The Annual Moot Court Competition
The 2022 Moot Court oral competition this year consisted of a preliminary round with 12 students participating on Saturday, October 29th. On November 2nd, 4 of those students, Mackenzie Holmes, Owen Davies, Jacob Rathgeb, and Aidan Scharf, competed in the final round in front of 3 prominent judges serving as the “supreme court” for this year’s court case.
The 2022 case involves a challenge to a state constitutional amendment that bans colleges from using affirmative action programs in their admissions policies. This questions whether the amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution by working against the interest of racial and ethnic minorities and improperly changing the political process for making college admissions decisions.
In the Moot Court preliminary round, all participants argue for both the petitioner, and the respondent, while focusing on one of the two main arguments in the case: Equal Protection, and the political process.
“I think arguing both sides gives a great perspective onto controversial issues and really gets you to understand where each side is coming from,” said Mackenzie Holmes, senior accounting major and a finalist this year. “In the case of affirmative action, both sides are actually arguing equality in different ways. This may not have been understood without that research into both.”
Holmes focused on the political process part of the argument in the preliminary round. After each argument, students are able to get feedback from the judges. This year we again welcomed Dan Cotter ‘88, Brad Nahrstadt ‘89, Debby Nahrstadt, and Kate Fitzsimmons Cross ‘08 as our judges. These judges then evaluate each student and decide who will advance on to the finals round. Without these judges the competition would not be possible, and we are very thankful for them. Each has had a legal career in their prospective areas of law.
Students who advance to the finals then argue only one side, either the respondent or the petitioner. During the finals round on Wednesday, Holmes represented the respondent, arguing for the political process along with Aidan Scharf, who focused on the Equal Protection Clause. Finalists, Jacob Rathgeb and Owen Davies argued for the petitioner.
As the finals round concluded on Wednesday night, Owen Davies was pronounced the outstanding top advocate of this year’s competition. He also won this year’s brief legal writing competition.
Allyson Clay - Website and Social Media Director, Photos and Graphics Manager