Adrienne Subido & Ashley Ayad

I.  Whether a state university may impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment in order to protect the expressive rights of others.

II.  Whether a state university may expel a law student based on university officials' determination that her off-campus expressive activity, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, violates the professionalism standards governing attorneys.

Last practice October 22.

View schedule

Tina Nguyen, Navneet Mattu

Plaintiff Isa Camacho (“Camacho”), a student at the University of Apalsa’s School of Law, was subject to discipline by the University for conduct that “disrupts the expressive rights of others” and subsequently expelled for violating the professionalism requirements of the law school’s honor code.

I. Whether a state university may impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment in order to protect the expressive rights of others.

II. Whether a state university may expel a law student based on university officials’ determination that her off-campus expressive activity, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, violates the professionalism standards governing attorneys.

Last practice October 23.

View schedule

Yena Kim and Shireen Leung

This year's problem for the Thomas Tang National Moot Court Competition involves the First Amendment, freedom of speech, state universities, students, and state bar professionalism standards.

The issues are:

1. Whether a state university may impose disciplinary sanctions on a student for non-curricular expressive conduct otherwise protected by the First Amendment in order to protect the expressive rights of others.

2. Whether a state university may expel a law student based on university officials' determination that her off-campus expressive activity, otherwise protected by the First Amendment, violates the professionalism standards governing attorneys.

Last practice October 24.

View schedule

Alec Nielson, Michael Mahoney, Madison Dizinno

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  Petitioner Barker & Todd, Inc. (B&T) is a pharmaceutical company that is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the state of Missouriana.  Respondent Anthony Hope, a citizen of South Illinois, filed this class-action complaint against defendant on February 15, 2016, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).  Plaintiff’s complaint asserts common law negligence claims against the defendant, individually and on behalf of the putative class of similarly situated persons, for failing to safeguard their electronic protected health information (ePHI), based on standards set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).  Respondent asserts damages in excess of $5,000,000.

Questions presented:

1. Whether Respondent established injury-in-fact to confer standing under Article III;
2. Whether Respondent's state law negligence claims may be based on violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Last practice October 31.

View schedule

Breana Burgos, Mikayla O'Neal, Andrew Newcomb

I. By firing Dr. Foster, a university professor, for statements made on his blog, did Dragontown University, Dr. Foster's employer, violate his free speech rights under the First Amendment?

II. Did Dragontown University infringe on Dr. Foster’s liberty interest in his reputation under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause when they fired him and issued a press release questioning his competence without holding a hearing?

Last practice November 13.

View schedule

Laura Anderson, Justin Bargar, Kaitlin Carragher

Questions Presented:

1. Whether a trial court in a given state, in light of this Court’s holding in Daimler, may exercise general personal jurisdiction over a corporation based solely on that corporation’s registration to do business in that state.

2. Whether the design of the Model-Herc, manufactured and sold by Marlo Motors, Inc., is defective by virtue of being unreasonably dangerous.

Last practice November 1.

View schedule

Erin Lanier, Alex Padua

I. Does the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement extend to the home?

II. Does the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel attach to plea negotiations prior to a federal indictment?

Last practice November 14.

View schedule

Victoria Ayeni, Emma Fuller

I. Must a plaintiff exhaust all available state remedies before seeking redress in federal court for a takings claim under the 5th Amendment?

II. Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Last practice October 29.

View schedule

Reid Gaa, Nicole Vales, Joe Dietrich

Questions Presented:

1. Whether a trial court in a given state, in light of this Court's holding in Daimler, may exercise general personal jurisdiction over a corporation based solely on that corporation's registration to do business in that state.

2. Whether the design of the Model-Herc, manufactured and sold by Marlo Motors, Inc., is defective by virtue of being unreasonably dangerous.

Last practice November 1.

Last practice November 1.

View schedule

Julia Covello, Amrita Sethi, Shandyn Pierce

1. Is Dr. Foster entitled to First Amendment free speech rights when he publicly posted controversial statements advocating fringe medical treatments online while employed at Dragontown University, and did so using his employee email address such that the public could associate him and his statements with the University when one of his key responsibilities was to encourage and facilitate intellectual debate?

       2.  Did Dragontown University infringe on Dr. Foster’s Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in his reputation when it released a truthful statement concerning the fact that Dr. Foster was terminated from his employment from the University and there is no material evidence that the University’s dismissal impeded Dr. Foster from gaining alternative employment?

Last practice November 13.

View schedule