Moot Court Package: Simulating Wolford v. Lopez for Law Students

Hook: Turn dense Second Amendment disputes into a classroom rehearsal that teaches legal reasoning, advocacy, and judicial decision-making

Law students and teachers often face the same obstacles: dense Supreme Court opinions, scattered primary sources, and little time to convert a live case into a runnable classroom exercise. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Wolford v. Lopez (Jan. 2026 argument—law banning guns on private property) makes this a perfect moment to give students a full, ready-to-run moot court package—bench memo, petitioner and respondent briefs, an oral-argument script, and a scoring rubric—so you can rehearse the case in class with minimal prep and maximum learning impact.

Why Wolford v. Lopez matters to law teachers in 2026

In 2026 the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence is shaped by the post-Bruen landscape where historical traditions play a central role in analysis. Wolford v. Lopez asks whether a municipal or state prohibition on possessing firearms on privately owned property (or a law that makes private-property owners strictly liable for permitting firearms) violates the Second Amendment. The case sits at the intersection of property rights, public-safety regulation, and constitutional text—making it ideal for teaching statutory interpretation, constitutional doctrine, and oral advocacy.

“Court to hear oral argument on law banning guns on private property” — Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog, Jan 15, 2026.

What’s in this moot-court packet

• Bench memo: quick-reference for judge-panel simulation (facts, procedural posture, legal standards, questions for argument).
• Petitioner and respondent briefs (model): concise, citation-ready briefs students can use as templates.
• Oral-argument script and examiner prompts: a timed script plus likely questions tailored to different judicial philosophies.
• Scoring rubric & judge’s worksheet: numeric and qualitative scoring to give structured feedback.
• Class schedule & student exercises: a syllabus-ready plan for two- to four-hour moot sessions and assessments.

Bench memo (for use by student judges)

Case short statement

Wolford v. Lopez (argument Jan. 2026): Petitioner (Wolford, a state/local government) enacted a statute banning the possession of firearms on privately owned property open to the public (and/or imposing strict civil liability on property owners who allow firearms). Respondent (Lopez), a private property owner or gun owner, challenges the law under the Second Amendment.

Procedural posture

• District court upheld the statute on public-safety grounds.
• Court of Appeals reversed, applying Bruen’s historical-tradition test and finding the statute lacks historical analogue.
• Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether restricting firearms on private property infringes the core Second Amendment right to bear arms and whether property-rights arguments change the analysis.

Questions presented

1. Does a law that broadly prohibits firearm possession on certain categories of private property violate the Second Amendment?
2. If not per se unconstitutional, what historical-analogue framework or limits should courts apply under Bruen (2022) to evaluate firearms restrictions on private property?
3. What role—if any—do private-property doctrines (e.g., owner rights to set rules) play in Second Amendment analysis?

Standards of review & analytical hooks

• Bruen framework: Government must show the challenged regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
• Where statute implicates property-law regimes, consider whether the law is an exercise of police power or an impermissible burden on a constitutional right.
• Judicial philosophies will vary: originalist/textualist Justices will emphasize historical analogues; pragmatic or balancing Justices may inquire into public safety and means-end considerations (implicitly or explicitly).

Key precedents & secondary materials

• District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
• SCOTUSblog coverage of the argument calendar: Amy Howe, Jan. 15, 2026 (case preview)

Model Petitioner Brief (structure + key points)

Questions presented

Whether the statute is a constitutional regulation that fits within the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm restrictions and whether it falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s core protections because it targets dangerous conduct and the property context.

Summary of argument (sample)

1. The statute is consistent with historical traditions that permitted regulation of weapons in sensitive places and for public safety.
2. The property context—allowing private owners and the state to regulate use of property open to the public—makes the statute a permissible regulation of conduct, not a blanket ban on the right to bear arms.
3. If any tension remains, the statute is narrowly tailored to public-safety needs and leaves core Second Amendment rights intact for private home possession and lawful carrying elsewhere.

Argument sections (sample citations & authority)

1. Bruen requires historical analogy, and laws regulating weapons on property have historical support. Cite Bruen; identify 18th/19th-century local ordinances that restricted weapons in certain public venues and private spaces open to the public. Emphasize categories like “sensitive places.”

2. Property-law principles support the statute. Owners' authority to exclude, combined with public-safety regulation, validates restrictions on possession in certain contexts. Compare to free-speech doctrines where private property lessens constitutional protections in some circumstances.

3. Narrow tailoring and as-applied limits. The statute targets access to guns in high-risk sites and provides safe-harbor exceptions for licensed carriers and owners storing weapons safely off-premises.

Model Respondent Brief (structure + key points)

Questions presented

Whether the statute unlawfully burdens the core Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for self-defense in places where they have a legitimate expectation of safety, including privately owned property.

Summary of argument (sample)

1. The law imposes a categorical burden on the right to bear arms by criminalizing possession on large swaths of normally permissive private property.
2. Bruen’s historical-tradition test disfavors broad, modern bans that lack historical analogue; property status does not erode constitutional protection.
3. The government’s public-safety interests do not justify the statute under Bruen because analogous historical regulations were narrow and tied to specific threats.

