Attendance at SCI moot courts is by prior invitation only. Students and faculty who are interested in attending a moot court must request an invitation by emailing us at lawsci@georgetown.edu. Specify the moot you would like to attend, and you should receive a response at least one week before the moot court is scheduled. If you have requested an invitation to a moot court and have not received a response five days before the moot is scheduled, please contact our Assistant Director, Sarah Naiman, at sen38@georgetown.edu.

In order to attend the moot court, you must:
1) review the invitation, which includes a list of parties, amici curiae, and counsel opposing the side we’re mooting; and
2) respond stating that you have no personal or professional connection that poses a conflict of interest and that you will strictly maintain the confidentiality of all moot court proceedings.

Only those students and faculty members who have responded to the invitation will be on the list of observers approved to attend the moot court.

Please note: Some moot courts are FULL because a professor has arranged to incorporate a moot court into the class curriculum, and students enrolled in the class will fill the moot courtroom to capacity; no additional invitations will be extended for moot courts marked FULL.

Zoom links will be sent to approved observers by 5:00 p.m. two days prior to the moot, e.g., for a moot court on Wednesday, Zoom links will be sent by Monday at 5:00 p.m.

 

October Sitting

Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71
Advocate: Ramzi Kassem, City University of New York School of Law, for Respondent
Time: Wednesday, September 30th, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.

Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309
Advocate: Michael McConnell, Wilson Sonsini & Goodrich, for Petitioner
Time: Wednesday, September 30th, 2:00 pm
Issue: Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding Delaware state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”

Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n, No. 18-540
Advocate: Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General of Arkansas, for Petitioner
Time: Thursday, October 1st, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.

Texas v. New Mexico, No. 22o65
Advocate: Jeffrey Wechsler, Montgomery & Andrews, for New Mexico
Time: Thursday, October 1st, 3:30 pm
Issue: Whether the River Master correctly allocated evaporation losses under the Pecos River Compact.

Google v. Oracle, No. 18-956
Advocate: Tom Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell, for Petitioner
Time: Friday, October 2nd, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.

Ford v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. 19-368
Advocate: Deepak Gupta, Gupta/Wessler, for Respondent
Time: Friday, October 2nd, 1:00 pm
Issue: Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.

City of Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357
Advocate: Craig Goldblatt, WilmerHale
Time: Thursday, October 8th, 9:00 am
Issue: Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438
Advocate: Brian Goldman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Time: Thursday, October 8th, 1:00 pm
Issue: Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-438
Advocate: Kelsi Corkran, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Time: Thursday, October 8th, 3:30 pm
Issue: Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold

United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108
Advocate: Steve Vladeck, University of Texas
Time: Friday, October 9th, 1:00 pm
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.

November Sitting

Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd., No. 19-199
Advocate: Sarah Harris, Williams & Connolly, for Petitioner
Time: Wednesday, October 28th, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether, under federal laws governing benefits for railroad workers, the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a request to reopen an earlier benefits determination is a “final decision” subject to judicial review.

Jones v. Mississippi, No. 18-1259
Advocate: David Shapiro, McArthur Justice Center, for Petitioner
Time: Wednesday, October 28th, 1:00 pm
Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment requires a sentence to find that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, No. 19-547
Advocate: Sanjay Narayan, Sierra Club, for Respondent
Time: Thursday, October 29th, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether the “deliberative process” privilege protects draft documents that the USF&WS and the National Marine Fisheries Service created as part of a formal consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No.19-123**
Advocate: Lori Windham, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, for Petitioner
Time: Thursday, October 29th, 3:30 pm
Issue: Whether the city violates the First Amendment when it makes participation in the city’s foster-care system by a faith-based agency contingent on actions and statements by the agency that conflict with the agency’s religious beliefs, and whether the court should reconsider its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, holding that the government can enforce laws that burden religious beliefs or practices as long as the laws are “neutral” or “generally applicable.”

**No observers may attend both moots for Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate which moot you would like to attend.

Borden v. United States, No. 19-5410
Advocate: Kannon Shanmugam, Paul Weiss, for Petitioner
Time: Friday, October 30th, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether a criminal offense that can be committed merely by being reckless qualifies as a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-123**
Advocate: Neal Katyal, Hogan Lovells, for Respondent
Time: Friday, October 30th, 1:00 pm
Issue: Whether the city violates the First Amendment when it makes participation in the city’s foster-care system by a faith-based agency contingent on actions and statements by the agency that conflict with the agency’s religious beliefs, and whether the court should reconsider its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, holding that the government can enforce laws that burden religious beliefs or practices as long as the laws are “neutral” or “generally applicable.”

**No observers may attend both moots for Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate which moot you would like to attend.

California v. Texas, No. 19-840
Advocate: Michael Mongan, Solicitor General of California, for Petitioner
Time: Monday, November 2nd, 12:00 pm
Issue: Whether the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance is constitutional and, if not, whether the rest of the ACA can survive.

