Fall Round (Preliminary)

The focus of the preliminary round is on oral argument; no brief-writing is required at this stage. All 2Ls are eligible to participate, and 3Ls are eligible to participate if they were not finalists or semi-finalists in the previous year's competition.

After studying the briefs and records of an actual case and participating in several practice arguments with student judges, each competitor argues both sides of the case before panels composed of Alumni and Chicago attorneys. Approximately 10-12 students advance to the semi-final round, with the exact number depending on the total number of participants and the statistical distribution of Fall Round scores.

For a copy of the Information and Rules governing the Competition, click here .

The 2005 fall round case is Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.  The main issue is what legal standard governs the decision whether to award fees and expenses under 28 U.S.Ct. s. 1447 (c) upon remanding a removed case to state court.

Case materials may be found at the following locations:
Supreme Court Decision granting certiorari: 125 S.Ct. 1941 (2005)
Decision below (appeal after remand): 393 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2004)
Petitioners' brief: 2005 WL 1359836
Respondent's brief: 2005 WL 1801031
Reply brief: 2005 WL 2071465

WINTER ROUND (Semi-Final)

Students who have advanced to this semi-final round brief and argue a new case. A panel of faculty members judges the semi-final arguments and selects the four best advocates on the basis of their written and oral advocacy skills.

The case for the 2007 semifinal round is LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3rd 405 (5th Cir., 2005), rehearing en banc denied in LeClerc v. Webb, 444 F.3d 428 (5th Cir., 2006).    The question presented by LeClerc is whether § 3 (B) of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII impermissibly discriminates against certain nonimmigrant aliens in violation of the Eequal Protection Clause of the Fourtleenth Amendment.  (Under § 3 (B) of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, "nonimmigrant aliens" are not permitted to sit for the Louisiana bar exam.)

The fourteen semifinalists, listed below, will argue this case to a panel of three members of the faculty.

The 2006-2007 Hinton Moot Court semifinalists are:

Edward Cottrell
Elizabeth Ferrari
Kathy Lee
Valerie Lynch
Rachel McLaughlin
Jeffrey Meineke
Stacey Nathan
Veronica Root
William Rothwell
Nirav Shah
Marc Tarlock
Michael YUanovsky
Fred Yarger
Jason Zhou 

SPRING ROUND (Final)

The four finalists, in two teams, brief and argue another case.  Past final round panelists have included Supreme Court Justices and other prominent judges and lawyers.

This year's final round presents the same case as the semifinals - LeClerc v Webb - with a new issue raised in the litigation.  Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII bars "nonimmigrant aliens" (including, for example, foreign law students present in the United States on student visas) from sitting for the Louisiana Bar Exam.  The Petitioners in LeClerc have raised two challenges.  First, they argue that the rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of ther 14th Amendment.  Second, they argue that, notwithstanding the Equal Protection analysis, the rule should be struck down because it is preempted by federal immigration law.

This year's finalists - Kathy Lee ('08), Stacey Nathan ('08), Nirav Patel ('07), and Mark Tarlock ('08) - will argue before a panel composed of the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph (D.C. Cir.), the Honorable Allison H. Eid. '91 (CO Supreme Court), and the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, '79 (N.D. Ill.)

The Moot Court Board for 2007-2008
Co-Chairs:
Kathy Lee
Stacey Nathan
Marc Tarlock

Members: