Contributions

The Pro­ceed­ings of the NYU Moot Court Board, or just “Pro­ceed­ings,” is the online jour­nal of the NYU Moot Court Board, doc­u­ment­ing new approach­es to unset­tled legal ques­tions pro­ceed­ing from moot court activ­i­ties, par­tic­u­lar­ly law stu­dent com­pe­ti­tions.

Pro­ceed­ings aims to real­ize for the wider legal com­mu­ni­ty a ben­e­fit of moot­ing that has hith­er­to accrued only to par­tic­i­pants. As most appel­late lawyers know, one of the best ways to refine a the­o­ry of a case or an area of law is to argue about it, either with col­leagues or before law school pro­fes­sors. But stu­dent Moot Court com­pe­ti­tions, which con­sid­er some of the most inter­est­ing and intractable prob­lems in law, gen­er­ate hun­dreds of hours of for­mal, inquisi­to­r­i­al analy­sis of those prob­lems by pro­fes­sors, prac­ti­tion­ers, and judges (not to men­tion reams of legal writing)–and then, too often, the results are thrown away when the com­pe­ti­tion is over.

No longer. Pro­ceed­ings is the jour­nal where lawyers and law stu­dents can pub­lish their “test results” from the legal lab­o­ra­to­ry of moot­ing that tests both old and new approach­es to unset­tled areas of law. It aims to real­ize mooting’s poten­tial not only as a valu­able edu­ca­tion­al exer­cise, but as a pro­duc­tive forum for legal research.

Contributions

Does a state offi­cial engage in view­point dis­crim­i­na­tion in a state-spon­sored forum when they delete a constituent’s com­ments or block them from their social media pages? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Mag­gie Seery (’19) dis­cuss­es the pos­si­ble con­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tions an offi­cial may make when using social media to inter­act with the pub­lic. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion argues that delet­ing a com­ment or block­ing a user from a pub­lic social media page con­sti­tutes uncon­sti­tu­tion­al view­point dis­crim­i­na­tion.

Contributions

Does a plain­tiff alleg­ing sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion dis­crim­i­na­tion state a valid cause of action under Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Eri­ka Mur­dock (’19) dis­cuss­es whether sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion dis­crim­i­na­tion is encom­passed with­in the lan­guage of Title VII after recent EEOC and appel­late court cas­es. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion argues that Title VII’s pro­hi­bi­tion of dis­crim­i­na­tion on the basis of “sex” inher­ent­ly encom­pass­es sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion as a sub­set of the sex dis­crim­i­na­tion it bans.

Contributions

In the con­text of fair use, should courts fac­tor moral harms into their analy­ses? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Yonatan She­fa (’19) chal­lenges the applic­a­bil­i­ty – in the con­text of fair use – of a recent line of research by legal aca­d­e­mics who argue that copy­right law should grant artists a degree of pro­tec­tion against moral harms since those pro­tec­tions bet­ter incen­tivize cre­ation. This Con­tri­bu­tion ulti­mate­ly argues that courts must not con­sid­er moral harms in the fair use scheme absent such a direc­tive by Con­gress, and that Con­gress would be ill-advised to effect such a change to the law.

Contributions

Should the Copy­right Office be able to vet copy­right appli­ca­tions before any action for copy­right infringe­ment is insti­tut­ed? This term, in the upcom­ing case Fourth Estate, the Supreme Court will con­sid­er whether “reg­is­tra­tion” with­in the mean­ing of the Unit­ed States Copy­right Act mere­ly mean that the com­po­nents of the appli­ca­tion need to be sub­mit­ted to the Copy­right Office (the “appli­ca­tion” approach) or that the Copy­right Office has affir­ma­tive­ly approved or refused the appli­ca­tion (the “reg­is­tra­tion” approach). In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Jonathan Wieder (’19) dis­cuss­es the tex­tu­al and leg­isla­tive ori­gins and con­se­quences of each approach and the dif­fer­ing cir­cuit inter­pre­ta­tions that led to the grant of cer­tio­rari in Fourth Estate. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion argues that the reg­is­tra­tion approach bet­ter effec­tu­ates con­gres­sion­al pol­i­cy of vest­ing the Copy­right Office with dis­cre­tion over copy­righta­bil­i­ty and bal­anc­ing pro­tec­tions for all par­ties to a copy­right dis­pute.

