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
Mon. February 17
10:00AM - 12:00PM Family Law MCR CJ Connolly Maya Galicia-Canto
10:00AM - 11:30AM UNLV Gaming H Alex
12:00PM - 2:00PM Davis Asylum (Petitioner) Joint Practice Mikayla O'Neal Katy Hetherington Cecilia Grimaldi
12:00PM - 2:00PM Davis Asylum (Respondent) H (joint) Jenna Zendarski (12-1) CJ Connolly
12:00PM - 1:00PM HAP (Diaz-Reynoso) MCR Jeremy LaForge

See all 218 upcoming practices

Teams

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

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 Brady v. Maryland?

  2. To establish a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 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

Leena Sabagh, Bismah Jaffer

Whether the constrution of the DOJ and DOH Security's ayslum regulation, 8 C.F.R. section 208.13(c)(4) is substantially valid under the Chevron test? 

Whether Abel has suffered a well-founded fear of persecution?

Petitioner Carolina Abel is a member of the growing religious group, Stars and Comets Faith which is predominantly practiced in North America, specifically the small island in the Carribean Sainte Michelle.  Governmental parties running for office in Sainte Michelle have called for a nationwide expulsion of all Stars and Comets faithful which sparked violence against members of the religious group.  In fear for her life, Ms. Abel fled in hopes of finding refuge in the United States where many other Stars and Comets safely practice their faith.  However, before entering the US, Ms. Abel had to flee to the bordering country Azteca, which had close political and economic ties to Sainte Michelle.  Ms. Abel suffered further hardship and violence in Azteca and was recently denied asylum based on the Immigration Judge's determination that the incidents in Azteca did not meet the persecution standard nor the fear of future persecution.

Last practice February 26.

View schedule

Julia Sanchez, Sara Zeimer

I. Whether 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4) is substantially valid?

II. Did the Fourteenth Circuit err in finding that Abel did not experience past persecution nor have well-founded fear of future persecution in Azteca?

Last practice February 27.

View schedule

Justine Jung, Geoffrey Fitzpatrick and Andrew Wu

The first issue is whether gender is a bona fide occupational qualification for a bartending position at a Las Vegas casino/ bar. The second issue is whether summary judgment was properly granted against Petitioner on his claim of voluntary intoxication as a defense to void a $30,000 contract that he entered into with the casino.  

UPDATE: Saturday, February 15th is a closed practice. Wednesday, March 4th is a fun practice. 

Last practice March 4.

View schedule

Madison Boucher and Kristin Choi

(1) Did the government unconstitutionally condemn private property in retaliation for protected speech?
(2) For purposes of just compensation, should condemned property be valued before the date of a well-publicized, governmental precondemnation announcement of the project?

Last practice March 2.

View schedule

CJ Connolly and Michael Guan

1) Did the government unconstitutionally condemn private property in relation for for protected speech?

2) For the purposes of just compensation, should condemned property be valued before the date of a well-publicized, governmental precondemnation announcement of the project?

Last practice February 25.

View schedule

Mauricio Grande, Marco Ornelas, and Anthony Rascon

(1) Whether the United States Department of Homeland Security decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because it rests on the incorrect legal premise that DACA is unlawful.

(2) Whether the decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, after undocumented immigrants registered with the federal government, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Last practice March 18.

View schedule

Natalie Ryang and Han (Lu) Ling

Hal is a sentient AI program created by Dr. Schrodinger. Pet Accessories, Inc. (PA) hired Hal to help develop pet accessories. Hal invented an automated pet food dispenser, and PA applied for a patent on the invention. The application listed Dr. Schrodinger as the inventor, not Hal. The patent was granted.

PA sued Purr-fect Technologies, Inc. (PTI) for patent infringement. PTI argued that PA's patent was invalid for improper inventorship because neither Dr. Schrodinger nor Hal can be listed as an inventor on the patent. PTI also argued that the patent's claim includes a means-plus-function limitation under 35 USC 112(f) and that the limitation is indefinite under 112(b) because no structure is disclosed in the patent's specification that corresponds to the limitation.

The district court found for PTI on both issues. PA now appeals. The two issues on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are:

1. Whether claim 1 of the '399 patent is invalid as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).

2. Whether the '399 patent is invalid for incorrect inventorship.

Last practice March 19.

View schedule

Rachel Winer and Jenna Zendarski

1. Whether a motorist’s assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence, or any related offense that flows from a DUI finding, such as reckless endangerment.

2. Whether the phrase “Crimes involving moral turpitude” (“CIMT”) used in 8 U.S.C. §1227 (a) (2) (A)(i) as grounds for removal of aliens, including lawful permanent residents, is void for vagueness.

Last practice March 24.

View schedule

Bre Burgos, Mikayla O'Neal, & Engram Wilkinson

  1. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, a suspect submits to officers' show of authority when she flees immediately after responding to officers' innocuous questions with a total of nine words.

  2. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the government must secure a warrant to install a pole camera to surveil a suspected terrorist's public movements outside of a residence.

  3. Whether, under the Fifth Amendment, an objective or subjective standard should be used to determine if police officers' routine, non-investigative booking questions comport with Miranda's judicially created rules.

Last practice March 24.

View schedule

Shandyn H. Pierce & Hilda Kajbaf

Did the BIA err in denying withholding of removal based upon the Attorney General's interpretation of the INA?  

Last practice March 23.

View schedule

Laura Tovar, Ariella Kupetz, Julia Venditti

The issues before this Court are:

1. Whether the Wagner Medical Marijuana Act is preempted by the Controlled Substances Act.

2. Whether the lower court correctly applied the McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting standard.

Last practice March 2.

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.