Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support us by signing up to judge a practice argument.

 

Upcoming Practices

DATE AND TIME TEAM ROOM JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
Thu. February 11
2:30PM - 3:30PM Asylum (Adam/Michael) MCR Garrett Smith Brandon Kutzler Michelangelo Macchiarella Katie Burba Dylan Tong
5:00PM - 7:00PM Maritime(James/Cass/Matt) MCR Cierra Rogstad
5:30PM - 7:30PM Evans Constitutional Law E Ariane Mota Ylan Nguyen Peter Stevens Michael Zitani Caitlin (Sub-Coach)
7:00PM - 9:00PM Jessup International H Jessica Do Nalani C.
7:00PM - 9:00PM NAAC (Michelle and Brian) MCR

See all 222 upcoming practices

Teams

Diana Cao, Nalani Crisologo, Bryan Trader,

 

The British Museum, Petitioner

v.

The Acropolis Museum, Respondent

Thank you for judging our oral arguments! The case appearing before you is British Museum v. Acropolis Museum.  This bench memo summarizes the arguments in the briefs and oral presentations related to the appeal of this case to the United States Supreme Court. We have outlined the major issues for both Petitioners and Respondents to assist in your preparation for the oral arguments. For your convenience, we have also provided some suggested questions for you to reference during oral arguments.

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

      I.         Whether the expropriation exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), requires that the defendant foreign sovereign be the foreign sovereign that allegedly expropriated the property in violation of international law.

    II.         Whether the act of state doctrine applies in the instant case to bar review of the acts of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Last practice February 23.

View schedule

Nicholas Keats, Kaitlin Toyama, Michael Niebuhr

Environmental Law.  List of issues:

1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review NUARB’s denial of Sylvanergy’s request for a Non-Applicability Determination. (Sylvanergy argues that this Court has jurisdiction to review this issue; SOC and Granger argue that it does not.)

2) If this Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of the NAD, whether NUARB properly determined that the Sylvanergy facility is a “major emitting facility” subject to PSD review.

a. Whether the Sylvanergy facility is a “fossil-fuel fired” source subject to the 100 ton-per-year threshold under section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7479(1) (2012). (Sylvanergy and Granger argue it is not; SOC argues it is.)

b. Whether the Sylvanergy facility otherwise has the “potential to emit” more than 250 tons per year of carbon monoxide despite the limitations imposed by the Village of Forestdale site plan approval. (Sylvanergy argues it does not; SOC and Granger argue it does.)

3) Whether a biomass-fueled facility is subject to PSD review as an emitter of greenhouse gases. (Sylvanergy argues it is not; SOC and Granger argue it is).

4) Whether NUARB properly rejected consideration of a wood gasification and partial carbon capture and storage plant as BACT for the Sylvanergy facility. (SOC arguesthat NUARB improperly rejected this option in its consideration; Sylvanergy and Granger argue that NUARB properly rejected it.)

5) Whether NUARB permissibly imposed the Sustainable Forest Plan as BACT for the Sylvanergy facility. (Granger argues that it was permissible for NUARB to impose the plan as BACT; Sylvanergy and SOC argue it was impermissible.)

Last practice February 15.

View schedule

Anthony Rodregous, Deborah Rodriguez, Emily Clark

INTRODUCTION 

United States v. Billy Roy Campbell; Police brutality as a hate crime and warrantless searches of department issued lockers.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.  When, if at all, does a police officer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker assigned to him at his place of work

II.  When, if at all, can a police officer's actions in the course of his employment constitute a hate crime under 18 U.S.C 249?

SUMMARY

Officer Campbell is a rookie police officer convicted of a hate crime after shooting an unarmed young black man during a traffic stop. The traffic stop was recorded on Officer Campbell's department issued body camera. 

Officer Campbell appealed the district court's ruling that allowed the body camera footage into evidence because it was obtained in a warrantless search. The Court of Appeals granted Officer Campbells motion to suppress the camera and vacated the hate crime conviction due to a lack of evidence demonstrating that the shooting occured because of racial hatred.

Last practice March 3.

View schedule

Ashish Sudhakaran, Andrea Tovar, Sean Shabbar, Amal Dalmar, Kiko Orii

Jessup International Moot Court Competition: 

FACTS: 

Applicant, Amestonia, is a developing country and shares a border with Repondent, Riesland, a well-deveoped democratic State.  

In 1970, Amestonia and Riesland concluded a treaty to operate a TV station in the other's territory to foster friendly relations.  Under this treaty, Riesland established a new TV station named The Voice of Riesland ("VoR").  One of VoR's most popular shows was "Tea Time with Margaret," where Margaret Mayer interviewed Amestonian politicians and public figures.  

Riesland also has a Secret Surveillance Bureau, which is authorized under the Secret Surveillance Bureau Act of 1967 to employ convert electronic surveillance measures abroad. 

In the 1990s, the Hive movement began in reaction to controversial research that showed Amestonian farmer's use of an insecticide negatively effected the local honeybee population. In 2014, there were multiple acts of terrorist activity that the Hive was allegedly behind.  In response to the terrorist activity, Riesland declared a Terrorism Alert under its Terrorism Act.  

In December 2014, Frederico Frost, a Rieslandic national and former Riesland Bureau employee, gave Amestonian lawyers, Chester & Walsingham, and The Ames Post, a USB drive containing top-secret Bureau documents.  These documents revealed Rielsand's secret programs to record information off of Amestonian's internet and telephone communications traffic as well as the Bureau's hacking into Amestonian national's personal devices while they were on "Tea Time with Margaret."  In March 2015, hackers disabled and destroyed nearly 90% of The Ames Post's and Chester & Walsingham's information.  Cyber experts concluded the attacks came from an IP address originating in Riesland. 

