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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue. January 19 | |||||||
| 8:00AM - 9:30AM | Pace Environmental | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED |
| 8:00AM - 9:00PM | NAAC-Respondent | (CLOSED) | |||||
| 11:00AM - 12:00PM | Spong - Petitioner | CLOSED | |||||
| 2:15PM - 3:15PM | NAAC-Respondent | Jenna Zendarski | Nikayla Johnson | Maxim Gorbunov | Rachel Winer | Mel Rake | |
| 7:00PM - 8:30PM | Lefkowitz (Appellee) | Online | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED | CLOSED |
See all 188 upcoming practices
Teams
- Pace Environmental
- Lefkowitz (Appellant)
- National Finals
- Lefkowitz (Appellee)
- Spong - Petitioner
- Albany Family Law-Appellant
- NAAC-Respondent
- Albany Family Law - Appellee
- Spong Respondent
Ada Shao, Katie Romero, & Julia Pilkington
1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under CAA section 304(a) over CHAWN's unreasonable delay claim relating to a nationally applicable action subject to section 307(b) limiting jurisdiction to the D.C. circuit?
2. Whether the 2009 endangerment to the public welfare finding remains valid?
3. Whether the 2009 endangerment to the public health finding remains valid?
4. Whether the interval since the 2009 endangerment finding constitutes an unreasonable delay?
5. Whether the EPA has a non-discretionary duty to designate GHGs as a criteria pollutant under CAA section 109 based on the 2009 endangerment findings?
Last practice February 15.
Eman Ateyeh, Zehra Jafri, and Hannah Park
I. Whether the District Court erred in finding that THE NEW NORM is likely to cause consumer confusion with NORMM’s trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
II. Whether the District Court erred in finding that Norm’s adoption and use of THE NEW NORM constitutes willful infringement of NORMM’s trademark.
III. Whether the District Court erred in finding that an award of THE NEW NORM’s profits to NORMM as an equitable remedy for Norm’s use of THE NEW NORM is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
Last practice February 5.
Madison Boucher and Kristin Choi
1. Is the proximate cause element of a civil RICO matter satisfied (and therefore, standing conferred) where Caesar Health Plan, as third-party payor, alleges that they would not have underwritten a prescription for Glukoriza as a treatment for Miasmic Syndrome if Galen had not misrepresented the safety risks to prescribers?
2. Does a state government official who orders the warrantless search of medical records from a health insurance company violate the Fourth Amendment, where such search is conducted pursuant to a state statute which does not authorize precompliance review before a judicial entity? If so, is the official protected from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the doctrine of Qualified Immunity?
Last practice January 31.
Marcus Grimes, Pooja Abhyankar, Jack Haisman
I. Whether the District Court erred in finding that THE NEW NORM is likely to cause consumer confusion with NORMM’s trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
II. Whether the District Court erred in finding that Norm’s adoption and use of THE NEW NORM constitutes willful infringement of NORMM’s trademark.
III. Whether the District Court erred in finding that an award of THE NEW NORM’s profits to NORMM as an equitable remedy for Norm’s use of THE NEW NORM is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
Last practice February 4.
Demiana Khoury, Michael Guan, Melissa Rake
1. Where the public school house and one’s home share a common space, does regulation of a student’s possession of a firearm in his home violate the Second Amendment?
2. Does a school’s regulation of a student’s off-campus interactions on social media violate the First Amendment?
Last practice February 11.
Kate Hoppe, Emily Horne, and Adam Stephens
-
Whether Olivia was the lawful beneficiary of the assets in Adrian’s estate when she willfully and unlawfully killed Adrian within the meaning of New Scotland’s Slayer Statute.
-
Whether Olivia is an unfit parent where she caused the death of the children’s father and she has not made a meaningful effort to address her mental illness and substance abuse.
Last practice February 24.
Claire Norman and Chris Cantrell
Questions on Cert:
- In a First Amendment case that does not involve in-the-field decision making by law enforcement officers, what standard determines whether the law is clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity and when can the law be clearly established in the absence of a factually similar case from this Court or the relevant jurisdiction?
- Whether the Court should recalibrate or eliminate the doctrine of qualified in suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Overview:
Respondent, Mr. Carter, was recently hired by the Department of Education as Executive Director.
Mr. Lawler, Plaintiff's husband, had recently joined the Department as an IT Analyst. He also had a personal blog about public education. Following Mr. Carter's hire, Mr. Lawler was critical of Mr. Carter's employment history and past business dealings - Mr. Carter questioned if Mr. Carter should be running the Department. These blog posts garnered local media attention.
Plaintiff, Ms. Lawler, was an administer of early childhood education at the Department for 15 years. Two months after Mr. Carter began his tenure, he fired Ms. Lawler.
Ms. Lawler was terminated after the blog posts made by Mr. Lawler gained attention. Mr. Carter was unable to fire Mr. Lawler.
Ms. Lawler sued Mr. Carter for violations of her right of intimate assocciation and first amendment free speech protections. Mr. Carter presented a qualified immunity defense - that any violations of the law were not clearly established as unlawful.
Last Practice: February 17.
Last practice February 17.
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.
CJ Connolly, Trevor Weitzenberg, Hannah Diamond
I. Does a school-related restriction that impedes a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s ability to keep and bear arms in the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense violate the Second Amendment?
II. Does a public school’s punishment of a student’s social media speech that occurred off-campus, outside of school hours, and not during any school-sanctioned activities violate the First Amendment?
Last practice February 10.