Hastings Moot Court

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
Fri. October 30
8:00AM - 9:30AM	Veterans Law				Viridiana Ordonez	Kristin Lahaszow	Stuart Seaborn
10:00AM - 12:00PM	USD Criminal Procedure	zoom	Hannah Diamond	John Paul	Kara Flageollet	Michael Lenett
1:00PM - 2:30PM	Veterans Law			Michelle Dong	Matt Balich (MIT)	Sara Zeimer	Nikayla Johnson
1:00PM - 3:00PM	Appellate Lawyers Association	CLOSED
2:00PM - 5:00PM	Health Law (Petitioner)	Remote	CJ Connolly

See all 114 upcoming practices

Hayden Soria and John Paul

1. Does the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) comply with the "fair process" standard when it removes a veteran's permanent and total disability status without advance notice, thereby leaving the overall rate of compensation unchanged, but reducing or eliminating ancillary benefits previously available to the veteran?
2. Does VA's removal of a veteran's permanent and total disability status amount to a taking of property for purposes of Chapter 35 Dependents Educational Assistance?

Last practice November 12.

View schedule

Kara Flageollet, Nicole Aston and Brandon Hupka

Is Executive Order 2020-16 an invalid exercise of state police powers under Jacobson v. Massachusetts and a violation of Ms. Smith’s Fourteenth Amendment rights through its disparate application to nursing home employees?
Are Respondents required to accommodate Ms. Smith’s inability to wear a mask by engaging in the ADA mandated accommodation process and are they required to prove a direct threat defense justifying the termination of Ms. Smith?

Last practice November 5.

View schedule

Mattie Hasset, Erin Livinghouse and Michael Lenett

Does Executive Order 2020-16, which requires the wearing of masks due to COVID-19, validly exercise state police powers and not unreasonably restrict Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights? Is Petitioner a qualified individual with a disability who does not pose a direct threat under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act thereby mandating her employers to accommodate her inability to wear a face mask?

Last practice November 5.

View schedule

Demiana Khoury and Trevor Weitzenberg

This is a criminal procedure problem regarding 5th Amendment issues.

The two questions on writ are:

Was Agent Deggs’ Miranda modified warning sufficient under the Fifth Amendment and

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and did this warning taint later statements

made to Agent Mulder?
Can Miranda deficient statements presented in pre-trial proceedings qualify as “use in a

criminal case,” under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003)?

Last practice November 5.

View schedule

Marco Ornelas, Michelle Dong, and Melissa Rake

1. (A) Whether federal appellate courts may raise the defense of qualified immunity sua sponte, and if so, (B) whether the holding in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) permitting lower courts to proceed directly to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis should stand; and

2. Whether placing a prisoner with serious mental illnesses and a history of self-harm in administrative segregation for 360 days, without consistent access to physician prescribed treatment, violates the Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Last practice January 10.

View schedule

Alex Tuchman, Alex Norton, and Katie Waters

Whether Title VII displaces Title IX with respect to sex discrimination claims in the employment context against educational institutions that receive federal funding,
Whether but-for causation or motivating factor is the appropriate standard of causation for Title IX retaliation claims.

Last practice November 17.

View schedule

Maddie Thomas, Alex Vicas

Whether enforcement of an anti-discrimination law against a singer/songwriter violates her free speech and/or free exercise rights.

Last practice November 5.

View schedule

Hannah Becker, Tammy Vu, Magdalene Bedi

Whether Title VII displaces Title IX with respect to sex discrimination claims in the employment context against educational institutions that receive federal funding,
Whether but-for causation or motivating factor is the appropriate standard of causation for Title IX retaliation claims.

Last practice November 17.

View schedule

Kristin Lahaszow and Justine Jung

Issues:

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?
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 November 5.

View schedule

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. section 1983 by the doctrine of Qualified Immunity?

Last practice November 5.

View schedule