{"id":377,"date":"2020-11-12T12:10:38","date_gmt":"2020-11-12T17:10:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/moot-court-program\/moot-court-schedule-2\/"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:09:12","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:09:12","slug":"moot-court-schedule-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/moot-court-program\/moot-court-schedule-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Moot Court Schedule"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/span>(This link opens in a new tab)<\/span><\/span><\/a>. Specify the moot you would like to attend, and you should receive a response at least one week before the moot court is scheduled<\/span><\/em>. 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<\/span>(This link opens in a new tab)<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

In order to attend the moot court, you must:<\/strong>
\n1) review the invitation, which includes a list of parties, amici curiae, and counsel opposing the side we’re mooting; and
\n2) 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Please note:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

October Sitting<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

Tanzin v. Tanvir<\/em>, No. 19-71<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Ramzi Kassem, City University of New York School of Law, for Respondent
\nTime:<\/strong> Wednesday, September 30th, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.<\/p>\n

Carney v. Adams<\/em>, No. 19-309<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Michael McConnell, Wilson Sonsini & Goodrich, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Wednesday, September 30th, 2:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> 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 \u201cbare majority\u201d on the state\u2019s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the \u201cother major political party\u201d<\/p>\n

Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass\u2019n<\/em>, No. 18-540<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Nicholas Bronni, Solicitor General of Arkansas, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 1st, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas\u2019 statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers\u2019 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\u2019s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.<\/p>\n

Texas v. New Mexico<\/em>, No. 22o65<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Jeffrey Wechsler, Montgomery & Andrews, for New Mexico
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 1st, 3:30 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the River Master correctly allocated evaporation losses under the Pecos River Compact.<\/p>\n

Google v. Oracle<\/em>, No. 18-956<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Tom Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Friday, October 2nd, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and whether, as the jury found, the petitioner\u2019s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.<\/p>\n

Ford v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.<\/em>, No. 19-368<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Deepak Gupta, Gupta\/Wessler, for Respondent
\nTime:<\/strong> Friday, October 2nd, 1:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the \u201carise out of or relate to\u201d requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under\u00a0Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz<\/i>\u00a0is met when none of the defendant\u2019s forum contacts caused the plaintiff\u2019s claims, such that the plaintiff\u2019s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.<\/p>\n

City of Chicago v. Fulton<\/em>, No. 19-357<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Craig Goldblatt, WilmerHale
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 8th, 9:00 am
\nIssue: <\/strong>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 \u00a7 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.<\/p>\n

Pereida v. Barr<\/em>, No. 19-438<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Brian Goldman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 8th, 1:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Torres v. Madrid<\/em>, No. 19-438<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Kelsi Corkran, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 8th, 3:30 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a \u201cseizure\u201d 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 \u201cseizure,\u201d as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold<\/p>\n

United States v. Briggs<\/em>, No. 19-108<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Steve Vladeck, University of Texas
\nTime:<\/strong> Friday, October 9th, 1:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding \u2013 contrary to its own longstanding precedent \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

November Sitting<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

Salinas<\/b><\/em>\u00a0v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd.<\/em>, No. 19-199<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Sarah Harris, Williams & Connolly, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Wednesday, October 28th, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether, under federal laws governing benefits for railroad workers, the Railroad Retirement Board\u2019s denial of a request to reopen an earlier benefits determination is a \u201cfinal decision\u201d subject to judicial review.<\/p>\n

Jones v. Mississippi<\/em>, No. 18-1259<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> David Shapiro, McArthur Justice Center, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Wednesday, October 28th, 1:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the Eighth Amendment\u2019s ban on cruel and unusual punishment requires a sentence\u00a0to find that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.<\/p>\n

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club<\/em>, No. 19-547<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Sanjay Narayan, Sierra Club, for Respondent
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 29th, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the \u201cdeliberative process\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

Fulton<\/span> v. City of Philadelphia<\/em>, No.19-123**<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Lori Windham, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, for Petitioner<\/strong>
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, October 29th, 3:30 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the city violates the First Amendment when it makes participation in the city\u2019s foster-care system by a faith-based agency contingent on actions and statements by the agency that conflict with the agency\u2019s 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 \u201cneutral\u201d or \u201cgenerally applicable.\u201d<\/p>\n

**No observers may attend both moots for Fulton v. City of Philadelphia<\/em>. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate which moot you would like to attend.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Borden v. United States<\/em>, No. 19-5410<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Kannon Shanmugam, Paul Weiss, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Friday, October 30th, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether a criminal offense that can be committed merely by being reckless qualifies as a \u201cviolent felony\u201d for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.<\/p>\n

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia<\/span><\/em>, No. 19-123**<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Neal Katyal, Hogan Lovells, for Respondent<\/strong>
\nTime:<\/strong> Friday, October 30th, 1:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the city violates the First Amendment when it makes participation in the city\u2019s foster-care system by a faith-based agency contingent on actions and statements by the agency that conflict with the agency\u2019s 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 \u201cneutral\u201d or \u201cgenerally applicable.\u201d<\/p>\n

**No observers may attend both moots for Fulton v. City of Philadelphia<\/em>. Attendance at both would constitute a conflict of interest. Please indicate which moot you would like to attend.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

California v. Texas<\/em>, No. 19-840<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Michael Mongan, Solicitor General of California, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Monday, November 2nd, 12:00 pm
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether the Affordable Care Act\u2019s requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance is constitutional and, if not, whether the rest of the ACA can survive.<\/p>\n