Contributions

The bal­anc­ing act that is the Unit­ed States Bank­rupt­cy Code some­times leads to a ten­sion between sec­tions of the Code that grant rights to debtors and those that pro­vide pro­tec­tions for par­ties with an inter­est in the debtor’s prop­er­ty. In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Gavin Mack­ie (’19) explores the con­flict between Sec­tions 363(f) and 363(h) and how courts have approached sit­u­a­tions where this con­flict aris­es. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion will argue that the pos­ses­so­ry rights guar­an­teed by sec­tion 365(h) should be pro­tect­ed in any sale, and that a sale under 363(f) can­not elim­i­nate the lessee’s inter­est.

Contributions

Can a bank­rupt­cy court may approve a pri­or­i­ty-skip­ping “gift” set­tle­ment in a Chap­ter 11 pro­ceed­ing pri­or to the approval of a final plan over the objec­tion of a dis­ad­van­taged class of cred­i­tors? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Nathan Gen­car­el­la (’19) argues that the prin­ci­ples of the recent Supreme Court deci­sion Czyzews­ki v. Jevic Hold­ing Corp. neces­si­tate the appli­ca­tion of the absolute pri­or­i­ty rule to pre-plan set­tle­ments in order to pre­serve the integri­ty of the Bank­rupt­cy Code’s care­ful­ly cal­i­brat­ed pri­or­i­ty scheme. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion estab­lish­es that this exten­sion of Jevic is re-affirmed by both the dic­tates of pub­lic pol­i­cy and the under­ly­ing text of the statute itself.

Contributions

How can asy­lum appli­cants and their advo­cates safe­guard their rights to a fair, impar­tial con­sid­er­a­tion of their claims when the Board of Immi­gra­tion Appeals has vir­tu­al­ly com­plete dis­cre­tion in its deci­sions? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Susan Levin­son (’19) argues that the lack of pro­ce­dur­al safe­guards built into the asy­lum process, cou­pled with the Court’s gen­er­al­ly def­er­en­tial, hands-off approach in the immi­gra­tion con­text, deprive vul­ner­a­ble appli­cants of their right under due process to a fair, impar­tial con­sid­er­a­tion of their claims. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion rec­om­mends judi­cial, reg­u­la­to­ry, and leg­isla­tive reforms to pro­tect legit­i­mate asy­lum claims.

Contributions

Non-prof­it health­care sys­tems may seek to cre­ate an inte­grat­ed care deliv­ery sys­tem by acquir­ing oth­er health­care com­pa­nies. Par­tic­u­lar risks arise when non­prof­it health­care sys­tems pur­chase for-prof­it man­age­ment ser­vices orga­ni­za­tions. In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Vic­to­ria Ham­scho, Daniel Wein­stein, and Ryan Knox (’19) call atten­tion to some sig­nif­i­cant risks non-prof­it health­care sys­tems face in acquir­ing for-prof­it man­age­ment ser­vices orga­ni­za­tions (includ­ing fraud and abuse, cor­po­rate prac­tice of med­i­cine laws, antitrust vio­la­tions, and tax vio­la­tions) and sug­gest pos­si­ble means of mit­i­gat­ing these risks.

Contributions

Do undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants have Sec­ond Amend­ment rights? Can they be cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly banned from pos­sess­ing firearms? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Kathy Buckalew (’19) exam­ines the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of a cat­e­gor­i­cal ban on pos­ses­sion of firearms and ammu­ni­tion by undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants. The Con­tri­bu­tion argues that undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants liv­ing in the Unit­ed States have the same indi­vid­ual right to keep and bear arms for pur­pos­es of self-defense as do Unit­ed States cit­i­zens. There­fore, undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants can­not be cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly pro­hib­it­ed from pos­sess­ing firearms absent an affir­ma­tive show­ing by the gov­ern­ment that such a pro­hi­bi­tion is sub­stan­tial­ly relat­ed to the achieve­ment of an impor­tant gov­ern­ment inter­est.

Contributions

What prin­ci­ples should courts keep in mind when inquir­ing into a defendant’s finan­cial sit­u­a­tion? In this Con­tri­bu­tion, Leah Romm (’19) dis­cuss­es the equal pro­tec­tion and due process chal­lenges to incar­cer­at­ing indi­vid­u­als because of their inabil­i­ty to pay fees or fines. Ulti­mate­ly, this Con­tri­bu­tion argues that courts are con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly required to inquire into and deter­mine the finan­cial sta­tus of indi­vid­u­als who fail to pay the fees or fines they owe.