On September 26, members of the baby直播app Law community got a unique chance to witness oral arguments before the esteemed judges of the . 听Attendees gained invaluable insights into the judicial process as they observed real-time interactions between judges and attorneys of one of the nation's most important appellate courts. 听
鈥渂aby直播app Law was fortunate to have this opportunity,鈥� said , Assistant Teaching Professor and Director of Executive and Community Learning Programs.听 鈥淪tudents had the privilege of seeing six cases being argued, and could see for themselves what made for effective oral advocacy.听 The Wittemyer courtroom was packed with over 250 students, baby直播app, staff, lawyers, and members of the public.鈥澨�
David Churchwell 鈥�25 reflected on the significance of observing live oral arguments, emphasizing the depth and complexity behind each case.听听
鈥淓ach case is more than its ultimate disposition; it involves a story, and lawyers are central to its telling,鈥� Churchwell said. 鈥淲atching the advocates weave through their arguments鈥攚hile fielding questions鈥攚as a stark reminder of this. I am grateful to have witnessed such a wonderfully unique learning opportunity.鈥澨�
Learn more about the cases below:听听
23-4106 Garfield County, Utah et al., Appellants v. Biden, et al.; Albert Lin, et al., Amici Curiae听
(肠辞苍蝉辞濒.)听
23-4107 Dalton, et al., Appellants v. Biden, et al.; Albert Lin, et al., Amici Curiae听
In these two consolidated cases, several individuals, a non-profit organization, two Utah counties and the State of Utah filed suit against the President and several federal agencies and cabinet members. Plaintiff-appellants alleged that President Biden violated the Antiquities Act when he enlarged the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief barring federal defendants from implementing the challenged presidential proclamations. The district court dismissed the complaints and held that sovereign immunity barred judicial review of presidential proclamations issued pursuant to the Antiquities Act.听听
23-9605 Pinto, et al., Petitioners v. Garland听
This case is an appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA. The BIA is the highest administrative body with authority to interpret and apply immigration laws in the United States. The petitioners in this case were seeking asylum in the United States based on a claim of domestic violence. The Immigration Judge and the BIA both denied the petitioners鈥� claim. Issues on appeal included 1) whether the lead petitioner is a member of a 鈥減articular social group,鈥� which is one of the five statutorily protected grounds for asylum, and 2) whether the petitioner鈥檚 membership in that group caused the harm she suffered.听
23-3168 HomeRoom, Inc., et al., Appellants v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, et al.听
The City of Shawnee, Kansas adopted an ordinance that prohibits more than three unrelated adults from residing together in the same residence throughout most of the city. Plaintiff-appellant HomeRoom, Inc., a property management company, and Plaintiff-appellant Val French, a private citizen, challenged the ordinance, alleging violations of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and violation of state law. The district court dismissed the claims, concluding that plaintiff HomeRoom, Inc. lacked standing and that, with respect to plaintiff French鈥檚 federal claims, the ordinance did not violate substantive due process or the equal protection clause. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.听
23-5133 Brown, Appellant v. City of Tulsa, et al.听
Plaintiff-appellant Wayne Brown sued the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa police chief after the Tulsa Police Department terminated his employment. Brown was a recent graduate of the Tulsa Police Academy, and his termination followed a series of posts he made on his publicly-accessible social media page. Brown alleged that the termination of his employment violated his protected speech rights under the First Amendment, his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was a wrongful discharge in violation of state law. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, finding that the City鈥檚 interests in its police force outweighed Brown鈥檚 speech interests, and that Brown failed to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation.听
23-6169 Estate of Laura Ratley, et al., Appellants v. Awad, et al.听
An employee of a food service distribution company parked his employer鈥檚 semi-truck on the shoulder of a turnpike. A minivan later struck the back of the semi-truck, resulting in two passengers鈥� deaths and injuries to the two other occupants of the minivan. Plaintiffs-appellants sued the truck driver and his employer for negligence, and also asserted negligent hiring and negligent entrustment against the food service company. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that the driver of the minivan was the proximate cause of the collision.听