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
Wed. January 22
12:00PM - 1:00PM Family Law M120 Geoffrey Fitzpatrick Melissa Rake Bismah Jaffer Madi CJ Connolly
2:30PM - 4:30PM NYU Immigration M120 Rachel Winer 3:30-4:30 Tina Nguyen Mariya Waheed Julia Covello Sara Zeimer
6:00PM - 7:30PM Lefkowitz - Appellant MCR Laura Tovar Bismah Jaffer Geoffrey Fitzpatrick
6:30PM - 8:30PM NAAC (Respondent) E Amrita Madi (until 8) Nick
Thu. January 23
12:00PM - 1:00PM Nationals Room H Laura Tovar Sara Zeimer Lex Townsley Meron Wendwesen Rachel Winer

See all 151 upcoming practices

Teams

Zahra Alamire, Tina Nguyen, and Kat Sundberg

  1. Whether the Circuit Court has standing to hear a case for non-removal when Petitioner did not raise the legal basis for a challenge to his removal during an administrative removal hearing.

  2. Whether enforcement of the Alien Sedition Law against an undocumented alien publicly advocating for a change to the laws of the United States is a violation of that alien’s rights under the First Amendment.

Last practice February 6.

View schedule

Maya Galicia-Canto & Olivia Medina

1) Whether section 1252(e)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act unconstitutionally limits federal courts from reviewing the habeas petition of a noncitizen who is designated for expedited removal pursuant to section 1225(b)(1)?

2) Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of “particular social group” under section 1158 of the Immigration and Nationality Act requiring “particularity” and “social distinction” is a reasonable interpretation of the statute? And whether application of the statute to sex trafficking victims forecloses their asylum claims?

Last practice January 27.

View schedule

Ada Shao, Che Fitchett, Jennifer Davis

1. Whether Greenlawn has the right, as a riparian landowner, to continue water withdrawals for municipal purposes during a drought without any water conservation measures? (NUO argues it does not; ACOE argues it does; and Greenlawn argues it does.)

2. Whether the operation of Howard Runnet Dam Works during drought conditions to provide flow to Greenlawn is a discretionary action subject to the consultation requirement within § 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536? (NUO argues it is; ACOE argues it is not; and Greenlawn argues it is not.)

3. Whether Greenlawn’s withdrawal of nearly all of the drought-reduced flow from the Howard Runnet Dam Works constitutes a “take” of the endangered oval pigtoe mussel in violation of § 9 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1538? (NUO argues it does; ACOE argues it does; and Greenlawn argues it does not.)

4. Whether the District Court must balance the equities before enjoining a beneficial municipal activity, when the activity will cause the extirpation of an entire population of an endangered species? (NUO argues it does not; ACOE argues it must; and Greenlawn argues it must.)

Last practice February 16.

View schedule

Christine Said, Shannon Gillespie McComb, Maxim Gorbunov

ISSUE NO. 1: Did the District Court err in finding that the color red, when used in connection with retail gasoline and convenience store services, is aesthetically functional?

ISSUE NO. 2: Did the District Court err in finding that while Plaintiff's alleged roof design trade dress was not inherently distinctive primarily because it is a common basic shape, it had nevertheless acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. 1052(f)?

ISSUE NO. 3: Did the District Court err in finding that due to the weakness of Plaintiff's asserted roof design trade dress, and the differences in the Plaintiff's and Defendant's marks and services, consumer confusion was not likely?

This year's Problem is a denial of Plaintiff's summary judgment motion that is appealed by the Plaintiff. While denials of summary judgement may sometimes not be final decisions for purposesof appeal, in this case it is. The parties do not question the procedure on the appeal.

Last practice February 4.

View schedule

Hannah Diamond, Amul Kalia, Melissa Rake

I. Whether due process principles outlined in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), require the government to disclose exculpatory evidence before entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.

II. Whether, to establish a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a criminal defendant must show that he could not have, with reasonable diligence, obtained the evidence.

Last practice February 25.

View schedule

Helen Byrens, Cecilia Grimaldi, Ashley Quan

1. WHETHER: The New Scotland Appellate Division, Third Department correctly determined that the changed circumstance rule should not apply where the custody arrangement was part of a privately negotiated separation agreement incorporated into the parties’ uncontested dissolution decree, without an adversarial hearing, and that therefore, the case should be remanded to consider the father’s petition to modify the custody arrangement regarding medical care decisions for his daughter.

2. WHETHER: The New Scotland Appellate Division, Third Department correctly determined that the father sufficiently demonstrated a material change in circumstances by showing facts including, but not limited to, (1) the inability of the parents to reach an agreement regarding the medical care of their daughter, (2) the existence of new information regarding the risks of antidepressants in young children, and (3) the mother’s failure to adhere to the terms of the separation agreement, and that therefore, the case should be remanded to consider the father’s petition to modify the custody arrangement regarding medical care decisions for his daughter.

Last practice February 25.

View schedule

Michelle Dong, Sarah Mojarro, Emerald Tsui

ISSUE NO. 1: Did the District Court err in finding that the color red, when used in connection with retail gasoline and convenience store services, is aesthetically functional?

ISSUE NO. 2: Did the District Court err in finding that while Plaintiff’s alleged roof design trade dress was not inherently distinctive primarily because it is a common basic shape, it had nevertheless acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f)?

ISSUE NO. 3: Did the District Court err in finding that due to the weakness of Plaintiff’s asserted roof design trade dress, and the differences in the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s marks and services, consumer confusion was not likely?

Last practice February 6.

View schedule

Marah Bragdon, Anna Lovelace Owen, Cady Broxon

  1. Is the government required to disclose all material exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant prior to trial during the plea bargaining stage under the Due Process Clause as articulated in Maryland v. Brady?

  2. To establish a violation of Maryland v. Brady, must a criminal defendant show that he could not have, with reasonable diligence, obtained the evidence?

Last practice February 26.

View schedule

Victoria Ayeni & Nicholas Hunt

Did the BIA err by classifying a California Vehicle Code section 2800.4 conviction as a categorical crime involving moral turpitude, rendering a lawful permanent resident elgible for removal?

Last practice March 18.

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.