Tips for Moot Court Tryouts: Start Strong At the beginning of the argument, introduce:
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous requirements for admission.
Relying on that delegation, the President concluded that it was necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of countries that do not share adequate information for an informed entry determination, or that otherwise present national security risks.
The plaintiffs in this litigation, respondents here, challenged the application of those entry restrictions to certain aliens abroad. We now decide whether the President had authority under the Act to issue the Proclamation, and whether the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
EO—1 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a review to examine the adequacy of information provided by foreign governments about their nationals seeking to enter the United States.
Pending that review, the order suspended for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals from seven countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—that had been previously identified by Congress or prior administrations as posing heightened terrorism risks.
Citing investigative burdens on agencies and the need to diminish the risk that dangerous individuals would enter without adequate vetting, EO—2 also temporarily restricted the entry with case-by-case waivers of foreign nationals from six of the countries covered by EO—1: The entry restriction was to stay in effect for 90 days, pending completion of the worldwide review.
These interim measures were immediately challenged in court. The District Courts for the Districts of Maryland and Hawaii entered nationwide preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the entry suspension, and the respective Courts of Appeals how to write a moot court oral argument examples those injunctions, albeit on different grounds.
The temporary restrictions in EO—2 expired before this Court took any action, and we vacated the lower court decisions as moot. On September 24,after completion of the worldwide review, the President issued the Proclamation before us—Proclamation No.
To further that purpose, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. The Proclamation described how foreign states were selected for inclusion based on the review undertaken pursuant to EO—2.
The baseline included three components. Second, the agencies considered the extent to which the country discloses information on criminal history and suspected terrorist links, provides travel document exemplars, and facilitates the U. Finally, the agencies weighed various indicators of national security risk, including whether the foreign state is a known or potential terrorist safe haven and whether it regularly declines to receive returning nationals following final orders of removal from the United States.
DHS collected and evaluated data regarding all foreign governments. The State Department then undertook diplomatic efforts over a day period to encourage all foreign governments to improve their practices.
As a result of that effort, numerous countries provided DHS with travel document exemplars and agreed to share information on known or suspected terrorists.
Following the day period, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient in terms of their risk profile and willingness to provide requested information.
The Acting Secretary recommended that the President impose entry restrictions on certain nationals from all of those countries except Iraq. She therefore recommended entry limitations for certain nationals of that country. As for Iraq, the Acting Secretary found that entry limitations on its nationals were not warranted given the close cooperative relationship between the U.
Invoking his authority under 8 U. For countries that do not cooperate with the United States in identifying security risks Iran, North Korea, and Syriathe Proclamation suspends entry of all nationals, except for Iranians seeking nonimmigrant student and exchange-visitor visas.
Because Somalia generally satisfies the baseline standards but was found to present special risk factors, the Proclamation suspends entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and requires additional scrutiny of nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas. And for Venezuela, which refuses to cooperate in information sharing but for which alternative means are available to identify its nationals, the Proclamation limits entry only of certain government officials and their family members on nonimmigrant business or tourist visas.
The Proclamation exempts lawful permanent residents and foreign nationals who have been granted asylum. It also provides for case-by-case waivers when a foreign national demonstrates undue hardship, and that his entry is in the national interest and would not pose a threat to public safety.
The Proclamation further directs DHS to assess on a continuing basis whether entry restrictions should be modified or continued, and to report to the President every days. Upon completion of the first such review period, the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Homeland Security, determined that Chad had sufficiently improved its practices, and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals.
B Plaintiffs in this case are the State of Hawaii, three individuals Dr. The State operates the University of Hawaii system, which recruits students and faculty from the designated countries. The three individual plaintiffs are U. The Association is a nonprofit organization that operates a mosque in Hawaii.
Plaintiffs challenged the Proclamation—except as applied to North Korea and Venezuela—on several grounds. Plaintiffs further claimed that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it was motivated not by concerns pertaining to national security but by animus toward Islam.
The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the entry restrictions. The court concluded that the Proclamation violated two provisions of the INA: The Government requested expedited briefing and sought a stay pending appeal.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a partial stay, permitting enforcement of the Proclamation with respect to foreign nationals who lack a bona fide relationship with the United States. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
According to the Government, that principle barring review is reflected in the INA, which sets forth a comprehensive framework for review of orders of removal, but authorizes judicial review only for aliens physically present in the United States.
See Brief for Petitioners 19—20 citing8 U.The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United ph-vs.comished pursuant to Article III of the U.S.
Constitution in , it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, such as suits between two or more states, and . MOOT COURT BENCH Mooting Basics Workshop.
Part 1 Research and Written Submissions. Academic Writing • It can be important to understand the background behind a A skeletal outline of the oral argument. First page header of submissions!
3 NSMCC Oral Pleadings Guide A.
Aug 18, · Here are some tips from faculty members and members of the Moot Court Board General tips What is the best thing an oral [PDF]Twenty Tips from a Battered and Bruised Oral - . Jul 31, · An Online Tagalog - English Dictionary Learn Tagalog or Filipino Language for free. Oral Argument in Criminal Cases: 10 Tips for Winning the Moot Court Round Preparation and Delivery of Oral Arguments in Appellate Courts Stepping up to the Podium with Confidence: A Primer for Law Students on Preparing and Delivering and Appellate Oral Argument.
Introduction!! Most!Schools!Moot!competitors!find!oral!advocacy!simultaneously!exciting!and! ph-vs.com! practice! and! preparation,! even! the! most! reluctant! public! Tell the court how many arguments you are going to discuss (keep it to two or three, if you can), and briefly explain each one.
Whatever you do, do it quickly. Whatever you do, do it quickly. You don’t want to be interrupted with a question if you can avoid it. Roe v. Wade, U.S. (), is a landmark decision issued in by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to ph-vs.com Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an .
Jenny Weigel Adjunct Professor of Lawyering Skills, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Jenny has been teaching law students in the art of persuasive writing and oral advocacy for over four years, focusing on what happens at the appellate court.