{shortcode-1d0fce21e8aa187490112ddbe62f7bdda220478c}
Harvard Law School students filled Austin Hall on Monday night to watch 12 students argue a mock appellate case over compensation claims under the Fifth Amendment in the final round of the school’s storied Ames Moot Court Competition.
The 12 soon-to-be lawyers argued their cases before a panel of three jurists: former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth M. Prelogar, Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom, and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra R. Kruger ’97.
The Ames Moot Court competition has been annually held at HLS since 1911, often presided over by prominent judges. Last year, students argued a case on the Second Amendment before Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ’92. Chief Justice John G. Roberts ’76, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan — a former HLS Dean — have also judged the competition in the past.
Monday night’s case — State of Ames v. Daniel Welles — examined the constitutionality of a particular application of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from seizing private property without providing “just compensation.” Welles sued the state for compensation in the fictional scenario, raising question about whether the Eleventh Amendment’s guarantee to states’ “sovereign immunity” can be overridden by the Fifth.
During the mock trial, the judges pressed students on the implied scope of the Takings Clause, the limits of state sovereign immunity, and on centuries of legal precedent.
The Charles Fried Memorial Team — comprised of Nathalie Beauchamps, Joseph R. Caplis Caplis, Joshua A. Grambow, Nicholas M. Nelson, Paneez N. Oliai, and Coy W. Ozias — won the competition, taking home the awards for “Best Brief” and “Best Team Overall.” Sophie S. Li, a member of the opposing William Thaddeus Coleman Jr. Memorial Team, won “Best Oralist.”
Prelogar shared with the audience that when was a student at HLS, her team made it to the final round and lost.
“Sadly — in a decision I still think is unjust — my team did not win,” Prelogar said. I’m going to tell you life goes on. ”
The judges praised the high quality of the work presented and said they wished this level of work was present in the current courtrooms.
“I think Justice Kruger and I would agree that if we could see this level of advocacy day in and day out in our courts, we would be extremely happy about that,” Newsom said.
Nelson said that the team knew each other beforehand, but was brought closer together by adapting to each other’s working styles and “puzzling out” the case. Overall, the group credited their teamwork to the extensive hours spent together preparing for the final round.
“We met for several hours every single day for the past two and a half weeks or so,” Nelson, one of the team’s oralists, said.
“I think we were awake for something like 75 out of 84 hours this time,” Caplis said. “It’s not because we had to — we love this, and we love being around each other, and I just think we had a great time doing it.”
“Now I gotta go back to regular school,” Caplis added.
—Staff writer Sidhi Dhanda can be reached at sidhi.dhanda@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @sidhidhanda.
—Staff writer Caroline G. Hennigan can be reached at caroline.hennigan@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @cghennigan.