Argument sections (sample citations & authority)

1. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for self-defense wherever a person has a lawful presence; private property status does not create a constitutional exception. Rely on Heller’s core holding about self-defense and Bruen’s insistence on historical fit rather than balancing.

2. Historical record lacks direct analogues for broad private-property bans. Distinguish sensitive-place precedents and emphasize that historical regulations were more limited.

3. The statute is both overbroad and underinclusive. It sweeps in low-risk situations and exempts government actors, illustrating a poor fit with historical tradition and modern policing rationales.

Oral-argument script & examiner prompts (class-ready)

Use a 20-minute format per side (adjust per class). The script below gives a starter 7-minute opening followed by anticipated questions. Advise students to practice answering in 30–90 second bursts and to pivot to the black-letter rule early.

Petitioner oral-argument script (sample opening: 7 minutes)

1. Introduction: “May it please the Court. Counsel for the State. The question before the Court is narrow: whether a law that prohibits firearms on privately owned property open to the public is consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”
2. Thesis/roadmap: “We show three things: one, the statute fits well within historical categories of sensitive-place and property-based regulation; two, private-property rules reinforce, rather than conflict with, the state’s police power; and three, the law leaves the core right intact for home possession and ordinary self-defense.”
3. Lead authority: Briefly cite Bruen and two historical examples or analogues and tie them to statutory text.
4. Policy hook (optional): Emphasize manageable, limited scope and safe-harbor mechanisms in the statute.

Anticipated questions and model responses:

• Justice skeptical about property exceptions: “How does giving property owners control avoid a state coercion problem?” — Response: Explain private decision-making plus the state’s interest in preventing harm on places open to the public.
• Justice oriented to historical skepticism: “What precise historical analogue supports a modern knowledge-based strict liability for property owners?” — Response: Concede differences, emphasize functional analogues (e.g., tavern-keeper ordinances, licensing of dangerous uses), and show common regulatory purposes.
• Justice concerned with overbreadth: “Doesn’t your law sweep too widely?” — Response: Show statutory exceptions and enforcement discretion; argue that doctrinal frameworks tolerate some breadth when historical fit exists.

Respondent oral-argument script (sample opening: 7 minutes)

1. Introduction: “May it please the Court. Counsel for Lopez. This statute is a modern, sweeping ban on firearm possession in widespread private spaces, inconsistent with the text and history the Court identified in Bruen.”
2. Thesis/roadmap: “We show three things: one, Bruen requires a genuine historical analogue and that does not exist here; two, the statute eliminates ordinary means of self-defense on private property; three, property-law instincts cannot defeat a constitutional guarantee.”
3. Lead authority: Emphasize Heller’s centrality and Bruen’s narrow historical test.
4. Policy hook: Warn of underprotection and slippery slope concerns.

Anticipated questions and model responses:

• Textualist Justice: “Is there any historical source that supports broad private-property bans?” — Response: Argue absence and the disproportionate reach compared to historical measures.
• Pragmatic Justice: “What about private-property owners’ interest in barring guns?” — Response: Distinguish private contractual rules from a statute that imposes criminal penalties and removes the option for property owners who might wish otherwise.

Scoring rubric & judge worksheet (use in grading & feedback)

Rubric categories below total 100 points. Provide both numeric scoring and short qualitative comments (2–3 lines each).

Rubric categories (weights)

1. Legal Reasoning (30 pts) — clarity of legal theory, use of precedent, application of Bruen. (0–30)
2. Answering Questions (25 pts) — responsiveness, composure, clarity under pressure. (0–25)
3. Organization & Persuasion (15 pts) — opening roadmap, signposting, closing. (0–15)
4. Use of Authorities & Citation (10 pts) — accuracy, relevance, ability to distinguish/unify cases. (0–10)
5. Oral Delivery (10 pts) — voice, pace, eye contact, courtroom decorum. (0–10)
6. Time Management & Procedural Command (10 pts) — adherence to time, effective rebuttal. (0–10)

Include a one-paragraph mandatory judge comment explaining the final score and top three areas for improvement. Optionally require peer feedback from opposing counsel.

Class schedule & student exercises (two options)

One-day intensive (3–4 hours)

1. Pre-class: Students read the bench memo and model briefs (1–2 hours homework).
2. Hour 1: Brief oral-argument workshop—opening statements and time management.
3. Hour 2: Round 1: Petitioner (20 min) / Respondent (20 min) with three student-judges.
4. Hour 3: Feedback session using rubric and replay of key exchanges.

Multi-week module (recommended for advanced seminars)

1. Week 1: Research and drafting assignments—students draft briefs and exchange comments.
2. Week 2: Peer critique, bench memo refinement, oral advocacy clinics using recorded drills.
3. Week 3: Formal moot with invited faculty judges, recorded for debrief.
4. Week 4: Reflection papers and grade based on rubric + written brief quality.

