AUBURN — Cory Spruil sat in the gymnasium at Edward Little High School on Monday thinking about his career.

The 18-year-old senior isn’t planning a life in professional basketball or teaching physical education.

Spruil not only has his mind set on a law career, he’s decided to specialize in appellate law.

So he was excited when he and his classmates in advanced placement government and politics were invited to watch the Maine Supreme Judicial Court as they heard oral arguments in three cases on their docket.

The justices were seated on stage at one end of the gym, dressed in their robes and serving in their traditional roles presiding over appeals from lower court cases.

This marks the sixth year the court has taken its briefs on the road to Maine schools to pull back the curtain on a part of government few members of the public, especially those still in high school, have an opportunity to witness.

The brainchild of Chief Justice Leigh Saufley, it’s an effort to shine a brighter light on the wheels of justice.

“Students don’t ever get an opportunity to see appellate law at work,” she said. “You don’t see it on television, you don’t really read about it and yet, it’s the culmination of government at work.”

The practice started in Caribou in 2004 as an experiment, she said. “It went so well that we’ve continued ever since and expanded to try to get around the state.”

The court travels at the invitation of local legislators. On Tuesday, justices are expected to travel to Windham High School.

Attorneys argued their cases before the panel, observing the three colored lights that indicated how much time they were allowed, the same protocols observed in the resident courtrooms of the justices.

Students watched as justices pounced on the attorney at the rostrum, interjecting in midsentence with an observation, point of law or question about the case.

Joe Bosse, 17, a member of St. Dominic Academy’s mock trial team and advanced placement government class said he liked watching the constant give and take.

Before watching the court at work, he figured the justices might favor the state’s attorney, but concluded the court was impartial after seeing how tough they were on the attorneys for both sides.

He also was impressed by how quickly the attorneys adapted to the interruptions and new directions of arguments.

The first case centered on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this Oxford County Superior Court appeal, police obtained a search warrant from a former justice of the peace whose appointment had expired. The defendant’s attorney moved to suppress evidence obtained by the warrant, but the trial judge denied the motion.

Nate Fairchild, 17, a senior at EL, said he enjoyed listening to debate over the constitutional issue.

“It seemed like a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no legitimate search warrant at all,” he said.

Watching the debate live sparked a greater interest in the subject for Fairchild.

“In classes, you read about cases and the process of cases, but seeing it actually being done is really interesting,” he said. “I think it’s really vital for students to see how the law actually functions and the processes that are gone through to establish different decisions in cases.”

A second case involved questions over state versus federal jurisdiction in fishing grounds more than three miles off Maine’s shore.

A third case raised the issue of a mentally ill defendant’s right to participate in his court hearing during which he was medicated so heavily that he wasn’t able to participate in a meaningful way.

After hearing each case, the court would adjourn and leave the stage. The students peppered the attorneys on both sides with questions and observations about the legal proceedings.

One student asked a defense attorney in the first case whether the defendant should have been allowed to simply walk away from his crime because of an inadvertent error on the part of the lapsed justice of the peace.

“I hope you don’t go to law school,” said John Jenness Jr., who had just heard similar questions asked by some of the justices. Laughter filled the gym.

After the hearings, many of the students dined with the justices at lunch, giving them a chance to interact with the court members.

“This is a wonderful opportunity,” said John Daly, who teaches several high-level government classes at EL.