Danielle Cabassa, Statewide Winner Benjamin Nolan, Statewide Winner Siddharth Krishnan, Attorney Justine Rakich-Kelly, CBF Interim Executive Director Steve Eppler-Epstein, and Justice Andrew J. McDonald  (Photo credit: Tricia Rose, Tricia Rose Photography)

Welcome to the 2023-2024 Essay Contest! 

The contest is open to all Connecticut students under the age of 21 who are enrolled in grades 9-12, or their equivalent, at an accredited high school, vocational-technical school or adult high school credit diploma program (collectively “schools”) located within the State of Connecticut (“Connecticut school”).  The contest is also open to all Connecticut homeschooled students in grades equivalent to grades 9-12.

We are no longer accepting submissions for this year's contest - thank you to all the students who participated! Materials for the 2024-2025 contest will be available in October 2024.

Please be sure to review all of the contest rules, including those found at the submission link below.  Students should be mindful of the contest topic, and should review the full fact pattern carefully; essays not responsive to the topic will be disqualified.

Winner: $2,000 (2) Runner-up: $1,000

• Essay Topic

" Battle of the Bytes: AI vs. Academic Integrity "* *title generated by ChatGPT Click here  for a detailed description of this year's topic and fact pattern.

Contest Materials

• Contest Rules
• Judging Criteria & Procedures
• Student & Parent Release Form
• Previous Winning Essays

Essay submissions are judged on content/originality, organization, use of resource materials, and writing.  The Connecticut Bar Foundation and the James W. Cooper Fellows do not represent or endorse the accuracy or the reliability of any of the information, content, sources, or statements contained in any student essay contest entry in the Connecticut Bar Foundation James W. Cooper Fellows Quintin Johnstone Statewide High School Essay Contest.

About the Essay Contest

Now in its 24th year, the Essay Contest was started by the Foundation’s James W. Cooper Fellows in 2000.  The purpose of the essay contest is to get young people in Connecticut thinking about and exploring legal issues relevant to them.

In 2011, the Essay Contest was named after Quintin Johnstone, who was a professor at Yale Law School before his death in 2014.  Johnstone served as past president of the Connecticut Bar Foundation, participated in a variety of Fellows projects for many years, and was a longtime member of the Fellows Education and Program Committee, which helps to organize Fellows projects like the annual Essay Contest.

Last year's contest generated over 100 entries from across Connecticut.  The Foundation thanks the student essayists, and the schools and teachers who supported them, for their participation.

We also wish to thank the Connecticut Supreme Court for their continued support of the Essay Contest, and for welcoming us back to the court on June 6, 2023, for our awards ceremony.

Finally, we want to thank the over 140 attorneys and judges from across the state who reviewed and scored the essays last year. Justices, judges, and attorneys who participated in the final round of judging for the 2022-2023 contest were: Justice Richard Palmer, Judge Alexandra DiPentima, Judge Ingrid Moll, Judge Maureen Dennis, and Attorney Robert Harris.

Click here to view a complete list of the 2022-2023 Essay Contest Judges

2023-2024 Essay Contest Committee

Justine C. Rakich-Kelly, chair

Hon. Claudia Baio Jeff Blumenthal Sheila Charmoy Matthew Cholewa Ann-Marie DeGraffenreidt Susan Freedman Gary Giaimo Emily Gianquinto Gary R. Gold Hon. Ernest Green, Jr. Sara Greene Gail Hardy Rob Harris Hon. Maureen Keegan Noah Kores Tamara Kagan Levine Bill Logue Ernest Mattei Yamuna Menon Colleen M. Murphy Sara Nadim Hon. Maureen Price-Boreland Linda Randell Hon. Angela Robinson Dan Schwartz Carolyn Signorelli Hon. Nada Sizemore (Ret.) Jack G. Steigelfest Hon. James Tancredi Hon. Cecil J. Thomas Hon. Erika Tindill Dave Vatti Gayle Wintjen

• CT Fair Housing
• CT Legal Rights Project
• CT Legal Services
• CT Veterans Legal Center
• Center for Children's Advocacy
• NH Legal Assistance
• Lawyers for Children America
• Statewide Legal Services
• Open Communities
• Greater Hartford Legal Aid
• Children's Law Center

UK Supreme Court Blog EDITORS: Dan Tench, Emma Cross, Zainab Hodgson, Francesca Knight, James Warshaw and Natalie Haefner (CMS) Hugh Tomlinson KC, Matthew Ryder KC, Dévante Gravesande-Smith and Rebecca Khan (Matrix)

• Table of Cases (2009-2019)
• Table of Cases (2020 – Present)
• Privacy & cookies

2013 UKSC Blog Essay Competition

28 Thursday Feb 2013

UKSC Blog News Articles , Features

≈ 24 COMMENTS

1.   Judging the constitution: What role should the UKSC play in determining the constitutional law of the UK? or 2.   Rogue justice: Do we need more or fewer dissenting voices in the UKSC?

