Argue Before the Supreme Court
The only AI simulator grounded in real oral argument transcripts from the Supreme Court. Not a generic role-play — a cross-examination shaped by how the justices actually question.
Oral Argument Simulator
Present your legal argument and receive a cross-examination drawn from any justice’s real questioning style.
Try itBrief Review
Upload a document for structured analysis in the justice’s voice, with a follow-up discussion.
UploadJustice Comparison
Same argument, different justices. See how each one questions, challenges, and reframes.
The Court
Nine justices. Each with a unique voice grounded in real transcript data.
Roberts
The institutionalist who steers from the center
Thomas
The originalist who speaks through his pen
Alito
The cross-examiner who builds hypothetical traps
Sotomayor
The passionate advocate who never lets go
Kagan
The pragmatist with a razor-sharp wit
Gorsuch
The textualist who follows words wherever they lead
Kavanaugh
The precedent-focused moderate conservative
Barrett
The methodical originalist and former professor
Jackson
The newest voice with the sharpest questions
How It Works
Three steps from your argument to a response in the selected justice’s real oral argument style.
Present Your Argument
Write a legal argument as you would present it to the Court during oral argument.
Search Real Exchanges
Your argument is searched against thousands of real oral argument transcripts to find the most relevant exchanges.
Response in Their Voice
JudgeLens generates a response in the selected justice's style, grounded in the actual exchanges most relevant to your argument.
What Makes This Different
Tested head-to-head against ChatGPT on the same legal arguments. Here’s what transcript-grounded simulation captures that generic AI misses.
Cross-Examiner, Not Law Professor
ChatGPT writes like a law professor delivering a treatise. JudgeLens captures each justice's conversational cross-examination style — measured from real transcripts.
"Well, counsel, let me ask you something about that 'neutral and generally applicable' characterization, because I'm not sure the ordinance earns that description quite as easily as you suggest."
"Neutrality is not merely facial neutrality. We have said that a law lacks neutrality if it targets religious conduct either overtly or through its operation."
Vivid Hypotheticals, Not Abstract Ones
JudgeLens hypotheticals are anchored in specific, everyday scenes — just like the real justices use. Too real to dismiss.
"Suppose someone is being stalked. She has gone to the police, they've told her there's nothing they can do tonight, she genuinely fears for her life, and she goes to a licensed dealer to purchase a firearm for self-defense. Under your regulation, she has to wait 48 hours. What is your answer to her?"
"For someone facing an immediate need for self-defense — say, a credible threat — is a mandatory delay consistent with the core right recognized in Heller?"
Escalation Staircases
Real justices don't ask one question and stop. They build a staircase — each step tighter than the last, driving toward a forced choice.
"If 48 hours is reasonable, is 30 days reasonable? Is six months reasonable? At what point does a waiting period become a ban in practical effect?"
"How do you respond to those concerns?"
Grounded in Real Cases
Every response draws from actual oral argument exchanges. JudgeLens reads the justice's real words from relevant cases before responding.
See It in Action
Each justice responds differently. Here’s Justice Alito on the Second Amendment — try another justice and topic in the simulator to see the difference.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and this regulation infringes on that right without sufficient justification.
Justice Alito
Well, counsel, I’m going to take your characterization at face value, but let me press you on the specifics. Suppose someone is being stalked. She has gone to the police, they’ve told her there’s nothing they can do tonight, she genuinely fears for her life, and she goes to a licensed dealer to purchase a firearm for self-defense. Under your regulation, she has to wait 48 hours. What is your answer to her?
And if 48 hours is reasonable, is 30 days reasonable? Is six months reasonable? At what point does a waiting period become a ban in practical effect?
Choose a Justice and Start Arguing
Pick an example argument below, or write your own in the simulator.
Can Congress regulate this?
The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority to regulate this activity because it substantially affects interstate commerce.
Second Amendment limits
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and this regulation infringes on that right without sufficient justification.
Free Exercise Clause
Under the Free Exercise Clause, the government cannot impose substantial burdens on religious practice without a compelling interest.
Fourth Amendment search
The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for this type of search, and the government has not demonstrated any exception that would justify a warrantless intrusion.
Chevron deference
The agency's interpretation of this statute exceeds its delegated authority and should not receive deference from the Court.
Fourteenth Amendment
This classification violates the Equal Protection Clause because it draws a distinction that bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.