Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition: Record Corrections

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Record Corrections

I've made a few changes to the record - nothing that should really matter for your argument, but I wanted to let everyone know and clear up any confusion that these errors caused. This corrected version of the Record is what the judges will receive. If you come across any more errors that you think should be fixed, please bring them to my attention!

on p. 7, added the missing words "of the"
also on p. 7, corrected date in Para. 20 to 2008
Defendants changed to plural on pages 11, 44, 45, 46
on p. 22, Patrick Henry is representing the Defendants, not James Madison
Para. 8 on p. 46: SJ goes to the defendants, NOT the plaintiffs on the second issue
Para. 2 on p. 47: added missing word "motion"

You can download the corrected version here.

Also, I will be posting an FAQ with some of the questions I've received over the last week. If you have a question, either procedural or substantive, that you think is appropriate for me to answer, please send it my way soon.

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.

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.

Read the full record here.