Amestonian police seized VoR's assets and property and plan to sell the property by public auction. Amestonia also detained Mayer and two other VoR employees and charged them with espionage. 

Riesland arrested Joesph Kafker, an Amestonian politician, while he was at a conference in Riesland.  He is suspected of being involved with the Hive movement.  He has been imprisoned for over a year in a maximum security prison without a charge for national security reasons.  

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the documents regarding Riesland's mass electronic surveillance programs against Amestonian public officials and nationals published on the website of the The Ames Post violate international law and are admissible as evidence before the Court.

  2. Whether the seizure and forfeiture of the VoR station and its equipment, and the arrest of Margaret Mayer and the other two VoR employees, violate the Broadcasting Treaty, and are in accordance with Amestonia’s other international law obligations. 

  3. Whether the detention of Joseph Kafker under the Terrorism Act violated international law, and, if Kafker's detention does violate international law, whether the Court has the authority to order either Kafker’s release or the disclosure of the information relating to his apprehension.

  4. Whether the cyber attacks against the computer systems of The Ames Post and Chester & Walsingham are attributable to Riesland, and constitute an internationally wrongful act for which Amestonia is entitled to compensation.  

Last practice February 23.

View schedule

Michelle Freeman and Brian Wantz

INTRODUCTION 

United States v. Billy Roy Campbell; Police brutality as a hate crime and warrantless searches of department issued lockers.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.  When, if at all, does a police officer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker assigned to him at his place of work

II.  When, if at all, can a police officer's actions in the course of his employment constitute a hate crime under 18 U.S.C 249?

A rookie police officer is convicted of a hate crime after shooting an unarmed young man during traffic stop. Officer Billy Ray Campbell appealed the district court's ruling that allowed his department issued body camera into evidence although the camera was obtained in a warrantless search. The Court of Appeals granted Officer Campbells motion to suppress the camera and vacated the hate crime conviction due to a lack of evidence demonstrating that the shooting occured because of racial hatred.

Last practice March 2.

View schedule

Jessica Do, Abe Andrande, Ylan Nguyen-BE

State law employment goodness.  (MORE DETAILS TBA)

Last practice April 1.

View schedule

Kristina Rosales, Bryan Wang, Eric Young


Last practice March 1.

View schedule

Nathan Feldman and Brooke Murphy

Are you a fan of Parks and Recreation?  Come discuss whether Tom Haverford's conviction for possession of Methamphetamine should be overturned.  Did Officer David Sanderson's search of Tom's care violate the 4th Amendment? Did Attorney Mark Brendanawicz provide Tom with ineffective counsel in violatin of his 6th Amendment? Find out at the next Evans Moot Court Practice.


1. Whether the district court properly denied the Petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine and the equipment and supplies commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine:

A. Whether Deputy Sanderson had reasonable suspicion to extend a lawful traffic stop about a burnt-out headlight to investigate whether Petitioner was under the influence of drugs in the operation of his vehicle by having Petitioner perform field sobriety tests?

B. If the traffic stop was not lawfully extended to investigate drug use by Petitioner, was Petitioner's subsequent consent to search his truck tainted by prior illegality, so that the evidence seized was inadmissible?

C. Was Petitioner constructively seized without reasonable suspicion when the deputy re-approached Petitioner's vehicle to request consent to search?

2. Whether the district court properly refused to allow Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea:

A. Was Attorney Brendanawicz's assertion that Petitioner's conviction led to a risk of deportation constitutionally deficient?

B. Was Petitioner prejudiced because of Attorney Brendanawicz's deficient performance?

Last practice March 1.

View schedule

Vlad Dembitskiy, Rachel Belden

Immigration: Reasonable fear hearing during the reinstatement proceedings.

Last practice March 17.

View schedule

Isabel, Nate, Thuy

 



I. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires that, to obtain 60 days of geolocation data pertaining to a criminal defendant’s cellular phone from a wireless service provider, the Government must secure a warrant issued upon probable cause and not merely an order pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d).


II. Whether, as a matter of law, evidence that qualifies as an authenticated "ancient document" under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(16) and 901(b)(8) may nevertheless be excluded if it lacks additional indicia of reliability beyond that inherent in its age and authenticity.


III. Whether admitting a testimonial, unconfronted dying declaration under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(2) violates a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington.

Last practice March 28.

View schedule

James Ryan, Cassandra Martinez, Matthew Friedman

1) Can a seaman recover punitive damages under the Jones Act under the pecuiary damages clause?

2) Can a seaman recover punitive damanges for "unseaworthiness" of a ship under general maritime law?

Last practice February 29.

View schedule

Adam Truong and Michael Slater

Asylum

Questions on cert:

1. Whether Petitioner's AB blood type places him in a protected particular social group for asylum purposes; and

2. Whether Petitioner's invovlement with SENOR ROBOT in a distributed denial-of-service attack against a government website in OPERATION BLOOD MONEY constitutes commission of a serious nonpolitical crime barring his asylum application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii).

Last practice March 10.

View schedule

Anna Pham and Skyler Sugimoto

1. Whether Petitioner’s AB blood type places him in a protected particular

social group for asylum purposes

 

2. Whether Petitioner’s involvement with SEÑOR ROBOT in a distributed

denial-of-service attack against a government website in OPERATION

BLOOD MONEY constitutes commission of a serious nonpolitical crime

barring his asylum application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii).

Last practice March 10.

View schedule

Doug Alvarez, Jessica Dabiri, Taylor French

1. Does a transgender woman have a lawful claim for employment discrimination on the basis of sex discrimination under Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against an employer who hires a less qualified male employee? 

2. Is gender dysphoria a "serious health condition" under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993? 

Last practice March 15.

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.