2025 Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Final

2025 Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition

Thursday, January 30, 2025 | 1:30 pm
Doors will open at 12:30 pm due to expected longer entry times due to heightened security. 
Please arrive early.

Lisner Auditorium

Welcome to the final round of the 75^th annual Van Vleck Constitutional Law Moot Court Competition. This competition is our largest and longest running upper-level advocacy competition and is named for William C. Van Vleck, the longest-serving dean in the history of the law school. He joined the GW Law faculty immediately after graduating with his JD in 1912 and served as dean of the law school from 1924 – 1948. Jake Stein, who graduated from GW Law during Van Vleck's last year as dean, described him as follows: "He was imperious. He would not invite you to speak with him after class. His idea was, you are here to learn and I am here to teach. He was all business."This attitude was reflected in the law school's recruitment brochure from that era, Studying Law in the Nation's Capital: Advantages of the George Washington University Law School (1927), which read in pertinent part, "Examinations are graded severely with the purpose of weeding out the slothful, inattentive, and incompetent." Until shortly after Dean Van Vleck’s retirement, moot court competitions or "Case Clubs” were run through the Student Bar Association. In 1950, the Case Club became a separate student organization now known as the Moot Court Board, and this competition was named for Dean Van Vleck.

Moot court competitions provide valuable opportunities for students to hone their oral and written advocacy skills by engaging in mock appellate litigation. This year’s competition began last September, when a record 124 upper-level students started researching the problem. Each team of two competitors was required to submit a written brief and present an oral argument for each side.

To earn the right to present their arguments in this distinguished panel of judges, the two teams competing in the final round advanced through five previous rounds, which - in honor of Dean Van Vleck - were used for "weeding out the slothful, inattentive, and incompetent." To that end, all rounds were judged by practicing attorneys. The winning team of the competition will receive the Jacob Burns Award at the annual Awards Ceremony held the day before their graduation.

Problem Synopsis

Factual Summary

On March 2, 2020, G.D. was born to Michelle Komisarchik, a Caucasian woman, and Alexander Rodriguez, a male and Native American who is a member of the Okowobee tribe. After Alexander Rodriguez died in a car accident, Michelle Komisarchik struggled to support G.D. On May 5, 2021, at the age of one, G.D. was placed in the foster care of Spencer and Tarra Addison. After two years of G.D.’s placement with the Addisons, the couple petitioned to adopt the child. However, the New Columbia Department of Children and Families advised the Addisons that G.D. was covered under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). The purpose of the ICWA is "to protect the best interest of Indian Children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children and placement of such children in homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture" (25 U.S.C. § 1902). In this regard, the ICWA provides guidance to States regarding the handling of adoption cases involving Native children and sets minimum standards for the handling of these cases.  In response to the Addisons’ petition for adoption, Michelle Komisarchik informed the New Columbia District Court that G.D.’s biological aunt and member of the Okowobee tribe, Catherine Zhou, would be willing to adopt her son. 

Procedural Summary

On November 20, 2023, pursuant to ICWA, the New Columbia District Court awarded Catherine Zhou custody of G.D. over the Addisons’ constitutional objections.  Specifically, the Addisons argued against the ICWA preferences and that there is “good cause” to set aside the Indian preference. Further, the Addisons argued that under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, the preferences are unconstitutional.

The New Columbia Supreme Court granted a motion for expedited review and, by a divided vote, affirmed the ruling of the District Court on May 30, 2024. The majority recognized that Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. required them to follow BIA’s reasonable interpretation of the “good cause” regulation. The majority and dissent recognized that Morton v. Mancari is binding precedent and permits Indian preferences. However, the dissent opined that considering the decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Indian preferences would be held unconstitutional.

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo overturning Chevron.

On September 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted expedited certiorari to hear oral argument in this case on two issues:

Issue I

Whether the Supreme Court of New Columbia erred in failing to hold that the “good cause” exception in 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a) applied so that Petitioners, not Respondents, should have been allowed to adopt G.D.

Issue II

Whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing the placement preferences in 25 U.S.C § 1915(a) that govern the placement of “Indian children” in state adoption proceedings.

The Competitors

The Judges

• Ketanji Brown Jackson
• David J. Barron
• Roopali H. Desai

Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States

Justice Jackson was born in Washington, DC, on September 14, 1970. She married Patrick Jackson in 1996, and they have two daughters. She received an AB, magna cum laude, from Harvard-Radcliffe College in 1992, and a JD, cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1996. She served as a law clerk for Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts from 1996 to 1997, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1999 Term. After three years in private practice, she worked as an attorney at the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2003 to 2005. From 2005 to 2007, she served as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, DC, and from 2007 to 2010, she was in private practice. She served as a Vice Chair and Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014. In 2012, President Barack Obama nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where she served from 2013 to 2021. She was appointed to the Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States in 2017, and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission in 2019. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., appointed her to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021 and then nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2022. She took her seat on June 30, 2022.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Chief Judge Barron is the son of Jerry Barron, former dean of The George Washington University Law School.  Chief Judge Barron graduated from Harvard College in 1989 and Harvard Law School in 1994. From 1989 to 1991, he worked as a newspaper reporter. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from 1994 to 1995, and for Justice John Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court, from 1995 to 1996. He then worked as an attorney advisor for the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice, from 1996 to 1999.  In 1999, Chief Judge Barron became an assistant professor at Harvard Law School. He became a full professor at Harvard Law School in 2004, where he worked until he rejoined the Justice Department as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, from 2009 to 2010. He then returned to the Harvard Law School faculty in 2010, where he was named the S. William Green Professor of Public Law in 2011, and worked until his appointment to the federal bench in 2014. Chief Judge Barron continues to teach at Harvard Law School as the Louis D. Brandeis Visiting Professor of Law. Chief Judge Barron was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in May 2014. He became Chief Circuit Judge in 2022.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Born in Toronto, Canada, Judge Desai is the daughter of Indian immigrants. She received her Juris Doctor, a Master of Public Health, and Bachelor of Arts, all from the University of Arizona. Judge Desai and her husband live in Phoenix, Arizona with their three daughters. She started her legal career clerking for Chief Judge Emeritus Mary M. Schroeder on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Early in her career, Judge Desai worked as an associate at Phoenix law firm Lewis & Roca. Thereafter, Judge Desai was in private practice as a partner in the Phoenix law firm Coppersmith Brockelman. Judge Desai is a professor of practice at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. She is also an elected member of the American Law Institute, where she was recently appointed to serve as an Adviser on the American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law, Election Litigation project. As a lawyer, Judge Desai was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court to serve on the Arizona Supreme Court Committee on Civil Justice Reform. She currently serves on the Ninth’s Circuit’s Public Information and Community Outreach Committee. Judge Desai was nominated to the Ninth Circuit on June 15, 2022 and confirmed by the United States Senate on August 4, 2022. Upon receiving her judicial commission, Judge Desai became the first South Asian American judge to serve on the Ninth Circuit.