Hello, and welcome to CRCL’s live coverage of the final round of the 2013 Ames Moot Court competition!

Our judges for this evening are: the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; the Honorable Ilana Diamond Rovner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and the Honorable Merrick B. Garland, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

October 23, 2013 - 09:55:21 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: “The court will adjourn to the recess. To the reception.”

October 23, 2013 - 09:54:56 pm by Katherine Walecka

Garland: “The level of argument here was better than in the D.C. circuit.”

RBG: “And I’ll second that.”

October 23, 2013 - 09:54:40 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: “I cannot avoid saying how deeply touched I was by the choice of the name for the petitioner.


And Constance Baker Motley was a woman I knew well and much admired.


The reception is waiting so I will ask my colleagues, first J. Rovner and then J. Garland to make some very brief remarks.”

October 23, 2013 - 09:52:52 pm by Andrew Mamo

That’s it!

Good night everyone, and thanks for tuning in to the Harvard CRCL live coverage of Ames! See you next time.

October 23, 2013 - 09:52:26 pm by Andrew Mamo

And we’re adjourned.


October 23, 2013 - 09:51:56 pm by Andrew Mamo

Amazingly, the judges remain brief with their commentary. Ginsburg makes a touching comment about the team name of the petitioners


October 23, 2013 - 09:50:32 pm by Andrew Mamo

The respondents are the overall winners.

October 23, 2013 - 09:50:27 pm by Vikram Shah

Best oralist goes to Andrew Rohrbach.

October 23, 2013 - 09:49:54 pm by Andrew Mamo

And the best oralist is Andrew Rohrbach

October 23, 2013 - 09:48:09 pm by Katherine Walecka

“I will announce the divided decision about the best brief. 2 of us have decided that Respondent’s brief is the best brief. And our next chore is to decide the best oralist.”

October 23, 2013 - 09:48:04 pm by Eric Rice

Best brief decision is divided 2-1 in favor of respondent.

October 23, 2013 - 09:47:36 pm by Andrew Mamo

Bush is not the decider — Ginsburg apparently is

October 23, 2013 - 09:47:28 pm by Katherine Walecka

“I think that everyone in this room will agree that we have been treated to some exceptional advocacy.”– RBG

October 23, 2013 - 09:46:45 pm by Andrew Mamo

And the judges (human or not) are back in the room


October 23, 2013 - 09:46:29 pm by Vikram Shah

The judges enter.

October 23, 2013 - 09:46:07 pm by Eric Rice

Aaaaand we’re back!

October 23, 2013 - 09:27:50 pm by Robin Lipp

Live investigative journalism! You read it here first.

October 23, 2013 - 09:25:56 pm by Katherine Walecka

An anonymous tipster informs us that:

“[F]or what it’s worth, the Ginsburg Memorial team actually picked their name before knowing she would judge. They asked Minow whether she would be judging because they didn’t want to pick it if she would be. Minow ok’d it.  They feel totally bad about it now and considered changing it!”


October 23, 2013 - 09:22:01 pm by Robin Lipp

schmoozing resumes

October 23, 2013 - 09:21:23 pm by Eric Rice

Brief recess before the decision is announced.

October 23, 2013 - 09:21:09 pm by Vikram Shah

Argument ends. Tonight’s winner: Judge Rovner’s hair.

October 23, 2013 - 09:21:07 pm by Eric Rice

Argument has ended.

October 23, 2013 - 09:20:03 pm by Eric Rice

Garland says that unless an error effects substantial rights the Court must disregard it

October 23, 2013 - 09:19:38 pm by Michael Athy

Petitioner Rebut Arg:

1) Ames Circuit not split in right to choice counsel in deportation hearing –> should result in pro se reversal

2) Other Circuits do not apply certain analysis which is relevant to this case.

October 23, 2013 - 09:19:14 pm by David Hanyok

Any thoughts on who’s going to win? Who’s the best oralist? Personally I think Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner stole the show, but she’s not eligible to win…

October 23, 2013 - 09:19:09 pm by Eric Rice

Petitioner claims better half of the circuit split

October 23, 2013 - 09:19:02 pm by JacobAlderdice

Petitioner: Respondents wrong about the Ames Circuit being wrong about the circuit split.  The weight is on our side.

October 23, 2013 - 09:17:53 pm by Michael Athy

Round of applause for Respondents.

October 23, 2013 - 09:17:51 pm by Eric Rice

Time for rebuttal

October 23, 2013 - 09:17:46 pm by Jenya Parkman

Respondent admits that he is a law student.  Will this decision also be appealed because it was argued by a law student? Prejudice within a prejudice.

October 23, 2013 - 09:15:47 pm by Eric Rice

Bowie says that a Georgetown Law Center clinic has a success rate twice that of the average lawyer.

October 23, 2013 - 09:15:33 pm by rjlamorte

Respondent is highlighting the success of law students representing clients.

October 23, 2013 - 09:14:46 pm by David Hanyok

Court should not presume that law students provide worse representation. Hurray!

October 23, 2013 - 09:14:46 pm by Andrew Mamo

Lesson: read the New York Times

October 23, 2013 - 09:14:31 pm by rjlamorte

Respondent is conceding a lot of points to the Court.

October 23, 2013 - 09:14:10 pm by Jenya Parkman

Ginsburg is just not impressed by Garland’s human beings jokes.

October 23, 2013 - 09:14:02 pm by Eric Rice

Judge Garland not willing to concede that he might be a human being, doubtful that Justice Ginsburg would either.

October 23, 2013 - 09:13:28 pm by rjlamorte

Garland: making an argument well might have changed what result got deference.

October 23, 2013 - 09:13:22 pm by JacobAlderdice

The bench pressing the Government on the unknown alternatives.  What arguments could real lawyers have made?  How persuaded could the judges have been?


October 23, 2013 - 09:13:15 pm by David Hanyok


October 23, 2013 - 09:12:27 pm by Jenya Parkman

Garland: Isn’t there a difference between making arguments and marking arguments well?

October 23, 2013 - 09:11:38 pm by Eric Rice

Ginsburg thinks the consequences of having the “wrong” layer are unquantifiable.

October 23, 2013 - 09:10:29 pm by rjlamorte

Respondent: If asked, attorney would have said she had permission to represent Mr. Jimenez.

October 23, 2013 - 09:10:24 pm by Eric Rice

Rovner totally dismissive of idea that requiring IJ to verify immigrant’s consent to having the law student representative as a lawyer would be overly costly.

October 23, 2013 - 09:10:17 pm by Vikram Shah

Rovner: You’re wringing your hands about the costs of a rule that would require automatic reversal when the petitioner is represented by someone not of her choice. But how much would it cost for an immigration judge to take 30 seconds to ask whether this is the lawyer of her choice?

October 23, 2013 - 09:09:03 pm by Jenya Parkman

jokes jokes jokes about youth not being an immutable characteristic.

October 23, 2013 - 09:08:01 pm by Jenya Parkman

By the way, the under bet on “number of mysterious reasons heard” would have won for the previous oralist.  None were allowed by this fiery bench.

October 23, 2013 - 09:07:45 pm by JacobAlderdice

Judge Rovner and Judge Garland: isn’t not having the lawyer of your choice and violation of the statute a reversible error?

October 23, 2013 - 09:07:36 pm by David Hanyok

Judges are confused why oralist is making concessions he doesn’t have to.

October 23, 2013 - 09:07:07 pm by rjlamorte

Rovner: should IJ have to confirm that there is agreement to be represented by “callow youth”?

Respondent: “as a callow youth myself, yes.”

October 23, 2013 - 09:06:18 pm by David Hanyok

Would still have to show prejudice if the attorney had been disbarred before representing the client. Pretty harsh.

