Pine Crest

Moot Court 2014

Attached are your case fact patterns. You will act as appellate attorneys presenting your clients case to the Supreme Court.

Assignment Part I: Appellate Brief

You are to submit an appellate brief to the court prior to your argument. Your brief should consist of the following

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

Format: The appellate brief must be typed, 13 point font, double spaced, 1 inch margins, numbered. The brief will be at least 8 pages long. (Each brief component i.-v. appear on a separate page; component iv. Argument will be 4+ pages.)

Facts: The facts of the case should not be a mere rewrite of your case fact pattern. You should rewrite the facts of the case in the light most favorable to your client. Your facts should be compelling, tell a story, be persuasive and include details that advance your legal argument (or theory) of your case. You want to emphasize favorable facts and deemphasize unfavorable facts.

Table of Authorities: You will rely on the Constitution, on Congressional enactments and on Supreme Court cases to develop your clients legal argument to defend his/her case before the Supreme Court. The table of authorities should provide the court with a list of these citations in alphabetical order. The cases and laws should be properly cited:

1. US Const. amend. XIV, cl. 1 [14th Amendment EPC, DPC]

2. 42 USC 2000a[Civil Rights Act of 1964]

3. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)[SC Case Plessy v. Ferguson]

Issue: What question are you asking the court to answer? Your issue should contain the material facts of the case as well as the law you would like the court to apply to render a holding in your clients favor. (Helpful hint: your question should begin with the word, Is, Does or Whether.)

Argument: This is the most important part of your case brief. Here, you will provide the court with relevant and persuasive precedent that supports your clients position. You want to provide the court with a clear analysis of the applicable statutory and case law, a logical application of the facts of your case, and a well-organized, well-written argument that lays out the basis for your clients position. Often times, the court will want to hear various arguments to support your cause, so you want to provide the judge with at least 3 or 4 arguments that support your position. In doing so, put your best foot forward and begin with your strongest argument. Formatting requirements for this section: This section must be at least four pages in length. You must properly cite all relevant statutory law and case law (including at least three court cases supporting your position[s] and/or cases that are controlling but distinguishable). When quoting directly from a source, if the quote is over 3 lines long, you must single space and indent within the body of the paragraph. (Any quote longer than two lines will not be counted toward your page count.) Your brief is due on Monday, Nov. 17 by 9:00pm.

Conclusion: This section should be two to three sentences indicating what it is you would like to have the court do with the case (i.e. what remedy do you seek from the Court?).

Assignment Part II: Oral Argument

During the week of Nov. 17, you will present your case to the Court. Our oral argument will require you to prepare a defense for your position. This includes making several coherent and logical arguments before the Court, citing precedent, identifying balancing tests, and being prepared to answer questions and responding to hypotheticals and counterfactuals from the Supreme Court Justices. You must also prepare to respond to opposing counsels arguments. You must cite to relevant statutory law and case law (including at least three court cases supporting your position[s] and/or cases that are controlling but distinguishable).

Assignment Part III: Supreme Court Justice

During the week of Nov. 17, you will sit in the capacity of an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. You will research the case appearing on your docket, understand the precedent cited by both parties and prepare several questions, hypotheticals and counterfactuals to probe the issue and challenge the attorneys.

You will be graded on your appellate brief (style, format, strength of arguments, legal research), your oral argument, your use of class prep time and your role as associate Justice.

Worth: 100 Points

-35 points for your brief

-35 points for your oral argument

-10 points for your use of class time

-20 points for your role as justice

Docket No. 14-1a

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

MOHAMMAD RUTHERFORD,

Petitioner,

V.

MR. AND MRS. SMITH, FAIRFIELD INN, LLC, et al,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

The EPC, the Commerce Clause and the Fairfield Inn: Mr. and Mrs. Smith have owned a small family bed and breakfast called the Fairfield Inn in Cloverdale, MN. It has been a family-run Bed and Breakfast for the past 70 years and it serves approximately 20 local families daily. It is located over 100 miles from the nearest Interstate Highway.

Nearly all of the food offered on their daily menu is produced by locally grown fruits and vegetables, as the community is composed primarily of farmers. Mrs. Smith too has her own garden. The other food is purchased from local farmers markets or door-to-door farmers.

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Smiths put a sign on their door reading We Do Not Serve Arabs or Muslims. Six months later, Mohammed Rutherford came to Cloverdale to visit friends. He had heard about Mrs. Smiths delicious blueberry pie and decided to head to the Fairfield Inn to try it for himself. Upon arrival, he was denied a table.

When he returned home to Seattle, WA, he, along with the ACLU, hired Luke Mansour and Anabel Alpert to represent them in their suit against the Smiths and the Fairfield Inn. They claim Mr. and Mrs. Smith violated The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned discrimination by race in public accommodations. He relies upon Ms. Frankenthal and Ms. Skimming to file an appellate brief and assert his interests in Court.

The Smiths hired Will Becker and Paloma Rodriguez to file an appellate brief and defend them in Court. The attorneys intend to counter that the Fairfield Inn is not engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress exceeded its delegated powers by subjecting the Smiths to the Civil Rights Act. Subsequently, application of the Act to the Smiths is unconstitutional.

Associate Justices: Jimmy, Joe, Jackie and Alan

Docket No. 14-1b

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

MOHAMMAD RUTHERFORD,

Petitioner,

V.

MR. AND MRS. SMITH, FAIRFIELD INN, LLC, et al,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

The EPC, the Commerce Clause and the Fairfield Inn: Mr. and Mrs. Smith have owned a small family bed and breakfast called the Fairfield Inn in Cloverdale, MN. It has been a family-run Bed and Breakfast for the past 70 years and it serves approximately 20 local families daily. It is located over 100 miles from the nearest Interstate Highway.

Nearly all of the food offered on their daily menu is produced by locally grown fruits and vegetables, as the community is composed primarily of farmers. Mrs. Smith too has her own garden. The other food is purchased from local farmers markets or door-to-door farmers.

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Smiths put a sign on their door reading We Do Not Serve Arabs or Muslims. Six months later, Mohammed Rutherford came to Cloverdale to visit friends. He had heard about Mrs. Smiths delicious blueberry pie and decided to head to the Fairfield Inn to try it for himself. Upon arrival, he was denied a table.

When he returned home to Seattle, WA, he, along with the ACLU, hired Divya Bhansali and Emily Klimberg to represent them in their suit against the Smiths and the Fairfield Inn. They claim Mr. and Mrs. Smith violated The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned discrimination by race in public accommodations. He relies upon Ms. Frankenthal and Ms. Skimming to file an appellate brief and assert his interests in Court.

The Smiths hired Caroline Jordan and Erica Briggs to file an appellate brief and defend them in Court. The attorneys intend to counter that the Fairfield Inn is not engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress exceeded its delegated powers by subjecting the Smiths to the Civil Rights Act. Subsequently, application of the Act to the Smiths is unconstitutional.

Associate Justices: Elizabeth, Laura, Katarina

Docket No. 14-2a

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

COREY AND MADELINE STINKER,

Petitioner,

V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

Free Speech and Limits: Siblings Corey and Madeline Stinker of Little Rock, Arkansas were in the 9th and 11th grades at Little Rock High, a public school. For the most part, the two were quiet, polite, straight-A students. Corey had recently studied the Westboro Baptist Church and became infatuated with their message. He began alienating his friends by talking about all of the wonderful work the church was doing to counter the crimes against society being advocated by the evil US government. Corey was an ardent opponent of the repealing of DADT as well as outspoken against the Iraq war. Although Madeline was indifferent, she did whatever her brother told her to do.

One weekend, Corey decided it was time to share his ideas with the school. He enlisted his sister to help him design colorful posters. On the day of their schools pep rally, the two jumped center stage and displayed signs reading: G-D HATES GAYS! and THANK G-D FOR DEAD TROOPS! The students and faculty alike were shocked. Nothing like this had ever happened at their school. Most of the students parents had either served in the military or were currently stationed overseas. The principal immediately removed the Stinkers from the rally, chastised them, and suspended them for two weeks.

At a subsequent school board meeting, the board voted unanimously to expel the two. The Stinkers sued arguing that the school board unconstitutionally violated their First Amendment free speech rights. They retained Bri Bruny and Caitlin Harvey to file an appellate brief to the Supreme Court and to represent them at oral argument.

The school board stands by their decision claiming they have a duty to protect the safety of the other students from the actions of the Stinkers. The school board retained appellate attorneys Noah Srour and Nicole Morris to file their appellate brief and represent their interests in Court.

Associate Justices: Luke, Anabel, Deepti

Docket No. 14-2b

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

COREY AND MADELINE STINKER,

Petitioner,

V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ARKANSAS, LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

Free Speech and Limits: Siblings Corey and Madeline Stinker of Little Rock, Arkansas were in the 9th and 11th grades at Little Rock High, a public school. For the most part, the two were quiet, polite, straight-A students. Corey had recently studied the Westboro Baptist Church and became infatuated with their message. He began alienating his friends by talking about all of the wonderful work the church was doing to counter the crimes against society being advocated by the evil US government. Corey was an ardent opponent of the repealing of DADT as well as outspoken against the Iraq war. Although Madeline was indifferent, she did whatever her brother told her to do.

One weekend, Corey decided it was time to share his ideas with the school. He enlisted his sister to help him design colorful posters. On the day of their schools pep rally, the two jumped center stage and displayed signs reading: G-D HATES GAYS! and THANK G-D FOR DEAD TROOPS! The students and faculty alike were shocked. Nothing like this had ever happened at their school. Most of the students parents had either served in the military or were currently stationed overseas. The principal immediately removed the Stinkers from the rally, chastised them, and suspended them for two weeks.

At a subsequent school board meeting, the board voted unanimously to expel the two. The Stinkers sued arguing that the school board unconstitutionally violated their First Amendment free speech rights. They retained Ally Burnstein and Laura Sky Herman to file an appellate brief to the Supreme Court and to represent them at oral argument.

The school board stands by their decision claiming they have a duty to protect the safety of the other students from the actions of the Stinkers. The school board retained appellate attorney Cam Reid to file their appellate brief and represent their interests in Court.

Associate Justices: Elliot Seckler, Lindsey Bornstein and Erica Briggs

Docket No. 14-4a

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

INTERVARSITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

Petitioner,

V.

ROLLINS COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

First Amendment v. EPC: Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida is a private college that receives a large grant and scholarship funding from the federal government. A portion of their grant goes toward student organizations. One of those funded organizations is the Rollins Chapter of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, hereinafter IV Fellowship.

The IV Fellowship is a Christian organization that has been on the Rollins campus for nearly four decades. Its mission and purpose is to establish and advance at colleges and universities witnessing communities of students and faculty who follow Jesus as Savior and Lord: growing in love for God, God's Word, God's people of every ethnicity and culture and God's purposes in the world.

Recently, a Rollins College junior student named Lucifer Hades sought to be a member of the Fellowship. His application was denied. Mr. Hades referred his denial to the Rollins Governing Board of Trustees. They conducted an inquiry and learned that his application was denied for a number of reasons including 1) he was a practicing Satanist, 2) he was unable to accurately recite three Bible verses (which is a condition of membership), 3) he was unable to commit to attending weekly meetings and 4) his essay revealed he was ideologically opposed to the mission/purpose of IV Fellowship.

Rollins College had recently established a new anti-discrimination policy. The policy stated, in pertinent part, that

It is the policy of this college not to discriminate on the basis of sex, disability, race, age, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, physical characteristics or any other category protected by federal, state, or local law in its educational programs, admissions policies, financial aid, employment or other school administered programs. This policy is enforced by Rollins and, where applicable, federal laws such as Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. Amendment 14, and relevant jurisprudence derived from the Supreme Courts interpretation thereof.

After their inquiry, the Board of Trustees found that IV Fellowship violated the schools Anti-discriminatory Policy in their denial of Mr. Hades application. The Board declared that the IV Fellowship would no longer be a recognized campus organization and as such all further funding to IV Fellowship was cut and they were banned from meeting on campus in the future.

In a statement to the Fellowship, the Board stated,"To grant you an exception to our Anti-discriminatory policy would be inconsistent with the process of learning and growth that this college seeks to foster. Although we recognize that your group exists to promote a religious viewpoint, it is our opinion that any student, in theory, should be eligible to join and lead that religious group.

IV Fellowship has hired Alan Koolik and Arjun Padmanabhan to file an appellate brief on their behalf and to represent them in their suit against Rollins College Board of Trustees. They allege that the Board is denying them the right to peaceably assembly, their right to speech, and their right to engage in the free exercise of religionall guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Board retained appellate attorneys Jimmy Crissy and Joe Jarecki to file an appellate brief and defend against the claims made by IV Fellowship on the grounds that the group has engaged in invidious and illegal discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

Associate Justices: Jackie, Eliza, Will and Paloma

Docket No. 14-4b

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

INTERVARSITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

Petitioner,

V.

ROLLINS COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi. Facts

vii. Table of Authorities

viii. Issue

ix. Argument

x. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

First Amendment v. EPC: Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida is a private college that receives a large grant and scholarship funding from the federal government. A portion of their grant goes toward student organizations. One of those funded organizations is the Rollins Chapter of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, hereinafter IV Fellowship.

The IV Fellowship is a Christian organization that has been on the Rollins campus for nearly four decades. Its mission and purpose is to establish and advance at colleges and universities witnessing communities of students and faculty who follow Jesus as Savior and Lord: growing in love for God, God's Word, God's people of every ethnicity and culture and God's purposes in the world.

Recently, a Rollins College junior student named Lucifer Hades sought to be a member of the Fellowship. His application was denied. Mr. Hades referred his denial to the Rollins Governing Board of Trustees. They conducted an inquiry and learned that his application was denied for a number of reasons including 1) he was a practicing Satanist, 2) he was unable to accurately recite three Bible verses (which is a condition of membership), 3) he was unable to commit to attending weekly meetings and 4) his essay revealed he was ideologically opposed to the mission/purpose of IV Fellowship.

Rollins College had recently established a new anti-discrimination policy. The policy stated, in pertinent part, that

It is the policy of this college not to discriminate on the basis of sex, disability, race, age, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, physical characteristics or any other category protected by federal, state, or local law in its educational programs, admissions policies, financial aid, employment or other school administered programs. This policy is enforced by Rollins and, where applicable, federal laws such as Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. Amendment 14, and relevant jurisprudence derived from the Supreme Courts interpretation thereof.

After their inquiry, the Board of Trustees found that IV Fellowship violated the schools Anti-discriminatory Policy in their denial of Mr. Hades application. The Board declared that the IV Fellowship would no longer be a recognized campus organization and as such all further funding to IV Fellowship was cut and they were banned from meeting on campus in the future.

In a statement to the Fellowship, the Board stated,"To grant you an exception to our Anti-discriminatory policy would be inconsistent with the process of learning and growth that this college seeks to foster. Although we recognize that your group exists to promote a religious viewpoint, it is our opinion that any student, in theory, should be eligible to join and lead that religious group.

IV Fellowship has hired Katarina Stevanovich and Elia Inamorati to file an appellate brief on their behalf and to represent them in their suit against Rollins College Board of Trustees. They allege that the Board is denying them the right to peaceably assembly, their right to speech, and their right to engage in the free exercise of religionall guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Board retained appellate attorney Jake Nachlas and Elliot Seckler to file an appellate brief and defend against the claims made by IV Fellowship on the grounds that the group has engaged in invidious and illegal discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

Associate Justices: Cam, Emily and Divya

Docket No. 14-5a

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

GERDY HERD,

Petitioner,

V.

SCHOOL BOARD OF SEA COUNTY, FLORIDA, WEST FALLS DISTRICT, et al,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

Search and Seizure and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: Florida West Falls High School senior Gerdy Herd was addicted to smoking cigarettes. On more than one occasion during her junior year, she was caught smoking cigarettes in the locker room by her gym teacher. Although she was 18 and legally she was permitted to smoke, she violated the school districts rule against smoking on school property. At the start of each school year, all students are required to sign the student handbook to attest the fact that they read and understood all the rules that pertain to West Falls High. Gerdy signed the handbook, but never read the rules. She had attended the West Falls school district since kindergarten.

