Reviving a Tulane Law Tradition: The Moot Court Competition

  On those tablets are the names of some of the best-known Tulane Law graduates, many of whom went on to have distinguished careers that enabled them to influence cases – and law-making -- around the globe. In recent years, however, through lack of funding and dedicated alumni involvement, the competition had faded to become a shadow of its former self, usually with judges and competitors the only attendees. <

All that changed Tuesday. <

Two students – 3Ls Jay Jensen and Emma Moppert – argued a federal death penalty case (Hidalgo v. State of Arizona) in the final Moot Court Honorary Round in view of a packed auditorium and before a panel of three distinguished federal judges: the Hon. Eugene Davis (L’60) of the 5th Circuit; the Hon. Luis Felipe Restrepo (L’86), a judge of the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia; and the Hon. Sarah Vance (L’78) of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. <

During arguments and rebuttals on the constitutionality of Arizona’s application of the death penalty in first-degree murder cases, both students faced tough challenges to their arguments from the judges. In the end, it was Moppert who took the win as the top-performing appellate student advocate. <

The final two competitors, winnowed through a series of moot court rounds in the fall semester, will both have their names engraved on “the marble.” The honorary round is less about securing a spot on the tablet than it is about whose name goes first.  It’s also about honoring the tradition of oral advocacy at Tulane Law. <

The panel of judges – all Tulane Law alumni – proved to be a “hot bench.” They barely allowed arguments to begin before peppering both Jensen and Moppert with questions and challenges. In the end, Restrepo said there had been ‘lively debate on who to crown the winner.” <