Niz-Chavez v. Barr<\/em>, No. 19-863<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> David Zimmer, Goodwin Procter, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/span>Wednesday, November 4th, 10:30 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> Whether all of the necessary information about a scheduled removal proceeding must be provided in a single document to trigger the \u201cstop-time\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

Brownback v. King<\/em>, No. 19-546<\/strong>
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Patrick Jaicomo, Institute for Justice, for Petitioner
\nTime:<\/strong> Thursday, November 5th, 10:00 am
\nIssue:<\/strong> 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\u00a0Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents<\/i>, in which the Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit seeking damages from federal officials for violating the Constitution to go forward.<\/p>\n

December Sitting<\/span><\/h3>\n

CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service<\/em>, No. 19-930<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong> Monday, November 23\u00a0at 10:00a.m. EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong>\u00a0Patrick Strawbridge, for Petitioner
\nIssue:\u00a0<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Van Buren v. United States<\/em>, No. 19-783\u00a0<\/strong>
\nMoot<\/strong>: Monday, November 23\u00a0at 12:30p.m. EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong> Jeff Fisher, for Petitioner
\nIssue:<\/strong>\u00a0Whether it is a federal crime for someone with permission to access information on a computer to access that information for an improper purpose.<\/p>\n

Edwards v. Vannoy<\/em>, No. 19-5807<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong> Tuesday, November 24 at 11:00 a.m. EST
\nAdvocate:\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Andre Belinger, for Petitioner
\nIssue:\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Whether the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Ramos 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.<\/p>\n

Nestle USA v. Doe I<\/em>, No. 19-416<\/strong>
\nCargill v. Doe I<\/em>,\u00a0 No. 19-453<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong> Tuesday, November 24 at 2:00 p.m. EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong>\u00a0Paul Hoffman, for Respondents
\nIssue:\u00a0<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Hungary v. Simon<\/em>, No. 18-1447\u00a0<\/strong>
\nGermany v. Philipp<\/em>,\u00a0 No. 19-351<\/strong>
\n(Cases are not consolidated for oral argument, but we will be mooted together)
\nMoot: <\/strong>Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m. EST
\nAdvocates: <\/strong>Greg Silbert\u00a0(Hungary), Jonathan Friedman (Germany)
\nIssues:<\/strong>\u00a0(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)\u00a0 Whether the \u201cexpropriation exception\u201d to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which applies in cases in which \u201crights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,\u201d applies to a lawsuit claiming that a foreign country has seized the property of its own citizens.<\/p>\n

Trump v. New York<\/em>, No. 20-366
\n<\/strong>Moot:\u00a0<\/strong>Wednesday, November 25 at 1:00 p.m. EST
\nAdvocates:<\/strong> Dale Ho, ACLU, and Barbara Underwood, Solicitor General of New York
\nIssues: <\/strong>(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\u2019s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment.<\/p>\n

Facebook v. Duguid<\/em>, No. 19-511<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong> \u00a0Wednesday, December 2 at 3:30 p.m. EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong>\u00a0 TBD,\u00a0 for Respondent
\nIssue:<\/strong>\u00a0Whether the federal definition of an autodialer includes devices that can store and automatically dial telephone numbers, even if it doesn\u2019t use a random number generator.<\/p>\n

Collins v. Mnuchin<\/em>, No. 19-422 **<\/strong>
\nMnuchin v. Collins<\/em>, No. 19-563<\/strong>
\nMoot:\u00a0<\/strong> Thursday, December 3 at 1:00 p.m. EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong>\u00a0Aaron Nelson, Court-appointed Amicus<\/strong><\/span>
\nIssue:<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0Whether 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\u2019s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.<\/p>\n

**No observers may attend both moots for Collins v. Mnuchin<\/em>. 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White<\/strong> Sales,\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>No. 19-963**<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong> Friday, December 4\u00a0at 10:00 a.m. EST
\nAdvocate:\u00a0<\/strong>Kannon Shanmugam, for Petitioner<\/strong><\/span>
\nIssue:<\/strong>\u00a0Whether, if an arbitration agreement carves out some claims from arbitration, that carve-out negates the delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.<\/p>\n

**No observers may attend both moots for Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales<\/em>. 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Collins v. Mnuchin<\/em>, No. 19-422 **<\/strong>
\nMnuchin v. Collins<\/em>, No. 19-563<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong>\u00a0 Friday, December 4\u00a0at 1:00 p.m. EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong>\u00a0David Thompson, for Petitioner<\/span><\/strong>
\nIssue: <\/strong>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\u2019s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.<\/p>\n

**No observers may attend both moots for Collins v. Mnuchin<\/em>. 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales<\/em>, No. 19-963 **<\/strong>
\nMoot:<\/strong>\u00a0Friday, December 4\u00a0at 3:30PM EST
\nAdvocate:<\/strong>\u00a0Dan Geyser, for Respondent<\/strong><\/span>
\nIssue: <\/strong>Whether, if an arbitration agreement carves out some claims from arbitration, that carve-out negates the delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.<\/p>\n

**No observers may attend both moots for Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales<\/em>. 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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(This […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2902,"featured_media":0,"parent":15,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-377","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2902"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=377"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1173,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/377\/revisions\/1173"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/supreme-court-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}