DeLuzio, 1L, wins Beaudry moot court final

Photo by Brad Kehr, 2L. Beaudry finalists with judges. Winner DeLuzio at center.Last Thursday, students and faculty gathered in Hart Auditorium for the Sixtieth Annual Robert J. Beaudry Moot Court Competition.  A Georgetown Law tradition since 1952, the Beaudry Moot Court Competition rewards first-year students for excellence in brief-writing and oral advocacy.  Each participant in this year’s competition received a closed packet of cases and other materials concerning an issue relating to United States Constitutional Law.  

Deborah Gruen, Nathaniel Cullerton, Jeffrey DeSousa, and Christopher Deluzio were the four finalists selected from a pool of over 150 applicants. 

The judges for the event were Chief Judge Andrew S. Effron of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Judge Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Justice Helen E. Hoens of the New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal of the United States Department of Justice.  

Barristers’ Council Members Ifeolu Hassan and Janea Sears collaborated with Director of Appellate Advocacy, Jackie DiLauro, to plan this year’s competition.

This year’s principal case, Vaughn v. Goast, was inspired by Weise v. Casper, a Tenth Circuit Case that was recently denied certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.  Vaughn explored the question of whether qualified immunity should be extended to private volunteers who, while acting under the direction of the Secret Service and the White House Advance Office, ejected the Petitioners from a Presidential speech on account of a controversial bumper sticker.  

The Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent argued both sides of the two issues before the court:  1) Whether Respondents could assert a defense of qualified immunity to protect themselves from liability and 2) Whether Respondents violated Petitioners’ First Amendment rights when they removed Petitioners from the event.

Photo by Brad Kehr, 2L

Deborah Gruen opened for the Petitioners and asserted that the volunteers could not successfully raise the defense of qualified immunity. Gruen stressed that the doctrine of qualified immunity was designed to protect the discretion of government officials, but that immunity should not be extended to the volunteers because they were only serving ministerial functions and were not performing their duties with discretion.  

Nathaniel Cullerton’s comments for the petitioner centered around establishing that Respondents violated Petitioners’ rights when they ejected Petitioners from the event after viewing the text of a bumper sticker on a car belonging to one of the Petitioners.  Cullerton argued that ejecting the Petitioners for this reason was unlawful because the bumper sticker was a form of Constitutionally protected speech.     

In his opening argument for the Respondents, Jeffrey DeSousa asserted that the respondents should be entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were “entangled with government activity” and were closely supervised by the Secret Service, a government agency.  

When pressured about the policy rationale of extending immunity to government volunteers, DeSousa elicited nods of approval from several audience members and judges for his argument that extending immunity in this manner would further the realization of the valuable “Jeffersonian ideal of an engaged citizenry.”

Photo by Brad Kehr, 2LChristopher Deluzio made a strong closing argument for Respondents by asserting that the Respondents did not violate any clearly established rights.  Deluzio supported his argument by pointing to multiple cases which supported the lawfulness of speakers exercising discretion by excluding potentially disruptive attendees from their events.

After commending each participant on their preparation and skillful arguments, the judges selected Christopher Deluzio as Best Oralist and gave the Best Brief Award to Robert Bernstein.  

“We would be pleased to have any of you argue before our courts,” said Chief Judge Effron. “You knew the law, you knew the facts, and you gave us the [arguments] we would need to decide this case.”  

Judge Sykes told the participants and aspiring litigators to utilize “big picture” thinking in preparing for an oral argument, reminding them that judges must not only think about the outcome of the immediate case, but must also consider how their decision will affect the doctrine and judgments of lower courts.  

Acting Solicitor General Katyal emphasized the value of flexibility and a nuanced understanding of the boundaries and contours of one’s argument to success in oral advocacy.

Deluzio spoke with the Law Weekly after his victory, acknowledging the efforts of the other finalists and expressing relief and excitement over successfully concluding the competition.  “I was honored to win Beaudry, especially in light of the impressive arguments given by Deb, Jeff, and Nate.  I would urge anyone remotely interested in moot court to write a brief and compete.  It’s a great experience.”

By Portia Boone, 1L

Law Weekly