The competition is open to anyone studying an undergraduate or post-graduate degree at a UK university, and short-listed entries will be judged by recently retired Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. First prize is:

• publication of your essay on the UKSC Blog;
• publication of your essay on The Guardian’s website;
• one week’s work experience at Olswang LLP, with an opportunity to shadow Hugh Tomlinson QC and visit the Guardian offices;
• an iPad mini; and
• £250 in cash.

Selected runners up will also have their essays published on the UKSC Blog.

Entries should be in a “blog” style and should be sent to the Editors by 5pm on Friday 26th April 2013.

For the full rules, please click here .

24 comments

Chris McKee said:

01/03/2013 at 10:31

Does eligibility extend to BPTC graduates?

Cathryn Hopkins, Olswang said:

01/03/2013 at 11:39

Yes, the competition is open to students on either the BPTC and LPC.

02/03/2013 at 19:17

And to those who have completed the BPTC but not yet obtained pupillage?

Laura Sandwell said:

04/03/2013 at 14:25

Sorry Chris – unfortunately entry is open to current students only.

01/03/2013 at 23:34

Hope this isn’t a stupid question; as I don’t blog is “blog” style just a more casual style of writing?

04/03/2013 at 09:49

We’re leaving it open to entrants to decide what they’d think is appropriate for the blog, but generally it means an entertaining, non-academic style.

Jemma Snow said:

02/03/2013 at 01:08

Is it open to Open University law students?

04/03/2013 at 09:47

Yes – that’s fine. The rules state that the competition is open to all students in all disciplines studying at a UK tertiary institution.

Sophie Temple said:

04/03/2013 at 14:42

Is there a stipulated email address to send your work or can it simply be to any one of the editors as seen on your website?

04/03/2013 at 14:52

Please send all entries to [email protected] – thanks.

Arshia said:

04/03/2013 at 17:01

Are sixth form students eligible for participation in this essay competition?

Sophie Lalor-Harbord, Olswang said:

04/03/2013 at 19:57

Sorry, the competition is for University students only

Naasira said:

08/03/2013 at 19:10

Is someone doing LLB with the University of London International Programmes eligible, not living in UK? Thanks in advance.

Anthony Fairclough said:

11/03/2013 at 11:15

The competition is open to anyone studying at a UK university. However, some students may not be able to participate in the work experience element of the prize – see here

Paul Walker said:

09/03/2013 at 01:39

Is it possible to obtain more information on the style? Should the essay be more formal with full case citations or is it more like an article you find in a magazine, e.g. The Economist?

Regards Paul

11/03/2013 at 08:28

We’re leaving it open to entrants to decide what they’d think is appropriate for a blog – do take a look at the things already published.

We will edit any published entries into our house style. We would appreciate neutral citations for any cases referred to, however.

13/03/2013 at 08:38

The competition is open to anyone studying at an undergraduate or postgraduate level at a UK university.

Alfonso Encinas said:

23/03/2013 at 09:29

Two questions: (1) I hold a foreign undergraduate law degree (though also an LLM in Comparative Law), and I’m currently a Law PhD student at a UK university. Am I eligible? (2) Does the word limit include footnotes, and are we expected to use them, considering the “blog-style” format?

25/03/2013 at 09:58

Alfonso – (1) please see my answer of 11/03/2013 at 11:15, above.

(2) please see my answer of 11/03/2013 at 08:28, above.

Zara Mohamed said:

24/10/2015 at 22:06

Is the competition running in 2015?

25/11/2015 at 08:39

Hi Zara, no the competition is not running this year.

Leave a reply on "2013 UKSC Blog Essay Competition"

Click here to cancel reply.

Message (*)

• Skip to Primary Navigation
• Skip to Content
• Go to the home page
• Go to Latest news
• Go to the sitemap page
• Go to search
• Go to the Decided cases
• Go to the Current cases
• Go to the Complaints Policies and Judicial Conduct
• Go to the terms and conditions page
• Go to the contact us page
• Go to the accessibility statement page
• Accessibility
• Press office
• The Supreme Court
• About the Court
• Current Cases
• Decided Cases
• Latest News
• Court Procedures
• Visiting the Court
• Art Competition
• Ask a Justice
• Debate Days
• Free Online Course
• Educational Videos
• Learning resources
• Legal Landmark films
• Visits for schools, colleges and universities
• Virtual tours for JCPC schools
• Visits from overseas education institutions

UK Supreme Court moot final

Moot programme 2024/2025.

This year's moot programme will be launched in October 2024. For more information, please contact [email protected] or call 0207 960 1900/1500.

Does your graduate law school or university law society have a mooting competition?

The UK Supreme Court offers 12 graduate law schools and university law societies the chance to have their moot final judged by one of the Supreme Court Justices at the court or virtually. This is an excellent opportunity for law students to develop their advocacy and public speaking skills.

Applications close on Wednesday 1st of November at 5:00pm . If interested, please complete the UKSC Moot Finals Application Form 2023 and email it to [email protected] .

Please note that the Supreme Court Moot Finals are specifically for accredited higher education law programmes and student-run societies in the United Kingdom

Priority will be given to universities who have not held their moot final at the UK Supreme Court in the last two years. We encourage universities from Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland to apply.

For more information, please see the documents below or contact [email protected] or call 0207 960 1900/1500.

• Moots Application Form 2023/24
• Moots Final Terms and Conditions
• Contract Law Moot - Problem
• Criminal Law Moot - Problem
• Public Law Moot - Problem
• Tort Moot - Problem

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Jesse Wegman

There’s No Sense of Shame at the Supreme Court

By Jesse Wegman

Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.

An earlier generation of Supreme Court justices seemed to possess the capacity for shame.

In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned his seat for accepting a $20,000 consulting fee (which he returned) from a foundation led by a man who was convicted of securities fraud.

Whatever Justice Fortas believed about his honor and morality, he understood that the Supreme Court is an inherently fragile institution and that its nine justices cannot afford the slightest whiff of bias or corruption. As the Times editorial board wrote then , “A judge not only has to be innocent of any wrongdoing but he also has to be above reproach.” Placing the court’s and the country’s interests above his own, Justice Fortas stepped down.

That sort of humility is nowhere in evidence on today’s court, which is finding new ways to embarrass itself, thanks largely to the brazen behavior of two of its most senior members, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are making a mockery of their obligation to at least appear neutral and independent. They fail to report large gifts , luxury vacations and payments to their family members by wealthy donors, at least one of whom had business before the court, and they express nakedly partisan opinions or fail to adequately distance themselves when their spouses express such views.

They are saying, in effect, that they don’t care if any of this bothers you. To go by recent polls showing that this court’s public approval has approached record lows , it bothers many millions of Americans. And yet no one in Washington seems willing to act.

It can’t go on. The court’s refusal to police itself, willingly allowing a few justices to trample on its reputation, demands that Congress step up and take far stronger action to enforce judicial ethics and to require justices to recuse themselves when they have or appear to have clear conflicts of interest.

The latest in a long list of examples became public last week, when The Times reported that an upside-down American flag flew over the front lawn of the Alito family home in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection incited by then-President Donald Trump. The flag, a clear pro-Trump statement widely flown by those who believed the 2020 election was stolen, apparently stayed up for days, even as the court was weighing whether to hear a case challenging the outcome of the election. (The court voted not to hear the case. Justice Alito, like Mr. Trump, was on the losing side .)

In a statement to The Times, Justice Alito placed the blame for the hoisting of the flag on his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, in response to a dispute with some neighbors. He said nothing about any attempt to remove it, nor did he apologize for the glaring ethical violation. To the contrary, he has failed to recuse himself from any of the several Jan. 6-related cases currently before the court, including Mr. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his role in the Capitol assault.

Justice Thomas may be even more compromised when it comes to Jan. 6. His wife, Ginni Thomas, participated in the legal effort to subvert the election and keep Mr. Trump in power. And yet with one minor exception , he has also refused to recuse himself from any of the Jan. 6 cases.