October 23, 2013 - 09:06:00 pm by rjlamorte

Rovner: is the right to competent counsel not counsel of your choosing?

Respondent: No. We agree with petitioners.

October 23, 2013 - 09:03:52 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: But in Acosta, the court found that the taxi drivers were part of an immutable group. Was the court wrong in Acosta?


Respondent says that the court was not wrong in Acosta. Conservative move.

October 23, 2013 - 09:01:47 pm by rjlamorte

As we get to our last oralist, any thoughts on why none of the oralists are women?

October 23, 2013 - 09:00:39 pm by David Hanyok

Tall oralist needs a taller microphone.

October 23, 2013 - 09:00:34 pm by JacobAlderdice

Bowie defending the harmless error rule

October 23, 2013 - 09:00:33 pm by Jenya Parkman

Second respondent Nikolas Bowie is now presenting on the counsel issue.

October 23, 2013 - 09:00:13 pm by Eric Rice

Final oralist, Niko Bowie, steps up

October 23, 2013 - 08:59:55 pm by Vikram Shah

Garland: So we want wealthy Guatemalans to come to the US but not gang members?

October 23, 2013 - 08:59:49 pm by JacobAlderdice

Debate between Government and Judge Garland about whether we want wealthy Guatemalans.

October 23, 2013 - 08:58:49 pm by Eric Rice

Garland wonders about the difference between gangs and guerrillas.

October 23, 2013 - 08:58:01 pm by JacobAlderdice

Government: The Board can’t let in every single group in society that suffers persecution.  Too much persecution!

October 23, 2013 - 08:57:42 pm by Eric Rice

Government denies that the Board worries about opening the proverbial flood gates when considering individual cases.

October 23, 2013 - 08:57:13 pm by Chris Havasy

Rovner: Lets say it like it really is. Do we base eligibility on whether it would propose a floodgates problem?

October 23, 2013 - 08:56:50 pm by JacobAlderdice

Possible title for Judge Rovner TV Show: “Let’s Say It Like It Really Is”

October 23, 2013 - 08:56:41 pm by Katherine Walecka

Respondent doesn’t think that joining the group is an immutable characteristic.

October 23, 2013 - 08:56:13 pm by Eric Rice

Gov’t: Under these facts, the Board found that members of this group (young men being recruited into MS-13) are not persecuted more than others and that has not been contested.

This seems doubtful, no?

October 23, 2013 - 08:55:54 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: You have forthrightly acknowledged that there has been a change in the guideline[ . . .] why should we go on to the question of the social group?

October 23, 2013 - 08:55:15 pm by JacobAlderdice


October 23, 2013 - 08:55:10 pm by rjlamorte

Rovner: Who is society for the purpose of visibility? The gang?

October 23, 2013 - 08:54:59 pm by JacobAlderdice

Government says the BIA opinion might not have been so clear, but it should be given difference on its visibility definition.

October 23, 2013 - 08:54:37 pm by Chris Havasy

Rovner: When you on the board says a group must be visible to society, what do we mean by society? Why isn’t visibility to the gang sufficient for the social disability standard?

October 23, 2013 - 08:54:12 pm by rjlamorte

Court is hammering home idea that remand to the BIA for a definition of “visibility” might better.

October 23, 2013 - 08:54:10 pm by Eric Rice

Gov’t: In each case the BIA looks to non-visible factors to determine social visibility, so we think the social salience standard is the appropriate one.

October 23, 2013 - 08:52:21 pm by David Hanyok

Someone give Rovner a t.v. show!! She could make wayyyyy more money as the next Judge Judy than she does on the bench.

October 23, 2013 - 08:52:12 pm by Jenya Parkman

Rovner is wondering why the petitioners are defending such a cruel position.  So cruel!

October 23, 2013 - 08:51:42 pm by Katherine Walecka

Rovner just called respondent “Cruel!” and then grinned.

