HLS Holds Moot Court Finals

Harvard Law School students last night debated the constitutionality of juvenile curfews before Supreme Court Justice David Souter in the annual Ames Moot Court competition.

The contest draws some of the country’s prominent legal minds to judge the final round. Along with Justice Souter, Emilio Garza of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Ilana Diamond Rovner for the Seventh Circuit were on the bench this year.

Last night’s arguments culminated a year of effort by two teams of six students, who won the opportunity to compete after defeating several of their classmates in a preliminary competition that included the preparation of briefs and oral arguments.

In the competition, students argued on a fictional case concerning the legality of juvenile curfews. The case, McNeil v. Lu, questioned the detainment of two young boys accused of violating the Ames Juvenile Curfew Act. The arguments focused on whether the act infringed the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

While the details of the case were fictional, the key issues reflected real legislation enacted previously by several states and the District of Columbia.

The contending arguments focused on whether the Constitution protected the right to free movement and whether minors could claim such a right.

“The Ames Curfew is an undue burden on the right of free movement and therefore violates the Equal Protection clause,” said Bryce Callahan, who made oral arguments for the petitioners. “The right of free movement is implicit in the concept of liberty.”

Adam Harber, the leading oralist of the respondents, disagreed that free movement constituted a constitutional right. “The petitioners have asked for a new substantive due process right, the right to free movement,” Harber said.

The judges awarded the prizes of best overall performance and best set of briefs to the respondents’ team, but gave the prize of best oralist to Joshua Hurwit of the petitioners’ team.

During the arguments, Justice Souter questioned whether the curfew violated any constitutional rights and defended the right of the State to consider age in its legislation.

“You agreed that we shouldn’t develop a framework in which a five-year-old has the same rights as a 19-year-old or a 69-year-old,” Souter said in response to Callahan. “What is wrong with the cutoff of 18-year-olds?”

Judge Rovner was also skeptical of the Constitution protecting free movement.

“Don’t we have to be able to locate this right to movement with precision in the Constitution to call it a constitutional right?” Rovner said. “Doesn’t the state have a compelling interest in protecting children from crime?”