Reminder: Briefs are due TODAY, by midnight. Please submit seven hard copies to me at the Greenhouse, and one electronic copy to me by email. Late briefs will result in a five-point penalty for each participant each day they are late (it's a 25-pt rubric).
Directions to the Greenhouse:
It's that brick building across from JGH where the journal offices are, two buildings to the west of Little Warren. There are two doors to the building; one is after a few steps going below street level and says "greenhouse" next to it - take the other door (to the east of it), which has a list of journals and moot court programs next to it. The Moot Court office is on the first floor, all the way in the back (rm 107).
It requires card access, which I think all law students should have, but if you have any trouble; I'll be there pretty much all day and you can call me. If for some reason you just can't get there, drop your briefs off in the Moot Court mailbox in the info center (JGH 1st floor) and email me immediately to let me know that's where they are.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Materials and information relating to Columbia Law School's Appellate Advocacy Competition for 2009-2010
Harlan Fiske Stone
About the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition
Stone is Columbia Law School's three-round elimination competition in appellate advocacy. The first round, in the Autumn term, is open to 2L, 3L and LLM students who have not previously made the final round. In this round, each student briefs one issue of a two-issue case and argues one side of that issue in two oral arguments before benches composed of lawyers and judges.
Send any questions to the Director, Brittney Pescatore, at blp2110@columbia.edu.
Sixteen competitors advance to the Spring semi-final round on the basis of brief and oral scores received from the Autumn benches. In the semi-final round, students can revise their briefs and may be assigned a new side of the same issue. From the round of 16, the top-scoring four students argue the same case in the final round before a bench of distinguished judges and a large audience. Finalists may be assigned by the director to either side of either issue.
A prize is awarded for the best oral argument in the Final Round as determined by the judges.Send any questions to the Director, Brittney Pescatore, at blp2110@columbia.edu.
This Year's Problem
Madison v. Marbury Public School District
On November 14, 2008, James Madison, a male student at Thomas Jefferson High School, was suspended for violating the school’s dress code after he wore and refused to change out of a pink dress. While Madison had mixed motives for wearing the dress, including his desire “to look and feel good,” he donned it on that particular Friday to show support for anti-Proposition 8 rallies going on across the country that weekend. Proposition 8, a California ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in that state, had passed a little over a week before and had been a much talked about topic among students at the high school.
The dress code for Thomas Jefferson High School specifically requires that clothing be “gender appropriate.” It also defines permitted “top wear” and “bottom wear” for male and female students. Females are permitted to wear skirts and dresses, but males are not. The day that Madison wore his dress to school he got into a lunchtime discussion with fellow students about marriage equality. The conversation spilled over into his history class, where students talked about the role tradition plays in society. The history teacher, Mr. John Jay, said he considered the class among the best he’d conducted all year.
Madison then proceeded to Ms. Alexa Hamilton’s English class. She found the dress distracting and was particularly bothered by the snickering among students while she taught the Shakespearean play famous for its cross-dressing characters, As You Like It. Ms. Hamilton sent Madison to Principal Jane Marshall’s office and, when Madison refused to change his attire, he was suspended.
Madison sued Marshall and the Marbury Public School District for violating his right to free expression and for discriminating against him on the basis of his gender. The federal court for the District of New Jersey awarded summary judgment to the school district on both issues; Madison has appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.