Other justices revealed political biases in the recent past. In 2016 the Times editorial board criticized Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for referring to Mr. Trump as a “faker,” comments for which she quickly expressed regret . That was the right response, but it couldn’t unring the bell.

As all justices are aware, federal recusal law is clear: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

In the Jan. 6 cases, recusal should not be a close call. At the least, reasonable people are justified in questioning Justice Alito’s impartiality based on his failure to take down the inverted flag, especially during a period of intense national conflict over an issue that was at that very moment before the justices.

Justice Thomas’s extreme closeness with his wife (he has described them as being melded “into one being”) raises similar doubts about his ability to be impartial. He is further implicated by a separate provision of the law, which requires a judge to recuse when his or her spouse is “to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.” That sure sounds like Ginni Thomas, who testified, under threat of a subpoena, before the House Jan. 6 committee.

In short, Justices Alito and Thomas appear to be breaking federal law, tanking what remains of the court’s legitimacy in the process. The challenge is whether anyone is willing to do anything about it.

“If there’s no recusal in this situation, if a justice is flying a banner to support a violent insurrection while he is sitting on a case that implicates the scheme to steal the election, is the recusal statute a dead letter?” Alex Aronson, the executive director of Court Accountability, a judicial reform organization, asked me.

It’s a fair question. The Ethics in Government Act requires the Judicial Conference, which is chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, to refer to the Justice Department any case in which there is reason to believe a judge willfully broke the law. The attorney general does not have to wait for a referral, but based on how Merrick Garland’s Justice Department handled the Trump investigations, I’m not holding my breath.

The Supreme Court’s recently adopted ethics code isn’t much help, either. If anything, it makes matters worse , undercutting the authority of existing law and giving the justices even more space to act with impunity.

Mark L. Wolf, a senior federal district judge in Massachusetts who worked in Gerald Ford’s Justice Department, said in a lecture this year that in adopting the code, “the Supreme Court has essentially asserted the power, if not the right, to disobey laws enacted by Congress and the president. Thus, the code undermines the system of checks and balances that safeguard our constitutional democracy, threatens the impartiality of the Supreme Court and jeopardizes crucial public confidence in the federal judiciary.”

Chief Justice Roberts may not have the power to force any of his colleagues to do the right thing, but he does have moral and institutional authority. And yet it appears the new code of ethics is no match for the old code of omertà that has bound justices for generations. As The Times reported , the Alito flag incident soon became known to the court (where, by the way, regular staff members are barred from any political activity, down to displaying bumper stickers), and yet it was suppressed for more than three years.

For now, Democrats control the Senate, and yet they have remained largely silent, resorting to sending admonishing letters .

On Monday, Richard Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, punted once again , calling for Justice Alito to recuse himself from Jan. 6 cases but dismissing the idea of anything more forceful. “I don’t think there’s much to be gained” by holding a hearing, Mr. Durbin said.

Perhaps he and other Democrats were scared off by Justice Alito’s shocking assertion in The Wall Street Journal last year about Congress’s power.

“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period,” he said. That would be a surprise to the nation’s founders, who said no such thing. To the contrary, Congress has been regulating the court — its size, its salaries, its jurisdictions, its ethical obligations — from the start.

We are faced with flatly unacceptable behavior from the most powerful judges in the land. If nothing else, Congress has the power to call that to light, to name and shame the wrongdoers. This would be a truth-seeking mission as well as a public service, showing the American people just how corrupt some justices are.

So what is Congress afraid of? Committees can and should hold hearings and subpoena witnesses to answer questions before the nation. They can subpoena Justice Alito himself. If he declines to show, subpoena his wife. He implicated her, after all, and she certainly has no separation-of-powers claim. Then subpoena Chief Justice Roberts, who declined to testify last year when he was asked politely. If he still doesn’t show up, Congress should remember it has the power of the purse and can reduce the court’s nonsecurity budget.

As right-wing activists have understood about an institution with lifetime tenure, it’s all part of the long game. Justices Alito and Thomas may be in their mid-70s, but a new generation of even more extreme, more partisan activists is coming up through the judicial ranks. Many of them were appointed to the federal bench in Mr. Trump’s first term, and many more would surely be in a second term. These men and women will take the absence of meaningful congressional action as carte blanche to run roughshod over ethical norms.

