Welcome to Hastings Moot Court, the #2 Moot Court team in the United States!  You can support our team by signing up to judge a practice or by making a donation to Hastings Moot Court.  To make a donation, please visit the Contributions page.  To sign up to judge a practice, check out the upcoming practices below and click on any of the "Sign Up" buttons.

When you sign up to judge a team practice, a student coach will send you all of the materials you need to get up to speed on the relevant law and arguments both sides will be making.  The student coach will also let you know of any relevant information, such as time or location changes.  If you have any questions about a specific practice time, please email the student coach.  Their contact information should be on the individual team's webpage.  You can get to an individual team's webpage by clicking their name.  When you arrive at a practice, please introduce yourself to the student coach and the competitors.  The team members are always excited to see new and old faces.
 

Upcoming Practices

DATE AND TIME TEAM ROOM JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Thu. February 25
7:00AM - 8:00AM Kaufman Respondent Zoom Hayden Soria Isabella Granucci (MIT) Nathan Guerrero
7:30AM - 8:30AM Thurgood Marshall FedBar Maddie Thomas Alex Vicas Katie Romero Julia Pilkington
12:00PM - 1:00PM McGee National Civil Rights CJ Connolly Viridiana Ordonez Maddie Thomas Mel Rake Sara Zeimer
12:00PM - 1:00PM Prince Zoom Trevor Weitzenberg Hannah Diamond Hayden Soria Alex Norton
1:00PM - 2:00PM Gaming Zoom Maddie Thomas Hannah Diamond Mel Rake Stella Tran Emerald Tsui

See all 186 upcoming practices

Teams

David Kempen, Kate Bredenberg, and Sarah Case

I.  Whether the New Scotland Third Appellate Division correctly determined that Respondent was the lawful beneficiary of the assets in decedent’s estate because she did not willfully or unlawfully kill the decedent within the meaning of the New Scotland slayer statute, but rather was not cognizant of her actions due to Battered Women’s Syndrome.

II.  Whether the New Scotland Third Appellate Division correctly determined that the Respondent is a fit parent even though the mother (1) caused the death of the children’s father after suffering years of his physical and emotional abuse and (2) is only 12 hours into treatment for her mental disorder due to Battered Women’s Syndrome and her substance use.

Last practice February 25.

View schedule

Anna Lovelace Owen and Olivia Medina

I. Did the BIA err by classifying a Hawaii Theft Code statute § 708-833(1) conviction as a categorical CIMT, without providing sufficient supporting analysis?

II. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1951 in Jordan v. De George that the CIMT standard is not impermissibly vague, but the Court only considered its application to offenses involving fraud. In light of recent decisions from the Supreme Court revitalizing the void-for-vagueness doctrine, and recognition by this Court that the CIMT standard is vague, should the CIMT designation be declared unconstitutional?

 

Last practice March 12.

View schedule

Hunter Morrissey and Grace Johnson

I. Whether Petitioner has a well-founded fear of persecution based on past threats against him combined with the growing hostilities against those of the Yan’guan ethnicity in Chakoursia.

II. Whether Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the presiding Immigration Judge failed to inform him of potential avenues of relief during his initial deportation proceedings.

Last practice March 5.

View schedule

Pola Bernabe and Alyssa Ivancevich

Issues on appeal:

1. Does Appellant have a well-founded fear of persecution?

2. Were Applicant’s due process rights violated when he was not informed of potential avenues of relief during his first deportation proceedings?

Last practice March 5.

View schedule

An Le, Jesse Sanchez, and Margaret Curran

Legal Questions:

1. Whether purchasers of shares of a class of stock issued in a direct listing have standing to bring a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 even though they cannot trace their purchased shares to a registration statement.

2. Whether investment bankers acting as financial advisors in a direct listing are statutory underwriters for purposes of Section 11 liability.

Last practice March 9.

View schedule

Adriana Castro, Karla Martinez Rojas, Viridiana Ordonez

Thank you for judging HNBA's practice. The questions presented are:

  • A seizure under the Fourth Amendment includes the application of physical force, even when it is unsuccessful in subduing an arrestee. Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, or must physical force be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure”?
  • An excessive force claim does not necessarily relate to the validity of an underlying conviction, and a no-contest plea does not preclude an individual from denying fault in subsequent civil action. Is Petitioner’s claim for excessive use of force barred under Heck v. Humphrey because she pleaded no contest to, and was convicted of, aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer?

Thank you to our Alumni coach, Laura Tovar, and our faculty representative, Professor Catalina Lozano.   

Please email student coach Marco Ornelas with any questions: marcoornelas@uchastings.edu

Last practice March 5.

