Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support our team by signing up to judge a practice argument!

Spring 2019 Competition Teams are practicing now!

Fall 2019 Competition Teams will start having practices September 2019.

Upcoming Practices

Tue. March 19
1:00PM - 2:30PM Wagner MCR Madison DiZinno Yena Kim Holly Locke Jessica Savelli (1-2pm) Molly Edgar
6:30PM - 8:30PM Kaufman MCR Eric Schmoll Maxim Gorbunov Eileen Han Yoo Jun Cheon Paige
Wed. March 20
3:30PM - 4:30PM Prince Evidence MCR Madison DiZinno Maya Galicia-Canto Kaitlin Carragher Holly Locke Karl
3:30PM - 5:30PM Traynor F Joe Dietrich Swetha (till 4:30pm) Emily Tripodi Neriah Yue Mikayla
7:00PM - 9:00PM Kaufman MCR Yena Amrita Sethi Swetha Gopalakrishnan Maya Galicia-Canto Brittany

See all 20 upcoming practices


Laura Anderson and Miranda Rowley

I.  Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the government must secure a warrant issued upon probable cause to directly obtain, from a non-medical commercial service that performs DNA analysis, genetic information related to a medical condition.

II.  Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, the government must have reasonable suspicion to perform a forensic search of an electronic device seized at the United States border.

III.  Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 106 applies to the remainder of or related oral statements, and whether the Rule permits the receipt of otherwise inadmissible evidence.

Last practice March 23.

View schedule

Alex Padua, Engram Wilkinson, Shandyn Pierce


Last practice March 19.

View schedule

Jonathan Ebneyamin, Casey Trang, and Ryan Fallgatter

(1) Did  appellant  consent  to  a  blood  draw  by  virtue  of  California’s implied  consent  statute  and  his  decision  to  drive  on  California  roads  after drinking? 


(2) Did  appellant  expressly  consent  to  a  blood  draw  when  he  applied for  a  California  driver’s  license?  Alternatively,  does  the  good  faith exception  to  the  exclusionary  rule  apply  here  if  police  believed  they  were conducting  a  lawful  search  in  light  of  Vehicle  Code  section  23612 section 13384  ?

Last practice April 3.

View schedule

Eisha Perry, Monika Darwish, and Gian Gualco-Nelson

The US Supreme Court granted cert on the following two issues:

1. Whether claims challenging certain statements describing a company’s environmental commitments, practices, and risks are inactionable under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) as a matter of law, and whether those claims adequately plead scienter.

2. Whether a claim for control person liability under 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a) requires an allegation that the control person was a culpable participant in the primary violation.

Last practice March 28.

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.