One day last October, Gerdys gym teacher Miss Smoot came into the locker room and smelled cigarette smoke. She walked over to the stalls and saw Gerdys shoes poking out from underneath. Miss Smoot yelled, Got you! as she kicked open the door. She grabbed Gerdys arm and promptly marched her to the principals office.

The principal ordered Gerdy to sit down and not say a word. He immediately alerted school security to search Gerdys locker and her vehicle, which was parked in front of the school. Security came back twenty minutes later with a box of Marlboros and a lighter, both found in her lockers, as well as four baggies of cocaine and a bong found in the trunk of her car.

The principal turned to Gerdy and informed her she was suspended until further notice. Gerdy finally broke her silence as she asked incredulously, For what?! You didnt even see me smoking in the bathroom! The principal turned to Miss Smoot and asked, What did you see? Miss Smoot admitted she saw nothing, but she was certain she smelled cigarette smoke coming from the vicinity of the stall where Gerdys shoes were peeking out.

The principal turned to Gerdy and declared, Thats enough evidence for me! and called the police.

Gerdy was arrested charged with possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia. A month later, the school board voted unanimously to expel her from school. At her trial, she filed a motion to suppress her evidence based on violations of her privacy guaranteed by the 4th Amendment; as well as a claim against the school board alleging the same. The motion was denied. When the Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari, Gerdy hired appellate attorneys Deepti Salipan and Julia Olefson to file an appellate brief on her behalf and argue the case before the Court. The School Board hired attorneys Eliza Moldow and Jackie Kahn to file their brief and represent their interests before the Court.

Associate Justices: Bri, Caitlin, Arjun, Noah

Docket No. 14-5b

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NOVEMBER TERM, 2014

GERDY HERD,

Petitioner,

V.

SCHOOL BOARD OF SEA COUNTY, FLORIDA, WEST FALLS DISTRICT, et al,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari

APPELLATE BRIEF

________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Facts

ii. Table of Authorities

iii. Issue

iv. Argument

v. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

Search and Seizure and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: Florida West Falls High School senior Gerdy Herd was addicted to smoking cigarettes. On more than one occasion during her junior year, she was caught smoking cigarettes in the locker room by her gym teacher. Although she was 18 and legally she was permitted to smoke, she violated the school districts rule against smoking on school property. At the start of each school year, all students are required to sign the student handbook to attest the fact that they read and understood all the rules that pertain to West Falls High. Gerdy signed the handbook, but never read the rules. She had attended the West Falls school district since kindergarten.

One day last October, Gerdys gym teacher Miss Smoot came into the locker room and smelled cigarette smoke. She walked over to the stalls and saw Gerdys shoes poking out from underneath. Miss Smoot yelled, Got you! as she kicked open the door. She grabbed Gerdys arm and promptly marched her to the principals office.

The principal ordered Gerdy to sit down and not say a word. He immediately alerted school security to search Gerdys locker and her vehicle, which was parked in front of the school. Security came back twenty minutes later with a box of Marlboros and a lighter, both found in her lockers, as well as four baggies of cocaine and a bong found in the trunk of her car.

The principal turned to Gerdy and informed her she was suspended until further notice. Gerdy finally broke her silence as she asked incredulously, For what?! You didnt even see me smoking in the bathroom! The principal turned to Miss Smoot and asked, What did you see? Miss Smoot admitted she saw nothing, but she was certain she smelled cigarette smoke coming from the vicinity of the stall where Gerdys shoes were peeking out.

The principal turned to Gerdy and declared, Thats enough evidence for me! and called the police.

Gerdy was arrested charged with possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia. A month later, the school board voted unanimously to expel her from school. At her trial, she filed a motion to suppress her evidence based on violations of her privacy guaranteed by the 4th Amendment; as well as a claim against the school board alleging the same. The motion was denied. When the Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari, Gerdy hired appellate attorneys Elizabeth Pozzuoli to file an appellate brief on her behalf and argue the case before the Court. The School Board hired attorneys Lindsey Bornstein to file their brief and represent their interests before the Court.

Associate Justices: Ally, Caroline, Jake