October 23, 2013 - 08:51:24 pm by Chris Havasy

Rovner: If you’re not defending a literal understanding of social disability, then shouldn’t we take that off of the table? Remand this to the board to apply the social disability standard without relying on the petitioner’s ability to slip into invisibility?

October 23, 2013 - 08:49:49 pm by Katherine Walecka

Groups whose conduct is open and notorious are more likely to be seen as a group. Respondent is citing C.A.

October 23, 2013 - 08:49:15 pm by Michael Athy

Government jokingly concedes women are a social group.

October 23, 2013 - 08:49:14 pm by Chris Havasy

Rovner: Would a land owner or former member of the national police have a disability?

October 23, 2013 - 08:49:12 pm by JacobAlderdice

Justice Ginsburg, Judge Garland and Respondent all in on joke about women certainly being an identifiable social group.  Justice McKinnon not present to question how we identify gender.

October 23, 2013 - 08:48:54 pm by Katherine Walecka

Respondent is not thinking about denial of education as being any different from persecution.

October 23, 2013 - 08:48:46 pm by Michael Athy

Court: Are women forced into arranged marriages a socially visible group??

Respondent: Likely in some societies women forced into arranged marriages are a social group but in other societies those in arranged marriages are not defined as a social group.

October 23, 2013 - 08:48:15 pm by Katherine Walecka

Respondent thinks that girls are a visible social group.

October 23, 2013 - 08:48:11 pm by David Hanyok

Women are a group! He admitted it!

October 23, 2013 - 08:48:06 pm by JacobAlderdice

Trivia tidbit: Judge Rovner herself immigrated into the United States as an infant.  Her family left Latvia on the last regularly scheduled ship in the buildup to the Holocaust.

October 23, 2013 - 08:48:02 pm by Katherine Walecka

October 23, 2013 - 08:47:59 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG says what about not having education above early elementary.

October 23, 2013 - 08:47:37 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG wants to know if girls subject to genital mutilation qualify for protection as a group. Respondent says yes.

October 23, 2013 - 08:47:12 pm by Katherine Walecka

Respondent defines the group as having an immutable characteristic, definable boundaries, and whether the group is thought of as a group by society

Sounds not unlike the ways to identify a cancerous mole: (uneven color, irregular boundaries, and unusual size).

October 23, 2013 - 08:46:08 pm by Jenya Parkman

The line for number of mysterious reasons we’ll hear is 1.5. Taking bets.

October 23, 2013 - 08:45:49 pm by rjlamorte

Judge Garland: You believe there was a change in policy?


October 23, 2013 - 08:45:21 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG’s first question to respondent: “What society are we talking about? The local community?”

October 23, 2013 - 08:45:09 pm by Jenya Parkman

Ginsburg: What is the relevant society?

Respondent: Courts have said that it is the country, but the Agency will elaborate over course of making decisions.

October 23, 2013 - 08:45:07 pm by Robin Lipp

There are three mysterious reasons lurking somewhere, but no chance to get to them

October 23, 2013 - 08:44:58 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: “Next time he [Jimenez] has no right [to counsel]. And we remand. And that’s okay?”


Ashwin says that it is, and that in that case, the analysis would be very different.


October 23, 2013 - 08:44:52 pm by Michael Athy

RGB: Must be perceived by society to be a social group but who determines what the judging society is? Local communities?


October 23, 2013 - 08:43:05 pm by rjlamorte

And now to the respondents!

October 23, 2013 - 08:42:44 pm by Jenya Parkman

Respondent Andrew Rohrbach is arguing the social visibility issue.

October 23, 2013 - 08:42:10 pm by Michael Athy

Round of applause for petitioners.

October 23, 2013 - 08:42:07 pm by JacobAlderdice

Judges have moved from pressing Petitioner on his harmless error precedent interpretations to pressing Petitioner on whether there was anything that a different lawyer could have done.

October 23, 2013 - 08:42:00 pm by David Hanyok

Merrick winks at the fourth wall again, referring to Phatak as a “real lawyer.”