View schedule

Josie Chan and John Paul

I. Equal Protection

What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to Tyler's claim that McGee's misdemeanor bail statute violates his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Applying the proper level of scrutiny, does the statute violate the Equal Protection Clause?

II. Due Process

What level of constitutional scrutiny applies to Tyler's claim that McGee's misdemeanor bail statute violates his right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Applying the proper level of scrutiny, does the statute violate his substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment ?

Last practice March 4.

View schedule

Gina Ahmar and Sara Zeimer

I. Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure: Was the search and seizure by Chaostown police that took place at Kenny Bearson’s home authorized under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?

II. Sixth Amendment Due Process; Hearsay: Did the trial court deny Kenny Bearson his constitutional right to present a complete defense in ruling that Leopold Lara, Jr.’s confession was inadmissible, and that the result of the proceedings would not have been different had it been admitted?

Last practice March 7.

View schedule

Magdalene Bedi, Sabrina Tran, and Anthony Baldwin

  1. Is it appropriate to require the tracing requirement outlined in Barnes for securities purchased in a direct listing, where tracing is often impossible?

  2. Should investment banks acting as financial advisors be held liable as underwriters under Section 11?

Last practice March 11.

View schedule

Justine Jung & Nathan Nelson

1. Is the compelled disclosure of a memorized passcode to unlock a cell phone a testimonial act protected by the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and if so, should the disclosure be compelled under the “foregone conclusion” doctrine developed in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)?

2. If the “foregone conclusion” doctrine applies to the compelled disclosure of a cellphone passcode, in order to satisfy that doctrine, must the government demonstrate that it knows that the password exists, and that the defendant knows the password, or instead must the government demonstrate that it knows of the identity and contents of the specific files and items that it seeks on the cell phone?

Last practice March 24.

View schedule

Madison Boucher and Cecilia Grimaldi

I. Did the Boyd Gaming Control Board and Commission improperly revoke Mr. Carter’s gaming license for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege when he violated federal law and reasonably feared answering the purported questions would lead to prosecution?

II. Did the Boyd Gaming Control Board and Commission exceed the scope of their statutory authority when they revoked Mr. Carter’s license for state-permitted medical marijuana use, despite such a revocation directly conflicting with the Boyd Constitution, state statutes, and legislative intent?

Last practice March 11.

View schedule

Nathan Guerrero and Nikayla Johnson

1. Is Kingsley v. Hendrickson’s objective standard limited to excessive force claims, or does it apply to deliberate indifference claims?

2. Was the prison warden deliberately indifferent to Mr. Green’s serious medical need during his pretrial detention in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

3. Following his conviction, was the Department of Corrections deliberately indifferent to Mr. Green’s serious medical need after his conviction in violation of the Eighth Amendment by denying him access to gender confirmation surgery?

Last practice March 11.

View schedule

Jenna Zendarski, Rachel Winer

The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit is granted, limited to the following questions:

I. Whether the psychotherapist-patient testimonial privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 precludes the admission at trial of confidential communications that occurred during the course of a criminal defendant’s psychotherapy treatment, where the defendant threatened serious harm to a third party and the threats were previously disclosed to law enforcement.

II. Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated when the government, relying on a private search, seizes and offers into evidence at trial files discovered on a defendant’s computer without first obtaining a warrant and after conducting a broader search than the one conducted by the private party.

III. Whether the requirements of Brady v. Maryland are violated when the government fails to disclose potentially exculpatory information solely on the grounds that the information would be inadmissible at trial.

Last practice March 23.

View schedule

Maddie Thomas & Zhi Yang Tan

Question Presented:

1. Whether an employee has a common law claim against an employer for the employer’s alleged violation of a public policy set forth in state law related to maintaining a safe work environment and, concurrently, whether an employee subjected to an unsafe work environment, in violation of public policy, may also pursue a common law claim for constructive discharge based on a single instance of being placed in an unsafe work environment.

2. Whether an employee is barred from pursuing a claim of negligence under section 1240(2)(A) of the Wagner Workers Compensation Law (WWCL) when the employer allegedly failed to provide a safe work environment during a novel pandemic.

Last practice March 11.

View schedule

Yasmine Hajjaji and Megan Pham

 1. Whether a permanent art exhibit composed of commissioned works constitutes a “collective work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101(2).

2. Whether a copyright registration that was issued due to a clerical error by the United States Copyright Office constitutes a registration that “has been made” (a “Granted Registration”) under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)’s pre-suit registration requirement.

Last practice March 12.

View schedule

Contact team scheduling contacts for questions or changes in judging practices.
Contact Iain Cunningham at iain@hastingsmootcourt.com for questions or comments about this web page.