Students from across the nation flocked to Foggy Bottom to compete in the Undergraduate GW Moot Court Team’s first-ever national invitational Friday and Saturday.

GW’s undergraduate moot court team failed to reach the semifinals but spent several months organizing the competition, which gathered 30 teams from nine universities to argue the constitutionality of contraceptive bans in a style that mimics appellate court proceedings and oral arguments presented in the Supreme Court. One of two student teams from California State University, Fullerton won the competition.

The participating teams hailed from Buffalo State, Cornell and Duke universities, The Universities of Maryland, Virginia, California State University, Fullerton, Boston University and The College of Wooster. GW fell short of further advancing on the second day of the competition — shrinking the semifinals pool to one team from Boston and Duke universities and two from CSUF, who duked it out in the finals on Saturday.

“The outcome doesn’t really matter,” said Hannah Lytle, a junior and a member of GW’s team who received an honorable mention for her performance in one of the trials. “This is a big win for our team in general because this is a platform we haven’t had before. It was really great to see our teammates come together as a team and help host the tournament.”

Members of GW’s moot court team said they appreciated the opportunity to compete and host the competition because GW and the American Moot Court Association — the team’s umbrella organization — have been working toward authorizing the team to compete in AMCA-administered tournaments for about three to four years. The AMCA changed its requirements to make universities liable for the conduct of the team and its participants, which has kept the GW chapter from competing in association’s official tournaments and led them to host the invitational as an alternative. 

Three teams of GW students competed including Lytle with Bridget Tost, Priya Moran with Allie Robinson and Adam Galland with Isabella Reed, who filled in for Kevin Berman. Each team participated in three trials and argued for the petitioner and respondent sides at least once, each for a total allocated time of 40 minutes excluding transitions and feedback from judges.

Competition judges, including local lawyers and current and former law students, interrupted the students throughout the process with questions about their arguments before scoring the two teams at the end of each trial. Competitors were limited to using about 20 prior Supreme Court cases like Dobbs v. Jackson and Obergefell v. Hodges as precedent in their arguments, after the AMCA chose the constitutionality of contraceptive bans — and the right to privacy and the free exercise clause, which protects an individual’s right to practice their religion — as the subject of this year’s competition.

In their first trial, Galland, a sophomore and an opinions writer for The Hatchet, argued that a ban on contraceptives would violate one’s right to privacy, which he referred to as “the spirit of American law.” Reed, a junior, argued contraceptives were protected under the law because of a person’s right to free exercise.

In the second round, Lytle and Tost represented the petitioner, the state and responded to two main arguments including the right to privacy and free exercise of religion. Tost said the government’s narrowly tailored compelling interest supported the ban.

“The government interest in promoting morality and culture of life, responsibility and protecting against an STI crisis in the fictional state, and saving money are all compelling government interests and that through banning all noncondom contraceptives, the act is narrowly tailored to those interests,” Tost said.

In the third round, Robinson and Moran argued for the respondent, the fictional woman suing the state for its contraceptive ban. Robinson argued the right to privacy exists in the Constitution and that the court should apply the due process clause. Moran argued that the law violated the respondent’s freedom of religion because the compelling interest of the state was too broad and that the policy did not promote said interest.

Senior Madison Freeman, the chapter’s treasurer, said members began preparing for the competition over the summer by summarizing the precedent cases and developing their arguments in August. Freeman said she practiced by asking questions that forced her to prepare for the variety of questions judges may throw at them.

“One thing that we’ve always prided ourselves on is, even if we can’t be like the biggest name school, we do really, really prep for these competitions,” Freeman said. 

Junior Ishani Patel, the chapter’s communications director, said the GW team began preparations after deciding to host their own competition by speaking with advisors and administrators in the Division for Student Affairs. They followed by reaching out to schools and people with a legal background to serve as judges for the competition, like 2023 GW Law alum Cody Ingraham.

“On Instagram, we DMed a lot of them,” Patel said. “We cold-emailed probably a couple thousand lawyers to see if they would come judge because we do need a lot of judges to do this.” 

Patel said they rented out University spaces and created resources for the competition like a bench brief for the judges that summarizes the important information from the cases given. Patel said seeing the team grow from what it was her first year has been one of the most fun aspects of participating in the organization.

“We’ve had the most people ever that have tried out for our organization this year,” Patel said. “It shows that all the hard work we’re putting into it is coming to life, and it’s really exciting.”

Shira Silberman, the chapter’s vice president, said the executive board started planning the competition in April of last year and reached out to the Yale Undergraduate Moot Court Team and spoke to their treasurer in June, who explained how they organized their invitationals in the past.

Silberman said she has enjoyed watching members grow into their own “mini lawyers” because of the change AMCA made this year, making participants answer two questions per issue rather than one, making it more difficult for participants to answer the questions in a timely manner.

“Being able to see them all work through this problem and get their legs under it and grow roots into it has been amazing,” Silberman said.

Jennifer Igbonoba contributed reporting.