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.

The 2019-2020 competition season has started, so please sign up now!

Upcoming Practices

Wed. October 23
8:30AM - 9:30AM Crim Pro (Petitioner) H Olivia Medina Geoffrey Fitzpatrick
6:30PM - 8:00PM 2L Health Law K Emma Fuller Alec Victoria Ayeni
7:00PM - 9:00PM Chicago Bar - Petitioner E Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed
7:00PM - 9:00PM Crim Pro (Respondent) B Marah Bragdon
7:00PM - 9:00PM Chicago Bar - Respondent A CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED

See all 130 upcoming practices


Madison Boucher, Kristin Lahaszow, Lex Townsley


  1. Courts have a duty to decide cases and controversies properly presented to them. However, on limited occasions, the political question doctrine requires judicial abstention when resolving the claim would interfere with the legislative and executive branches. Does this doctrine prevent adjudication of Petitioner's public nuisance claim, when the factors outlined in Baker v. Carr are applied, even though the doctrine is narrow and one of limited application?
  2. In Lincoln, a public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. Through disingenuous marketing and distribution practices, Respondents consistently downplay the risks of opioid use. Does Petitioner state a plausible claim for public nuisance, when they assert these practices created an opioid crisis in Lincoln, and thus, unreasonably interfere with Lincoln citizens’ public rights?

Last practice October 28.

View schedule

Rachel Winer, Jenna Zendarski, and Geoffrey Fitzpatrick

 Coming Soon.

Last practice November 12.

View schedule

Navneet Mattu & CJ Connolly

  1. Does an individual have standing to contest a search of a rental vehicle that the individual rented on another’s account without that other person’s permission?

  2. Is the acquisition of the location data of a rental vehicle a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018)?

Last practice October 29.

View schedule

Stephanie Richardson and Zaren Craddock

I. Whether a defendant has standing to contest a search of a rental vehicle when the vehicle was obtained without the permission of the account holder.

II. Whether officers violate a reasonable expectation of privacy and, therefore, conduct a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when requesting a third-party's records of a user's locations as collected while renting a vehicle.

Last practice October 30.

View schedule

Evan Leili, Mikayla O’Neal, and Yena Kim

Will we available soon.

Last practice November 12.

View schedule

Jesse Sanchez, Kimberly Macey, and Brittany Stahl

Coming soon.

Last practice November 11.

View schedule

Zahra Alamire, Tina Nguyen, Kat Sundberg

Coming soon. 

Last practice November 14.

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.