Practical tips for running Wolford v. Lopez competitively in 2026

• Adopt Bruen literacy: Require students to master Bruen’s two-step-like historical-analogue approach; make it a grading criterion.
• Use hybrid judging panels: Remote alumni judges often expand feedback and reflect how modern courts use remote participation post-2024 reforms.
• Limit authorities: Give each team a cap (e.g., five primary authorities) to reward precise advocacy and discourage citation-dumping.
• Leverage AI carefully: Allow students to use AI for research outlines but require human verification of primary-source quotes and exact citations.
• Incorporate real dockets: Link students to the Supreme Court docket, SCOTUSblog previews, and public briefs to situate their arguments in live practice—SCOTUSblog’s Jan. 15, 2026 preview is an ideal current reference.

Advanced strategies & future-oriented teaching trends (2026)

By 2026 law schools increasingly blend simulated practice with empirical assessment. Experimental approaches include:

• Data-driven rubrics: Use judges’ scores over multiple moots to create performance baselines and targeted training for repeat weaknesses (e.g., answering hypotheticals).
• Interdisciplinary modules: Pair the moot with a policy lab on public-safety data so students can present empirical harms and benefits in oral argument.
• Ethics and AI: Add a short ethics memo on permissible AI use in brief drafting and oral preparation—ongoing 2025–26 regulatory guidance suggests transparency about AI assistance.
• Virtual evidence boards: Use a shared cloud folder with primary sources and annotated historical materials that judges can consult in real time during the moot.
• Hybrid judging panels: Consider hybrid panels and backstage coordination — borrowing some lessons from modern hybrid event workflows.

Assessment & learning outcomes

At the end of the exercise students should be able to:

• Explain and apply Bruen’s historical-analogue framework to modern firearms regulations.
• Draft a compact appellate brief that persuasively uses precedent and history.
• Answer judicial questioning succinctly and strategically while preserving the overall narrative.
• Provide and use structured peer feedback via rubric-driven assessment.

Sources, further reading & citation guidance

Primary authorities to circulate to students:

• Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
• McDonald, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
• Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
• Recent SCOTUSblog coverage: Amy Howe, “Court to hear oral argument on law banning guns on private property,” Jan. 15, 2026 (use for contemporaneous context and press reaction)

Recommended research tools: Supreme Court docket (supremecourt.gov), SCOTUSblog, Oyez for argument audio, and major databases (Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg Law) if available. Encourage Bluebook or ALWD citation formats for briefs; require pin cites for doctrinal quotes.

Sample judge feedback (model comments)

“Counsel presented a clear roadmap and tied the argument to Bruen’s analytical frame (good). Missed opportunity: did not distinguish the property-law analogues in the brief when pressed—work on concise historical examples and prepare two 30-second responses that tie history to policy.”

Final teaching checklist (quick-start)

• Distribute bench memo and model briefs one week prior.
• Limit primary authorities to 10 items per side for the moot file.
• Appoint three student-judges and provide rubric 24 hours before the moot.
• Record moots for feedback and reflection; provide written judge comments within 72 hours.

Closing: Why this packet matters—practical takeaways

Wolford v. Lopez is the kind of doctrinally rich, contemporary case that lets students apply precedent, test competing interpretive frameworks, and sharpen courtroom skills. This packet removes friction for instructors and creates a reproducible, evidence-based training loop for students. In 2026, when courts lean into historical-tradition tests and remote judicial participation is commonplace, the skills tested here—precision, historical reasoning, and composure—are exactly what students need.

Call to action

Ready to run the Wolford v. Lopez moot in your class? Download the printable packet (bench memo, model briefs, timed oral scripts, and a customizable rubric) from justices.page/resources, schedule a remote alumni judging panel, and sign up for our teacher workshop on applying historical-analogue research in student exercises. Want a tailored rubric or a faculty-run mock argument? Contact us to set up a live demonstration or request a turnkey teaching kit.

Related Reading

• Prompt Templates That Prevent AI Slop in Promotional Emails — practical prompt hygiene for supervised AI assistance.
• Monetizing Training Data: How Cloudflare + Human Native Changes Creator Workflows — background on data-driven approaches referenced in assessment design.
• Hosting Live Q&A Nights: Tech, Cameras and Radio‑Friendly Formats for Weekend Panels (2026) — tips for running remote panels and hybrid judging sessions.
• Top Voice Moderation & Deepfake Detection Tools for Discord — 2026 Review — guidance on authenticating recorded moots and managing audio artifacts.
• Deepfakes and Watch Listings: A Collector’s Guide to Spotting and Preventing Image Fraud
• When Deals Deceive: Avoiding Common Pitfalls in 'Record Low' HVAC Discounts
• Budget Party Pack: Custom Invites + Pound-Shop Decorations
• Jackery vs EcoFlow: Which Portable Power Station Is the Better Deal Right Now?
• Cozy Jewelry: How the Hot-Water-Bottle Revival Inspires Winter Layering and Gift Sets