After months of rigorous elimination rounds that began back in October, four students made it to the final round of the Edward W. Hinton Moot Court Competition on April 16. The finalists delivered their arguments in two-person teams before a panel of three federal judges.

The petitioners, Shruti Baxi, ’27, and Rafael Pierry, ’27, took first place, earning the Hinton Cup. The respondents, Jacob Levin, ’26, and Thomas Weil, ’27, took second place, earning the Llewellyn Cup. In addition, Levin was named “Best Oralist” by the judges.

“I think what contributed most to our team winning was preparation and teamwork,” said Pierry. “Shruti and I spent a lot of time thinking through the hardest questions and pressure-testing each other’s arguments, which made it easier to stay composed during the finals.”

Baxi agreed. “We benefitted from being able to refine our ideas together,” she said.

The Case

Baxi, Pierry, Levin, and Weil were randomly assigned to represent either side in the case of Suncor Energy (USA) Inc., et al., v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et al., which was recently granted certiorari by the Supreme Court. 

The case concerns the efforts of Boulder county and city to hold fossil fuels producers liable for damages caused by climate change. Boulder claims the companies’ actions—such as producing, promoting, and selling fossil fuels—contributed to climate-related injuries and seeks compensation for nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The defendants argue that federal law (including the Clean Air Act and federal common law) preempts these state claims and asked for dismissal, which the lower courts denied. The Supreme Court is now addressing whether federal law precludes such state-law claims about climate change impacts and whether it has jurisdiction to decide the case.

Each team had 30 minutes total to argue their side of the case—15 minutes per question presented. 

“I was surprised by how many questions we fielded from our judges,” said Baxi. “It was fun to have such an active and engaged panel—our oral argument time felt like it flew by.”

Pierry noted that the most challenging part of the competition was having to adapt in real time. “You can prepare in advance, but once the questions start, you have to stay light on your feet and anticipate where the judges are going,” he said.

The panel of judges in the final round included Judge Paul Engelmayer of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York; Judge Britt Grant of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and Judge Rebecca Taibleson of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 

The Steep Competition

This year’s Hinton Moot Court kicked off in the fall with more than 80 second- and third-year students participating in the preliminary round. Fourteen semi-finalists advanced to the second round, which took place in the winter.

In addition to their big win in the finals, Baxi and Pierry also received special recognitions in the semi-finals with Baxi earning “Best Brief” and Pierry earning “Best Oralist.” Another semi-finalist, Daniel Marquina, ’27, received an “Honorable Mention.”

Looking back on the competition, Baxi said, “Each round involved an area of law that I didn’t know much about beforehand. Having to quickly familiarize myself with new legal topics was a challenging but rewarding part of the experience.”

Pierry was surprised by how collaborative the whole experience felt. “Even though moot court is a competition, you have many opportunities for practice, support, and feedback. Being surrounded by friends and spectators reminded me of competing in collegiate debate,” he said.

Advice for Future Participants

Reflecting on their win, Baxi and Pierry shared some advice for students interested in competing next year.

Baxi said: “I think it can be easy to get caught up in legal technicalities when writing a Moot Court brief or preparing for oral argument, since the cases we use involve legal questions that are genuinely complicated and unresolved. Thinking about how to explain our position to someone without a legal background helped me focus in on the parts of our argument that were most important and communicate more clearly.”

“My advice is to practice early and often,” Pierry said. “The best preparation is subjecting yourself to frequent interruption, so you feel comfortable thinking on your feet. I also think it's helpful to practice with many different people. Different judges will approach your argument differently, which helps prevent you from being caught by surprise.”