Ames Moot Court Competition Final Round

Welcome and Introduction

• Rachel Chu: Vice President of the Ames Moot Court program and board of student advisers.
• Event Location: Ames Courtroom.
• Participation: Record 54 teams participated.
• Special Guests: Honorable Justice Sonia Sotomayor (US Supreme Court), Honorable Justice Goodwin Liu (CA Supreme Court), and Honorable Rachel Kovner (US District Court, EDNY).
• Case Writers: Joseph Pomato and William Bergstrom (Harvard Law, class of 2017).
• Final Teams:
  • Petitioner: United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    • Py Takamoto Mink Memorial Team
    • Members: Derek Choy, Kunal Dixit, Daniel Fleisch (Oralist), Phoebe Kotlov, Yusi Suzuki, Monica Wong (Oralist and Team Captain)
  • Respondent: Federici Contracting LLC
    • Judge Lawrence H. Silberman Memorial Team
    • Members: Max Alvarez, Eric Bush, Richard Dunn (Oralist), Haley Eisenberg (Oralist), Jessica Flores (Captain), Brandon Sharp

Case Overview

• Issue: Scope of rulemaking authority granted to OSHA by its enabling act.
• Questions Presented:
  1. Does 5 USC § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act require courts to vacate agency rulemakings found to violate the act?
  2. Does 5 USC § 706(2) violate Article III of the US Constitution by requiring federal courts to exceed their judicial power?

Rules About Audience Behavior

• No laptops, cell phones, or other electronic devices.
• Silence any devices.
• No photos during the competition.
• Refrain from leaving the courtroom during arguments.
• Reception after the event at HLS pub in Wasserstein Hall.

Proceedings

• Oral Arguments:
  • Petitioners (OSHA) Arguments: Daniel Fleisch & Monica Wong
    • Daniel Fleisch:
      • 16 minutes on jurisdictional and statutory issues.
      • Argument Summary:
        • Jurisdictional defects and historical interpretation of APA.
        • No mandatory vacature in each case; APA preserves judicial discretion.
        • Importance of preserving judicial discretion and the varied interpretation of “set aside.”
    • Monica Wong:
      • 16 minutes on constitutional issues.
      • Argument Summary:
        • Tailoring of remedial actions to the nature and extent of the injury.
        • Importance of weighing injuries before ruling on a remedy.
  • Respondents (Federici Contracting) Arguments: Haley Eisenberg & Richard Dunn
    • Haley Eisenberg:
      • Argument Summary:
        • Mandatory vacature is meant to provide a balance and ensure oversight of agency actions.
        • Courts generally issue vacature when agency actions are unlawful.
        • Relied on historical and statutory interpretations to support the argument for mandatory vacature.
    • Richard Dunn:
      • Argument Summary:
        • Challenging the necessity of changing the interpretation of mandatory vacature.
        • Constitutional concerns related to remedying legal violations and Congress's broad authority over federal court remedies.

Conclusion and Result

• Chief Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
  • Complemented the teams for their exceptional quality and dedication.
  • Highlighted the importance of young lawyers for the future of justice.
• Results:
  • Best Brief: Petitioners
  • Best Team: Respondents
  • Best Oral Advocate: Richard Dunn
• Justice टिप्पणियाँ:
  • Justice Sotomayor: Praised the team’s preparation and advocacy skills.
  • Justice Liu: Reflected on the human interaction aspect of oral arguments.
  • Justice Kovner: Emphasized the level of excellence and readiness of the competitors.
• Post-Announce Rectory:
  • Acknowledgement of the support from Deans and office of student advisers.
  • Encouraged attendees to join the reception.
  • Annual reminder to attend future competitions.

Court Adjournment

• Formal announcement of adjournment.
• Audience invited to join the reception at Wasserstein Hall pub.