Adrienne Subido & Ashley Ayad

I.  Whether a state university may impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment in order to protect the expressive rights of others.

II.  Whether a state university may expel a law student based on university officials' determination that her off-campus expressive activity, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, violates the professionalism standards governing attorneys.

Last practice October 22.

View schedule

Tina Nguyen, Navneet Mattu

Plaintiff Isa Camacho (“Camacho”), a student at the University of Apalsa’s School of Law, was subject to discipline by the University for conduct that “disrupts the expressive rights of others” and subsequently expelled for violating the professionalism requirements of the law school’s honor code.

I. Whether a state university may impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment in order to protect the expressive rights of others.

II. Whether a state university may expel a law student based on university officials’ determination that her off-campus expressive activity, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, violates the professionalism standards governing attorneys.

Last practice October 23.

View schedule

Yena Kim and Shireen Leung

This year's problem for the Thomas Tang National Moot Court Competition involves the First Amendment, freedom of speech, state universities, students, and state bar professionalism standards.

The issues are:

1. Whether a state university may impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment in order to protect the expressive rights of others.

2. Whether a state university may expel a law student based on university officials' determination that her off-campus expressive activity, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, violates the professionalism standards governing attorneys.

Last practice October 24.

View schedule

Miranda Rowley, Karl Johnston

1. Does the Board's practice of reciting Christian prayer before meetings comport with the history and tradition of outside minister-led prayer authorized by Marsh v. Chambersand Town of Greece v. Galloway?

2. Does the Board's practice of beginning public meetings with prayer have a religious purpose which places coercive pressures on religious minorities?

Ms. Barbra Pintok, is a business owner in the town of Hendersonville, and also a practicing Wiccan. The Wiccan religion is a pagan religion, and although Ms. Pintok has been practicing for several years she was raised as a Christian. Ms. Pintok experienced a lack of tolerance for her religion from other Christians in the Community.

Ms. Pintok is active in her community and has attended many meetings of the Hendersonville Board of Parks and Recreation. Before each of the monthly meetings commence, one member of the five-member Board starts the meeting with a short prayer. The Board's practice consists of asking the community members in attendees to stand, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and remain standing to listen to the prayer. At one meeting, Ms. Pintok was in attendance to speak about the denial of a permit for her paddleboat company. After being forced to listen to the Christian prayer recited by the Board, Ms. Pintok was visibly shaken and upset.

Ms. Pintok commenced this action in the United States District Court for the District of Caldon, where she sought a declaration that the Boards prayer practice violated the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit found for Ms. Pintok and the Supreme Court granted Certiorari to review the constitutional issues presented. 

Last practice October 16.

View schedule