October 23, 2013 - 08:41:54 pm by Vikram Shah

Justice Garland: You’re the real lawyer of Mr. Jiminez’s choice. If we reject every argument you’ve thought of, why should we think another lawyer of his choice with make any other good ones?

October 23, 2013 - 08:41:16 pm by Robin Lipp

Garland: “now we have a real lawyer, right?” (laughter)

October 23, 2013 - 08:40:38 pm by Michael Athy

The Justices push petitioner on what relief would do. A new trial? What if he doesn’t get a pro bono lawyer on retrial?

October 23, 2013 - 08:39:45 pm by Michael Athy

Justice Ginsburg wants to know what a structural error even is.
The caselaw seems to be “shrinking and shrinking” limiting what counts as a structural error.

October 23, 2013 - 08:38:56 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG says “Isn’t structural error shrinking and shrinking?”

October 23, 2013 - 08:38:54 pm by Michael Athy

Justice Dude wants to know why the standard here should be lower than for one who chose their counsel
Petitioner distinguishes between this agency rule about right to choose counsel and ineffective assistance.

Petitioner: In the caseline the courts have required structural- not constitutional, error
Justice Dude pushes back on this: Isn’t it a structural/constitutional error?
Petitioner 2: In the Acardi line there are instances that where an agency grants procedural benefits, they can’t violate them.
Judge Dude says it’s the opposite.

October 23, 2013 - 08:38:39 pm by Katherine Walecka

Ashwin cites Gonzalez-Lopez on the definition of structural errors.


October 23, 2013 - 08:38:39 pm by David Hanyok

Let’s get our crack Westlaw research team on that Merrick-Phatak disagreement, CR-CL.

October 23, 2013 - 08:38:16 pm by Katherine Walecka

Clinical students everywhere should feel cozy. RBG thinks they are able counsel. Or at least is willing to posit it.

October 23, 2013 - 08:37:45 pm by David Hanyok


October 23, 2013 - 08:37:05 pm by Michael Athy

Justice Rovner wonders whether the absence  of the right to counsel impacts the analysis
Petitioner says that agency rule promulgated a rule that affords a benefit, which they

then violated, I.e., does it matter if they were represented ably by someone they didn’t choose when 44% of people in their shoes aren’t represented at all?
Petitioner: There’s a difference in immigration proceedings as between  represented and nonrepresented people. Immigration Judges have to do more work for the latter.
Rovner wants to know whether we should think about the systemic implications of their arguments

October 23, 2013 - 08:37:00 pm by Katherine Walecka

Both of J. Garland’s daughters go to Yale for undergrad, so the ribbing is affectionate.

October 23, 2013 - 08:36:20 pm by Katherine Walecka

Ashwin: “I don’t think you need to worry too much about the system, your honor.”

Rovner: “You must be kidding!”

October 23, 2013 - 08:36:00 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: “You are talking about procedural rights as you compare these two people. Mr. Jimenez was represented, not by a counsel of his choice but by an able counsel.”

October 23, 2013 - 08:35:48 pm by Katherine Walecka

Ashwin thinks this court isn’t doing a constitutional analysis, so RBG’s point is excluded.

October 23, 2013 - 08:35:38 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: “44% of the people who appear before BIA are unrepresented. They have no right to counsel if they can’t pay or find one. They would be out of luck. But your client who is able to get a lawyer has this protection that he would never have if he was worse off?”

October 23, 2013 - 08:35:23 pm by Katherine Walecka

“Is there a right to counsel in immigration proceedings?” RBG wants to know. Ashwin P. evades the question.

October 23, 2013 - 08:35:16 pm by Michael Athy

RBG: Is there a right to counsel in immigration proceedings?

Respondent: Not every immigrant required under DP clause required counsel.

(44% of immigrants do not have counsel in deportation hearings)

October 23, 2013 - 08:35:08 pm by JacobAlderdice

Relevant trivia tidbit to all the Yale jokes: Judge Garland – Harvard undergrad, Harvard law school graduate.

October 23, 2013 - 08:34:57 pm by David Hanyok

Merrick and Clarence Thomas must own the same joke book.

October 23, 2013 - 08:31:29 pm by Jenya Parkman

Ginsburg: If no Constitutional right to counsel in immigration proceedings, how can petitioner be harmed by having student counsel? (44% of immigrants don’t have counsel in proceedings)

October 23, 2013 - 08:30:30 pm by JacobAlderdice

Trivia tidbit to spice up the current administrative law discussion: the gang that Jimenez fled in El Salvador is the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, and it originated in Los Angeles in the 1980’s, set up by Salvadoran immigrants to protect themselves against other gangs.  After being deported to their home country following arrests, they have established a stronger presence there.  Thanks Wikipedia!

October 23, 2013 - 08:28:47 pm by Katherine Walecka

Rovner wants to know if snitches would be part of the group. Cedrone says yes.

Rovner asks if it applies to reporters. Cedrone says yes. CR-CL’s team of expert journalists heaves a relieved sigh.

October 23, 2013 - 08:28:35 pm by David Hanyok

Garland gets a little meta, says the Supreme Court has “changed a little bit” while gesturing to himself and RBG. A judge can wish, right?

October 23, 2013 - 08:28:20 pm by Michael Athy

Judge just referenced a 3rd prong he never allowed petitioner to state.

October 23, 2013 - 08:27:26 pm by Michael Athy

3  Arguments to be made (one of which cut off):

(1) Right to choose counsel in immigration proceeding is important procedural benefit;

(2) right to choose counsel a right pursuant to statute enacted by congress

October 23, 2013 - 08:26:31 pm by Michael Athy

Argument is that Jimenez does not need to show that denial of his right to counsel of his choice resulted in prejudice because when an agency contravenes its  own rules there is a per se ground for reversal.



October 23, 2013 - 08:25:31 pm by Vikram Shah

Ashwin Phatak steps to the podium.

October 23, 2013 - 08:25:04 pm by JacobAlderdice

Petitioner responds to Judge Garland’s law school joke with his own law school joke: Maybe gunners should be persecuted.

October 23, 2013 - 08:24:33 pm by Robin Lipp

Would gunners and first year law students qualify as particular social groups? (Garland)

October 23, 2013 - 08:24:12 pm by David Hanyok

Garland with all the law school jokes!

October 23, 2013 - 08:22:50 pm by Katherine Walecka

In C.A. itself, it adopted a bunch of precedents that would be thrown out if there was no social visibility requirement?

October 23, 2013 - 08:22:01 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: Suppose the BIA had agreed with the EU? Would that have been arbitrary and capricious?

October 23, 2013 - 08:21:12 pm by Vikram Shah

Garland steps in.  Administrative law. The Board has ruled that gang resisters are not refugees. Is that not reversible?

October 23, 2013 - 08:20:19 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: Was the result in Acosta exactly the result that was being sought by the government here?

October 23, 2013 - 08:20:04 pm by Katherine Walecka

RBG: Sometimes it is helpful to look at what the court did, and not what it said. Don’t you agree?

October 23, 2013 - 08:19:12 pm by Robin Lipp

WiFi Network overloaded in Austin, we’re trying to get back.

October 23, 2013 - 08:18:46 pm by JacobAlderdice

Judge Rovner questioning whether persecution by a gang is only limited to the young men they’re recruiting – they go after everyone.

October 23, 2013 - 08:18:41 pm by Vikram Shah

Wondering about that fiery red lace accessory Justice Ginsburg is wearing with her robes? It’s called a jabot. Go ahead, work it into a sentence.

October 23, 2013 - 08:18:02 pm by JacobAlderdice

…for everyone else.