This is about the future as much as the past. Young Americans who are voting for the first time this year were born after Bush v. Gore; some were not even in high school when Senator Mitch McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from Barack Obama. For all they know, this is how the court has always been and always will be.

That’s why now is the time to show future generations that the nation needs a court that can be trusted to be fair, a court whose justices have the capacity for shame. The Supreme Court is an institution that we depend on as much as it depends on us.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Jesse Wegman is a member of The Times editorial board , where he writes about the Supreme Court, law and politics.

Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

• Law School News

1st USLLS-EquiLaw National Essay Writing Competition, 2023

About USLLS Established in 2001, University School of Law and Legal Studies envisages advancement of institutional expertise in the area of legal

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)

About USLLS

Established in 2001, University School of Law and Legal Studies envisages advancement of institutional expertise in the area of legal research and education by augmenting academic and professional excellence, developing critical and relentless engagement with legal theory and practice, synergizing law, legal research, legal education and action to further the quest for justice.

About USLLS ADR Cell

The ADR Cell endeavors to instill various practical skills amongst our students who wish to pursue a career in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution, and to consistently aid their development so that they can pursue their goals and aspirations pertaining to the field of ADR. The objective of the Cell is to provide quality knowledge in the field of ADR. Hence, it is hosting 1st USLLS-EquiLaw National Essay writing Competition, 2023.

Our Sponsors

Equi-Law: Equi Law Partners, Advocates & Legal Consultants is a reputable full-service law firm based in Jangpura-B, South Delhi, India. Founded by Advocate Praveen Mahajan (B. Com, ACS, LLB), Founder & Principal Partner, and Advocate Ruchi Mahajan, Managing Partner (B. Com, ACS, LLB, MBA), the firm has been providing litigation and consultancy services to clients since 1999.

Some of their practice areas include, Civil Disputes, Competition Law, Advisory, Insolvency, and variety of other fields.

CaseMine: CaseMine is a legal research platform offering one of the largest and most comprehensive databases of case law from common law judicial systems from India, US and UK integrated with state-of-the-art artificial intelligence. CaseMine recognized the transformative power of Extractive AI and introduced CaseIQ which uses documents as a query to obtain highly relevant search results.

About the Competition:

The competition is open to law students enrolled in 3 Year LL.B. programme and 5-year integrated law programme.

The theme of the competition revolves around the field of Alternate Dispute Resolution.

The acceptance of the submitted articles would be subject to the evaluation criteria and process determined by the ADR Cell editorial board. The shortlisted articles will be subject to a comprehensive review.

The winners will be decided by the Editorial Board; the same shall be final and not open to any challenge.

The essays will be compiled and print-published in a book as well as on the website of USLLS ADR Blog, with all rights reserved by the university.

The published copies would be circulated to the top law colleges, libraries, law firms and arbitration institutions, with the collaborative effort of the University School of Law and Legal Studies and our sponsors.

Themes Of The Competition

Interplay of Arbitration Law with various Sectoral Regulations

Evolving Contemporary dynamics and transformative Advancements in the Indian Arbitration Law

India’s position in the International Arbitration Law Regime

Changes with the introduction of The Mediation Act, 2023.

*Kindly refer the brochure for all the subthemes. The themes are not exhaustive but only suggestive.

Registration Fee: There is no registration fee for the competition. This competition is completely free.

Deadline for submission: 11:59PM, 14 th January, 2024

Prizes And Awards

Cash Prizes and gifts amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for the top 3 entries of the competition.

1st Prize – Rs. 10,000/-

2nd Prize – Rs. 6,000/-

3rd Prize – Rs. 4,000/-

The top 5 Authors selected for publication would be offered an offline internship opportunity with Equi Law Partners, subject to their policy.

The authors of the top 10 entries will get a 1- Year subscription to the legal database curated by CaseMine.

A ‘Certificate of Merit” Shall be provided to all the accepted entries.

Submission Guidelines

The essays are to be submitted through the provided Google form only (The same can be accessed https://forms.gle/dhyCrEKJLaKyWJex6 ).

Submissions made by any other means shall not be considered.

Authors are instructed to not put their names anywhere in the main submission.

All entries should be submitted in .doc or .docx format. Co-authorship of a maximum of two persons is permitted.

The author(s) bear sole responsibility for the accuracy of facts, opinions or views stated in the submissions.

