A Moot Court is an event in which law students present briefs and oral arguments on both sides of hypothetical cases. The cases are decided before a jury of students.
The object of a “moot court” is to provide experience for students in legal research, in writing briefs and in presenting legal arguments.
Moot court cases are entirely imaginary, and no one should mistake these made-up examples for real legal actions, even though they usually involve precedents from real cases. Also see these links (Research for moot court) and (Writing a brief).
——-
FALL 2024 Moot Court Cases
1. Baggins v The Daily Planet et al (Right of private people to be forgotten)
A private person says his reputation is being damaged by information that should be taken down from the web. Fifteen years ago, Reid B. Baggins was mistakenly arrested for burglary, but was acquitted and all charges were dropped. The court ordered that his arrest information be expunged from the record. However, the web and news sites that carried information about the arrest, especially the Daily Planet, refused to take the story down, saying that neither Baggins nor the courts have a right to suppress truthful information. Now, whenever he applies for a job, Mr. Baggins has to explain that he is not really a burglar. He feels this is unfair and that under privacy law, he should have a “right to be forgotten,” and is suing to have that recognized. He argues that a minor arrest can have major consequences in a person’s life, which is contrary to the spirit of the law in that it presupposes guilt and that it forecloses the prospect of redemption. While European GDPR law has a “right to be forgotten” in cases like this, the US does not, and Baggins believes that it should. (Background: See this study by Eumi K. Lee in Rutgers Law Review and this article in The Conversation. (Again, please note that these moot cases are hypothetical, not real).
2. California v FenceDown (Prior restraint, fighting words, privacy)
“FenceDown” is selling an phone app that reads the cell phone numbers on a local network and then allows its client to text a message to them. The app can even identify users with an infrared locator so a client can point their phone at strangers and send a message. This “FenceDown” technology does not reveal or retain the phone numbers, so the company says it is not an invasion of privacy. Instead, it is a First Amendment-protected activity in a public space similar to taking a video or shouting out loud.
The problem, according to an injunction filed by Sacramento district attorney Chris D Miller, is that the technology enables fighting words, and that highly disparaging text messages are being sent to in-person groups in bars, in traffic, and in church and government meetings. These messages are leading to fistfights and road rage incidents, and Miller says this means that the technology itself should be banned under the Brandenburg v Ohio standard for imminent action and the Chaplinsky standard for “fighting words.” In one recent incident, people attending a city council meeting all received an anonymous text message saying: “Everyone in this room is an idiot, especially you.” The council meeting had to be adjourned a few minutes later after a shouting match broke out. In another incident, politicians at a campaign debate were all told that they “had been discovered” and should “get out of town immediately.” Some did. FenceDown says this technology itself is legal and can be used in a variety of ways. In any event, typical messages are not calls to violent action but simply the sort of “unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” that are protected under the Sullivan standard. (Again, please note that these moot cases are hypothetical, not real).
3. Mumford v InfoBabble and Alex Smith (Libel, Criminal penalties)
Lew Mumford survived the firebombing of his church and was called a “crisis actor” on Alex Smith’s show. In the years since, Mumford was thus subject to death threats and mob violence. The problem is that Smith has already been found guilty of libel in several dozen other suits and is completely bankrupt. In his initial lawsuit, Mumford ask for, and received, an injunction compelling Mr. Smith to never mention his name on the air or internet again. But Smith continues to break the injunction, and is now facing contempt of court charges. Mumford is asking the court to impose a jail sentence of one month for every time Smith has lied about him. This would amount to over 20 years in prison at this point. The legal question is whether criminal contempt of court is an appropriate remedy for recalcitrant libel defendants. (Background: see this article in the Davis Law Review. ) (Again, please note that these moot cases are hypothetical, not real).
4. Kahn v Cerf and Goober News (Cyber-mobbing, doxing, and privacy law)
James Kahn was arrested (and later convicted) of burglary on the same day that a young Jessica Taylor was murdered. Kahn happened to look like the man that a police artist’s sketch depicted after eyewitnesses descriptions, but his alibi was firmly established later. Nevertheless, a Fred Cerf, a well known musician and social media leader, took up Jessica Taylor’s cause and published as much information about Kahn that he could find, including name, social security number, drivers license number, credit card number and other details of his life. The information was published on Goober News. Kahn sued Cerf and Goober for invasion of privacy but Goober said it was exempt under Section 230 and Kahn said he was reporting newsworthy information. ( See Erik Money 2020 – 2021, CONSTRAINING THE CYBERMOB: USING A DOXING NOTICE AND TAKEDOWN REGIME TO OPTIMIZE THE SOCIAL UTILITY OF ONLINE SHAMING. Journal of Law and Technology at Texas, 4, 1. and other law reviews).