NALSA Moot Court 2010

Well, it's mid-February or so, and for any law student that has ever done a moot court competition, that usually means a weekend in a godforsaken hotel, with other bleary-eyed teammates, and late nights spent putting the final touches on oral argument. Or perhaps that's just what moot court means to me.

Either way, the scenario above finds me in balmy Vermillion, SD exploring the legal limits of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it relates to criminal prosecutions of Native Americans under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. And while I am not yet at liberty to discuss the problem full-bore, I can say that the issue is thorny (as all moot court problems are) for conflicting opinions in the Federal Courts of Appeals, and the dicey nature of Federal Indian Law generally.

A copy of the problem can be accessed here:

[Link]

The way this year's competition works is that all teams argue twice on the first day. Each team has been assigned to argue either for the appellants or the appellee in the case, and each team argues for their designated side. The side a team has been randomly designated to argue for is called the on-brief side, since that side's designation is also accompanied by the production of an appeallate brief on the issues - in addition to the oral argument prepared for the actual contest.

Following on-brief oral arguments, competitors then make an off-brief oral argument for the opposing side during the afternoon of the first day.

The top sixteen teams in scoring, based upon the combined scoring from both oral arguments, and a percentage of the written brief score, advance to the elimination rounds the following day.

Competition then proceeds in a matter similar to the March Madness bracket with rounds of the sweet sixteen, the elite eight, and final four, preceding the championship argument between the top two teams.

This year's judging has been fairly evenhanded, so far. I would name drop, but it probably isn't appropriate given that the competition is still on-going. Suffice it to say, I have been impressed by the caliber of judges that we have faced. Soon, I promise to lay out some of our arguments, and talk more about the problem. Hopefully, this will be later rather than sooner since moving on in the competition means less time to blog.

This year's team has me partnered with a fellow Udall Intern from last summer's National Native American Congressional Internship Program. The first two rounds went well, I think. At least we felt we "left everything on the field", er, podium. The top sixteen teams will be announced at dinner this evening.

So, for now, send good thoughts toward the vicinity of your humble blogger. And of course, feel free to question the wisdom of hosting a National competition in South Dakota in the middle of winter.

Update: Well, the Moot Court gods must have smiled today. Our ragtag team advanced to the Sweet Sixteen for the second year in a row. Our fellow Arizonans have pledged to help us prep this evening, so this could be yet another late night.

More tomorrow...

Update 2: And we're done. Our valiant duo fell to the Lions of Columbia in our Sweet Sixteen round this morning. In comments from the judges, yours truly was called "mesmerizing," speaking with "anachronistic grace." I haven't concluded whether this was a compliment or not. Given the outcome, it could well be one of the kindest insults I've ever received.

The full delegation from Arizona is off to lunch, but I'll try to post some more substantive comments on the problem later this afternoon. My snarkiness notwithstanding, the problem was quite interesting, and I couldn't be more proud of our teams from the U of A.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone