澳门二分彩

Skip to main content

61st Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition

ReimelsLogo2020

Semi-Final Round:
Wednesday, November 4 at 6:00 p.m.

Final Round and Award Ceremony:
Thursday, November 5 at 6:30 p.m.

 

The 61st Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition is set to begin with preliminary rounds occurring October 26鈥29. The quarterfinal round will take place on Monday, November 2, with the semifinal round on Wednesday, November 4.

The final round of the competition will take place on Thursday, November 5 at 6:30 p.m. Due to the ongoing pandemic, this year鈥檚 competition will be held virtually. You can register to watch the Semi-Final and Final Rounds.

The Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition is an annual intra-school tournament and a hallowed tradition at Villanova Law. Named in honor of the late Theodore L. Reimel, Judge for the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas from 1953 to 1973, the competition is designed to foster student development in written and oral advocacy through simulated appellate argument.

This year's judges who will preside over the semi-final round are:

  • The Honorable Mark A. Kearney 鈥84 CLAS, 鈥87 CWSL, Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • The Honorable Alice Beck Dubow, Judge for the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
  • The Honorable Carolyn H. Nichols, Judge for the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

This year's judges who will preside over the final round are:

  • The Honorable Albert Diaz, Judge for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • The Honorable Duane Benton, Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • The Honorable Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. 鈥83, Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court

 

The 61st Annual Thomas L. Reimel Moot Court Competition record on appeal addresses the tension between the two religion clauses of the First Amendment, commonly known as the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals鈥 rights to believe in, and practice, the religion of their choice without governmental interference. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from officially establishing a religion i.e., favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over the secular. 

Mandatory Reporter laws require most professionals, such as psychologists, doctors, teachers, etc. to report known or suspected incidents of child abuse or face legal penalties. Some mandatory reporter laws include clergy as mandatory reporters, while other exempt clergy under the 鈥渃lergy-penitent privilege.鈥 The clergy-penitent privilege in Illinois exempts clergy from testifying as to information learned 鈥渋n the course of discipline enjoined in his or her capacity as a spiritual advisor.鈥 In practice, Illinois鈥 clergy-penitent privilege only protects religions with tenets of secrecy, such as Catholicism with its Sacrament of Penance. 

In this fictional problem, the Illinois Supreme Court held that clergy were required to report instances of known or suspected child abuse in accord with Illinois Mandatory Reporter law, which in effect abrogates the clergy-penitent privilege for instances of child abuse. The Petitioner鈥攁 Catholic diocese鈥攁ppealed the decision arguing that requiring Catholic clergymen to report instances of child abuse learned during confession violates a priest鈥檚 free exercise right by forcing him to choose between excommunication from his religion or abiding by secular law. 

Conversely, the Respondents鈥攖he family of a fifteen-year-old girl who was engaging in intimate relations with one of the Church鈥檚 parishioners鈥攁rgue that exempting clergy from the mandatory reporter law violates the Establishment Clause by preferring religion over the secular and by favoring Catholicism at the expense of other religions. The Respondents focus on the limiting language of the statute tending to apply it to only a handful of religions and the fact that the Mandatory Reporter law requires most other professionals who work in close proximity with children to report abuse. This argument takes place in front of the United States Supreme Court.

2020 Competitors

Michael Alves 鈥22

Ryan Kiger 鈥22

Vanessa Ruggiero 鈥22

Kristi Arty 鈥22

Andrew Klee  鈥22

Maximillian Santiago 鈥22

Andrew Bandini 鈥22

Max Lamcken  鈥22

Allie Santulli 鈥22

Sofia Basich 鈥22

Sydney Legagneur 鈥22

Faith Simms 鈥22

Justin Bogle 鈥22

Aubrey Link 鈥22

Mara Stella 鈥22

Matthew Boling  鈥22

Lisa Maeyer 鈥22

Sierra Stockley 鈥22

Luciana Brienza 鈥22

Sarah Martinho 鈥22

Gabrielle Talvacchia 鈥22

Nicolas Burnosky 鈥22

Andrew Milisits 鈥22

Tamar Tellado 鈥22

John Canning 鈥22

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville 鈥22

Ferrell Townsend 鈥22

Robert DeDona 鈥22

Emily O'Leary 鈥22

Taylor Tyson 鈥22

Seth Ford 鈥22

Samantha Ollmann 鈥22

Rebecca Velez 鈥22

Delann Fraschetti Finch 鈥22

Catherine Pelham 鈥22

Sarah Wing 鈥22

Elisabeth Freer 鈥22

Tyler Price 鈥22

Laing Wise 鈥22

Jake Glancy 鈥22

Rachael Reeves 鈥22

Ashley Woodruff 鈥22

Annalise Hodges 鈥22

Annie Ringelestein 鈥22

 

Christine Homer 鈥22

Caroline Rini 鈥22

 

Quarterfinalists

Luciana Brienza 鈥22

Emily O'Leary 鈥22

Robert DeDona 鈥22

Catherine Pelham 鈥22

Seth Ford 鈥22

Tyler Price 鈥22

Elisabeth Freer 鈥22

Annie Ringelestein 鈥22

Annalise Hodges 鈥22

Vanessa Ruggiero 鈥22

Aubrey Link 鈥22

Sierra Stockley 鈥22

Sarah Martinho 鈥22

Taylor Tyson 鈥22

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville 鈥22

Rebecca Velez 鈥22

Semifinalists

Elisabeth Freer 鈥22

Emily O鈥橪eary 鈥22

Annalise Hodges 鈥22

Tyler Price 鈥22

Aubrey Link 鈥22

Rebecca Velez 鈥22

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville 鈥22

Vanessa Ruggiero 鈥22

Finalists

 

Emily O'Leary '22 & Rebecca Velez '22

Arguing on behalf of the Church (Petitioner) 

 

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville '22 & Annalise Hodges '22

Arguing on behalf of the Haywards (Respondents)