Ames Moot Court Competition Final Round

Introduction

• Host & VP: Rachel Chiu, Vice President, Ames Moot Court Program.
• Participants: 54 teams, now narrowed to final two teams.
• Judges Panel:
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Justice Goodwin Liu, California Supreme Court.
  • Justice Rachel Kovner, U.S. District Court, E.D. New York.
• Case Writers: Joseph Passamato, William Bergstrom (Harvard Law School '17).

Case Summary

• Main Issue: Scope of rulemaking authority by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
• Questions Presented:
  1. Whether 5 U.S.C. Section 7062 requires court vacatur of agency rulemakings violating the act.
  2. If so, does 5 U.S.C. Section 7062 violate Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution by requiring federal courts to exceed judicial power?

Teams & Roles

• Petitioner (OSHA): Patsy Takamoto Mink Memorial Team

  • Members: Derek Choi, Kunal Dixit, Daniel Flesh, Phoebe Kotlikoff, Yusuke Suzuki, Monica Wong.

• Respondent (Federici Contracting LLC): Judge Lawrence H. Silberman Memorial Team

  • Members: Max Alvarez, Eric Bush, Richard Dunn (Oralist), Haley Eisenberg (Oralist), Jessica Flores (Captain), Brendan Sharp.

Competition Rules

• No electronic devices allowed during competition.
• Reception to follow at HLS Pub, Wasserstein Hall.

Oral Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

1. Jurisdictional Arguments (Daniel Flesh):
   • APA does not mandate vacatur in every case; preserves judicial discretion.
   • District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; Ames Circuit could not hear the appeal.
2. Constitutional Issues (Monica Wong):
   • Mandatory vacatur is unconstitutional; courts must tailor remedies to injury.
   • Article 3 limits Congress on remedial authority.

Respondent Arguments

1. Statutory Interpretation (Haley Eisenberg):
   • Congress intended for vacatur as the remedy for unlawful agency actions under the APA.
   • Section 7062 mandates vacatur when agency action is unlawful and prejudicial.
2. Constitutional Argument (Richard Dunn):
   • No Article 3 violation; Congress can dictate remedies when legal violation is established.

Judges' Deliberation and Feedback

• Awards:
  • Best Brief: Petitioners
  • Best Team: Respondents
  • Best Oral Advocate: Richard Dunn
• Judges' Remarks:
  • Impressed by the skill and dedication of competitors.
  • Emphasized the importance of emotional intelligence and people skills in oral advocacy.

Closing Remarks

• Encouragement and praise for participants and their future careers.
• Acknowledgement of the community spirit and support shown by all attendees.
• Invitation to the reception following the event.