Submission and publication of manuscripts that purposefully target or intend to harm the religious, socio-cultural, and/or political sentiments of any reasonable reader are strictly prohibited. The submissions must strictly be limited to legal research of the suggested topics.

The word limit for each article is 2500-3000 words. Footnotes shall be exclusive of the word limits and no comments shall be allowed in it.

Citations must strictly conform to the standards laid down in the Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) (4th Edition) format.

Word limit for the abstract: 150 to 200 words. Essays must be original, unpublished, non-plagiarised and shall not be under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere

Contact Details

Write at: [email protected]

Vaibhav Garg (Convenor)- 9468069381

Ansh Gupta (Co- Convenor)- 9999409169

To know more click on Brochure- 1st USLLS ESSAY Competition

Section 125 CrPC: Can the second wife be entitled to maintenance from her husband?

Delhi HC granted bail to a man accused of raping woman he met on dating app on pretext of marriage

Do convicts have a fundamental right to procreate? Watch to know what Delhi High Court recently held

Book release of 8th edition of “Criminology, Penology and Victimology” revised by Sanjay Vashishtha

Join the discussion, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Follow Puck Worlds online:

• Follow Puck Worlds on Twitter

Site search

Filed under:

• Kontinental Hockey League

Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Gagarin cup (khl) finals:  atlant moscow oblast vs. salavat yulaev ufa.

Much like the Elitserien Finals, we have a bit of an offense vs. defense match-up in this league Final.  While Ufa let their star top line of Alexander Radulov, Patrick Thoresen and Igor Grigorenko loose on the KHL's Western Conference, Mytischi played a more conservative style, relying on veterans such as former NHLers Jan Bulis, Oleg Petrov, and Jaroslav Obsut.  Just reaching the Finals is a testament to Atlant's disciplined style of play, as they had to knock off much more high profile teams from Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg to do so.  But while they did finish 8th in the league in points, they haven't seen the likes of Ufa, who finished 2nd. 

This series will be a challenge for the underdog, because unlike some of the other KHL teams, Ufa's top players are generally younger and in their prime.  Only Proshkin amongst regular blueliners is over 30, with the work being shared by Kirill Koltsov (28), Andrei Kuteikin (26), Miroslav Blatak (28), Maxim Kondratiev (28) and Dmitri Kalinin (30).  Oleg Tverdovsky hasn't played a lot in the playoffs to date.  Up front, while led by a fairly young top line (24-27), Ufa does have a lot of veterans in support roles:  Vyacheslav Kozlov , Viktor Kozlov , Vladimir Antipov, Sergei Zinovyev and Petr Schastlivy are all over 30.  In fact, the names of all their forwards are familiar to international and NHL fans:  Robert Nilsson , Alexander Svitov, Oleg Saprykin and Jakub Klepis round out the group, all former NHL players.

For Atlant, their veteran roster, with only one of their top six D under the age of 30 (and no top forwards under 30, either), this might be their one shot at a championship.  The team has never won either a Russian Superleague title or the Gagarin Cup, and for players like former NHLer Oleg Petrov, this is probably the last shot at the KHL's top prize.  The team got three extra days rest by winning their Conference Final in six games, and they probably needed to use it.  Atlant does have younger regulars on their roster, but they generally only play a few shifts per game, if that. 

The low event style of game for Atlant probably suits them well, but I don't know how they can manage to keep up against Ufa's speed, skill, and depth.  There is no advantage to be seen in goal, with Erik Ersberg and Konstantin Barulin posting almost identical numbers, and even in terms of recent playoff experience Ufa has them beat.  Luckily for Atlant, Ufa isn't that far away from the Moscow region, so travel shouldn't play a major role. 

I'm predicting that Ufa, winners of the last Superleague title back in 2008, will become the second team to win the Gagarin Cup, and will prevail in five games.  They have a seriously well built team that would honestly compete in the NHL.  They represent the potential of the league, while Atlant represents closer to the reality, as a team full of players who played themselves out of the NHL. 

• Atlant @ Ufa, Friday Apr 8 (3:00 PM CET/10:00 PM EST)
• Atlant @ Ufa, Sunday Apr 10 (1:00 PM CET/8:00 AM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Tuesday Apr 12 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Thursday Apr 14 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)

Games 5-7 are as yet unscheduled, but every second day is the KHL standard, so expect Game 5 to be on Saturday, like an early start. 

Loading comments...

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.