Niz-Chavez v. Barr, No. 19-863
Advocate: David Zimmer, Goodwin Procter, for Petitioner
Time:  Wednesday, November 4th, 10:30 am
Issue: Whether all of the necessary information about a scheduled removal proceeding must be provided in a single document to trigger the “stop-time” rule, which stops noncitizens from accruing the time in the United States that they need to become eligible for discretionary relief from deportation, or whether the government can trigger the rule by providing the information in multiple documents.

Brownback v. King, No. 19-546
Advocate: Patrick Jaicomo, Institute for Justice, for Petitioner
Time: Thursday, November 5th, 10:00 am
Issue: Whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in a lawsuit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act bars a claim against a government employee based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, in which the Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit seeking damages from federal officials for violating the Constitution to go forward.

December Sitting

CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 19-930
Moot: Monday, November 23 at 10:00a.m. EST
Advocate: Patrick Strawbridge, for Petitioner
Issue:  Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits lawsuits to stop the assessment or collection of taxes, also bans challenge to reporting and information-gathering mandates imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, when the violation of those mandates carries tax penalties.

Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783 
Moot: Monday, November 23 at 12:30p.m. EST
Advocate: Jeff Fisher, for Petitioner
Issue: Whether it is a federal crime for someone with permission to access information on a computer to access that information for an improper purpose.

Edwards v. Vannoy, No. 19-5807
Moot: Tuesday, November 24 at 11:00 a.m. EST
Advocate:  Andre Belinger, for Petitioner
Issue:  Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, holding that the Sixth Amendment establishes a right to a unanimous jury that applies in both federal and state courts, applies retroactively to cases that have already become final on direct review.

Nestle USA v. Doe I, No. 19-416
Cargill v. Doe I,  No. 19-453
Moot: Tuesday, November 24 at 2:00 p.m. EST
Advocate: Paul Hoffman, for Respondents
Issue:  Whether the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for serious violations of international human rights laws, can be used to sue U.S. corporations.

Hungary v. Simon, No. 18-1447 
Germany v. Philipp,  No. 19-351
(Cases are not consolidated for oral argument, but we will be mooted together)
Moot: Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m. EST
Advocates: Greg Silbert (Hungary), Jonathan Friedman (Germany)
Issues: (1) Whether a federal district court can decline to hear a lawsuit brought by former Hungarian nationals against the Republic of Hungary under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to recover the value of property lost during World War II when the plaintiffs have not first sought relief in Hungary.; (2)  Whether the “expropriation exception” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which applies in cases in which “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” applies to a lawsuit claiming that a foreign country has seized the property of its own citizens.

Trump v. New York, No. 20-366
Moot: Wednesday, November 25 at 1:00 p.m. EST
Advocates: Dale Ho, ACLU, and Barbara Underwood, Solicitor General of New York
Issues: (1) Whether a group of states and local governments have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a July 21, 2020, memorandum by President Donald Trump instructing the secretary of commerce to include in his report on the 2020 census information enabling the president to exclude noncitizens from the base population number for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives; and (2) whether the memorandum is a permissible exercise of the president’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment.

Facebook v. Duguid, No. 19-511
Moot:  Wednesday, December 2 at 3:30 p.m. EST
Advocate:  TBD,  for Respondent
Issue: Whether the federal definition of an autodialer includes devices that can store and automatically dial telephone numbers, even if it doesn’t use a random number generator.

Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 19-422 **
Mnuchin v. Collins, No. 19-563
Moot:  Thursday, December 3 at 1:00 p.m. EST
Advocate: Aaron Nelson, Court-appointed Amicus
Issue:  Whether the leadership structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency is constitutional, and whether shareholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can challenge an agreement between the FHFA and the Treasury Department relating to the federal government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

**No observers may attend both moots for Collins v. Mnuchin. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate whether you would like to attend the moot for Petitioner or the moot for Court-appointed Amicus.

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, No. 19-963**
Moot: Friday, December 4 at 10:00 a.m. EST
Advocate: Kannon Shanmugam, for Petitioner
Issue: Whether, if an arbitration agreement carves out some claims from arbitration, that carve-out negates the delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

**No observers may attend both moots for Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate whether you would like to attend the moot for Petitioner or the moot for Respondent.

Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 19-422 **
Mnuchin v. Collins, No. 19-563
Moot:  Friday, December 4 at 1:00 p.m. EST
Advocate: David Thompson, for Petitioner
Issue: Whether the leadership structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency is constitutional, and whether shareholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can challenge an agreement between the FHFA and the Treasury Department relating to the federal government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

**No observers may attend both moots for Collins v. Mnuchin. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate whether you would like to attend the moot for Petitioner or the moot for Court-appointed Amicus.

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, No. 19-963 **
Moot: Friday, December 4 at 3:30PM EST
Advocate: Dan Geyser, for Respondent
Issue: Whether, if an arbitration agreement carves out some claims from arbitration, that carve-out negates the delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

**No observers may attend both moots for Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate whether you would like to attend the moot for Petitioner or the moot for Respondent.