By Ann W. Parks

First-year students Abhi Raghunathan, Elizabeth A. Spavins, Jack Mellyn and Virginia Sorrell face Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States and four other federal and state judges at the Fifty-Eighth Annual Beaudry Moot Court Competition on April 2. From left to right: Sharon Prost of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Laura Denver Stith (L’78) of the Supreme Court of Missouri; Alito; Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and Judge Thomas L. Ambro (C’72, L’75) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Abhi Raghunathan (L’11) argues before the court.

It was a panel that might have struck terror in the most seasoned of appellate attorneys.

One judge located on the left side of Hart Auditorium on the night of April 2 sits on a state supreme court during the day. The judge on the far right side of Hart that evening sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The judges seated beside them hail from the Federal Circuit and the Seventh Circuit. And the judge in the middle — the one serving as chief justice on this particular evening — spends his days down the street at the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the four first-year law student finalists facing the panel at the Fifty-Eighth Annual Beaudry Moot Court Competition — Abhi Raghunathan, Elizabeth A. Spavins, Jack Mellyn and Virginia Sorrell — showed absolutely no fear as, one by one, they rose to the podium to argue whether a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was constitutional or not. And seated directly in front of them, firing off questions at an alarming rate, were none other than Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States; Judge Thomas L. Ambro (C’72, L’75) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Sharon Prost of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Laura Denver Stith (L’78) of the Supreme Court of Missouri and Diane P. Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“We didn’t ask you a lot of questions,” Justice Alito joked to students when the competition was over, causing a burst of laughter from the packed auditorium. “I think I speak for all the members of the panel in saying that was very impressive.”

Sorrell emerged the eventual winner, though Alito acknowledged that each of the panelists did extremely well under difficult circumstances.

“Having done this in moot court in law school and before real courts, [I know that] it’s very hard for those of you who haven’t actually done it,” Alito said. “It’s harder than it looks.”

Spavins said that the opportunity to argue in front of such a distinguished panel of judges as a first-year student was indeed humbling.

“When we attended the interest meeting … and it was announced that Justice Alito would be judging, I could not imagine what it would be like to argue in front of him,” she said. As it turned out, she could not have envisioned a better experience.

“The judges asked such great questions and really tested our knowledge,” she said. “It was such an exciting night — I never would have imagined I could have such an opportunity as a first year.”

Thrilling experience

The four finalists were among the 278 first-year day and evening students who registered for the competition. One hundred and forty four submitted briefs and argued the case, tying a record set last year; four were then selected as finalists to argue before the real judges.

“Before the finals, we all got together to moot each other because we wanted to ensure that we put on a good show for Georgetown,” explained Raghunathan, who said that the judges were indeed fierce in their questioning but incredibly gracious after the competition. “It was a wonderful, thrilling experience to go before such a distinguished panel of judges and try to hold my own.”

In the moot court argument, Raghunathan and Spavins were representing a fictional petitioner named Pamela Davis, one of a group of same-sex plaintiffs who were denied marriage licenses in the fictional state of New Columbia. This was due to a constitutional amendment passed in that state defining marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman — an amendment that they claimed violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Mellyn and Sorrell, meanwhile, were representing the fictional Department of Public Health of New Columbia, asserting that the amendment posed no due process or equal protection problems. (The competition was based on the individual students’ performances; the judges made no comments regarding the merits of the gay marriage issue and their choice of a winner should not be interpreted to reflect any particular point of view on that issue.)

The five judges showed the finalists little mercy, forcing them to think fast about issues like suspect classes, fundamental rights, strict scrutiny, discrimination and anything else they could dream up.

“Justice Alito, Missouri Chief Justice Stith, and Circuit Judges Ambro, Prost, and Wood are among the most distinguished judges around,” said Ari Meltzer (L’10), who won the Beaudry last year and did a great job of organizing the competition this year with the help of co-director Ryan Creighton (L’10). “To have them all sharing a bench and presiding over our final round was a real honor and a treat for the competitors and the audience.”