October 23, 2013 - 08:17:45 pm by JacobAlderdice

CRCL Blog appears to be down

October 23, 2013 - 08:13:51 pm by David Hanyok

Those glasses are fantastic. Wait, are they sunglasses? Blown away right now.

October 23, 2013 - 08:13:37 pm by Chris Havasy

Rovner: The concept of a particular social group is amorphous. Don’t you think that the Court should be given some wiggle room to modify the meaning of that term? Isn’t the Court trying to get to a practical problem regarding social groups? That’s what we seem to have here.

October 23, 2013 - 08:13:25 pm by Eric Rice

Petitioner argues that resistance to MS13 is an immutable characteristic because it is in the past and cannot be changed.

October 23, 2013 - 08:12:47 pm by Jenya Parkman

Ginsburg proposes that Acosta is helpful to respondents.

October 23, 2013 - 08:12:31 pm by Katherine Walecka

“Tell me what you think is a group that would qualify?”

October 23, 2013 - 08:12:12 pm by Katherine Walecka

Ginsburg contends that the group in Acosta was more cohesive than the group in Jimenez.

October 23, 2013 - 08:11:27 pm by Katherine Walecka

Ginsburg asks Cedrone what the holding of Acosta is.

October 23, 2013 - 08:10:58 pm by Katherine Walecka

“Let me stop you there. Because your brief cites Acosta as a case very favorable to you. What was the group in Acosta?”

October 23, 2013 - 08:10:37 pm by Chris Havasy

Rovner: In what sense is the social group requirement a new criterion?

October 23, 2013 - 08:09:32 pm by Katherine Walecka

“Please proceed,” says Ginsburg to Cedrone.

October 23, 2013 - 08:08:38 pm by Robin Lipp

CJ Ginsburg presiding

October 23, 2013 - 08:08:11 pm by Katherine Walecka

Oyez, oyez, oyez!

October 23, 2013 - 08:08:10 pm by Chris Havasy

Constance Baker Motley was the first African American woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court.

October 23, 2013 - 08:08:08 pm by Eric Rice

And we’re off . . .

October 23, 2013 - 08:07:56 pm by Eric Rice

Oyez Oyez Oyez

October 23, 2013 - 08:07:35 pm by David Hanyok

Does that mean we can’t give standing ovations each time RBG speaks?

October 23, 2013 - 08:07:14 pm by Katherine Walecka

The best kind of Associate is an Associate Justice.

October 23, 2013 - 08:07:05 pm by Robin Lipp

Once again, briefs are linked here http://www3.law.harvard.edu/orgs/bsa/final-round/

October 23, 2013 - 08:06:36 pm by David Hanyok

Semi-final round?? Meaning they TOTALLY KNEW that RBG was presiding??

October 23, 2013 - 08:05:49 pm by Robin Lipp

It’s beginning now!

October 23, 2013 - 08:00:49 pm by JacobAlderdice

There’s been some debate in the media about whether Justice Ginsburg should recuse herself from this case given that one team is the “Martin D. Ginsburg” team.  We at CRCL support her decision to stay in.

October 23, 2013 - 08:00:35 pm by Robin Lipp

Emma Freeman crosses the screen for a fleeting moment

October 23, 2013 - 08:00:19 pm by Eric Rice

CRCL is questioning the ethics of using team names to pander to justices.

October 23, 2013 - 07:59:43 pm by David Hanyok

I know you guys are important and impressive but SIT DOWN ALREADY.

October 23, 2013 - 07:57:54 pm by Katherine Walecka

An Ames competitor leans in for a photo with Dean Minow.

October 23, 2013 - 07:57:32 pm by Robin Lipp

Teams and dean mulling on screen

October 23, 2013 - 07:56:00 pm by David Hanyok

Rumors that RBG will be wearing her RBG shirt under her robes this evening have so far not been confirmed.

October 23, 2013 - 07:55:34 pm by JacobAlderdice

Trivia Tidbit: Both Judge Rovner and Justice Ginsburg did their third year of last school at a different school.  Justice Ginsburg went from Harvard to Columbia her third year, Judge Rovner went from Georgetown to the Chicago-Kent College of Law.

