Moot Court Team Reaches Quarterfinals in Los Angeles

Marquette’s Labor and Employment Law Moot Court team wasn’t the only Marquette moot court to reach quarterfinals in a competition in March.

Team members Annie Gonring and Ron Tenuta successfully argued their way into quarterfinals at the UCLA Williams Institute National Moot Court Competition. Their quarterfinal round ended up being a re-match of one of their preliminaries rounds, against a competitive team.

Although Gonring and Tenuta did not advance to the semifinals, they did achieve high oral argument scores from the judges, with Gonring, in particular, named by several judges as an outstanding oralist. Their brief also tied for third place in the competition.

Madeline Lewis and Aimeé Treviño—Marquette’s other team—did not advance past the preliminary round, but they put in strong performances, with Trevino named by one judge as the best advocate in her round.

This marked Marquette’s first time in this competition and our two teams showed that Marquette was a presence to contend with.

The team was advised by Professor Lisa Mazzie, and coached by Attorneys Alexa Bradley (L’18), Bryn Baker (L’18), and Courtney Roelandts (L’18).

(From left to right) Madeline Lewis, Aimeé Treviño, Annie Gonring, and Ron Tenuta pose next to a bust of Abraham Lincoln at UCLA Law School.
Continue ReadingMoot Court Team Reaches Quarterfinals in Los Angeles

Texas Deputies and S.B. 8

If you’re like the rest of the United States, then you are aware of the recent attempts to restrict the right to abortion pre-viability — a right affirmed by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v Casey., 505 U.S. 833. Despite the holding in Planned Parenthood, States continue to pass legislation restricting abortion. In some States, these attempts are no more than a brazen attempt to ban nontherapeutic pre-viability abortions.

By the end of 2021, some fifteen States had passed legislation that banned non-therapeutic pre-viability abortions, commonly referred to as “Heartbeat bills.” (As of this writing, the states are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.) Though neither the progenitor nor the ultimate occurrence, S.B. 8, passed by Texas’s legislature and signed into law by Governor Abbott, has created rather significant waves in the legal landscape. Perhaps predictably, other States have emulated Texas’s approach, an approach that some commentators call the most restrictive abortion legislation to be passed post-Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113). A quick perusal of one’s favorite internet search engine will reveal the myriad commentary discussing the ways in which Texas and other States have been ingeniously skirting the dictates of the Supreme Court.

So, what is it that makes Texas’s legislation so newsworthy? Truly, it is not the restrictions that Texas has imposed that makes this law exceptional. After all, States have been passing restrictions on abortion long before the right was recognized by the Supreme Court. It is, also, not the fact that Texas is attempting to make it impossible for women, other than victims of rape and incest, to obtain an abortion once a heartbeat is detected; Texas is hardly novel in its endeavors in this area. What makes Senate Bill 8 so exceptional is its novel enforcement scheme.

Continue ReadingTexas Deputies and S.B. 8

“Are You a Foreign Exchange Student?” and Other Microaggressions in the Legal Clinic

word cloud of words related to microaggressionsLast year, I watched as a law student was introduced to a lawyer volunteering at the legal clinic. The lawyer was a white man in his 60s. The student was a woman of color in her 20s, and she was wearing hijab. I happen to know that both people have hearts of gold and come to the legal clinic with a desire to help and to give their time and talents selflessly.

Nonetheless, upon being introduced, the lawyer’s first words to the law student were: “It’s nice to meet you. Are you a foreign exchange student?” The student looked confused and embarrassed as she replied, “No. I grew up here in Milwaukee.”

A similar incident happened recently when a white lawyer asked a student of color where he was born and whether he had voting privileges. Again, the student in question replied that he was born and raised in the United States.

Yet another time, a white lawyer sat down at a table with a student of color: “What can we help you with at the clinic today?” The underlying assumption was that the student must be a client.

I also remember a moment when a white lawyer worked with a Latinx student for an entire shift and remarked at the end, “You are so articulate.” Why would this be mentionable? This is a student who has a college degree, has been admitted to law school, and will have a law degree in a few years.

The same comments would not have been made to white students volunteering in the clinic.

Continue Reading“Are You a Foreign Exchange Student?” and Other Microaggressions in the Legal Clinic