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

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

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