October 23, 2013 - 07:55:16 pm by David Hanyok

MORE CONFLICTING INFO: it turns out you CAN still buy the t-shirts  here: http://unholyadventures.com/?page_id=298. ALSO: RBG herself has one, so of course you want one, too.

October 23, 2013 - 07:53:32 pm by Eric Rice

Dinner attendee says dinner was “delicious.”

October 23, 2013 - 07:53:02 pm by Chris Havasy

Conflicting reports have emerged regarding the speed at which dinner was served.

October 23, 2013 - 07:52:01 pm by Chris Havasy

Word on the street is that the dinner service was slow.


October 23, 2013 - 07:52:00 pm by David Hanyok

OH SHIT I forgot to wear my “I <3 RBG” t-shirt!  (You can’t buy ’em anymore but you can admire them: https://www.booster.com/votingrights)

October 23, 2013 - 07:48:25 pm by Katherine Walecka

Relevant film: http://www.pbs.org/itvs/globalvoices/sentenced-home.html

Of course, the facts in the Ames case (http://www3.law.harvard.edu/orgs/bsa/files/2013/10/12-1888-Jimenez-v-1.-Holder-Revd.pdf) don’t include criminal activity on Jimenez’s part.

October 23, 2013 - 07:47:44 pm by rjlamorte

Looks like we will be underway soon.

October 23, 2013 - 07:45:15 pm by Eric Rice

Judge Rovner is a remarkable woman: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-25/features/ct-tribu-remarkable-rovner-20111125_1_latvia-nazis-ship

October 23, 2013 - 07:41:29 pm by rjlamorte

Teams and judges still not here. I’m putting money on their tardiness being caused by selfie taking with RBG. Any other guesses?

October 23, 2013 - 07:31:14 pm by rjlamorte

People are still milling about in the court room. No sign of our teams or judges.

October 23, 2013 - 07:23:13 pm by Robin Lipp

Lights dim in the overflow room

October 23, 2013 - 07:22:13 pm by Robin Lipp

The case is Jimenez v. Holder. The Supreme Court granted cert on two questions:
1. Whether an applicant for asylum claiming fear of persecution on account of his or her membership in a “particular social group” must show that the group has “social visibility.”

2. Whether an applicant for asylum denied the right to the counsel of his or her choosing in immigration proceedings must show that the denial resulted in actual prejudice in order to obtain relief.

October 23, 2013 - 07:17:41 pm by Robin Lipp

The teams are as follows:

Representing the petitioner, The Martin D. Ginsburg Memorial Team
Gerard Justin Cedrone (Oralist), Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Caitlin Halpern, Wookie Kim, Ashwin Phatak (Oralist), and Jillian Sheridan Stonecipher.

Representing the respondent, The Constance Baker Motley Memorial Team
Nikolas Bowie(Oralist), Alison Deich, Dena Haibi, Lucas Issacharoff, Andrew Rohrbach(Oralist), and Kyle Wirshba.

October 23, 2013 - 07:14:27 pm by Robin Lipp

Projection screen is down; piped in music begins

October 23, 2013 - 07:11:47 pm by rjlamorte

I’ll be blogging from the court room. It’s starting to fill up!  I’ll try to get some paparazzi shots of RBG once we get underway.



October 23, 2013 - 07:07:08 pm by Eric Rice

Welcome the Annual CRCL Live Blog.  We would like to thank the BSA for so kindly organizing this event for the amusement of our followers.

October 23, 2013 - 07:06:03 pm by Robin Lipp

We’ll be getting started soon (7:30 is when the show begins) — we’re in the back of the overflow room in Austin East.

October 23, 2013 - 07:00:38 pm by rjlamorte

Welcome to the CR-CL Ames Moot Court Final LiveBlog! We’ll be getting started soon!