Hinton Moot Court 2025

Two men wearing suits stand side-by-side posing together in a mock court room with one of the men holding a plaque.
Dean Thomas J. Miles (left) with Coby Goldberg, ’26, who, along with his teammate Helen Zhao, '25, won the 2025 Hinton Moot Court Competition.
A man and a woman stand side-by-side posing together in a mock court room with the woman holding holding a plaque.
Dean Miles with Helen Zhao, '25, the other half of the winning team.
Two men wearing suits stand side-by-side posing together in a mock court room with one of the men holding a plaque.
Dean Miles with Alec Hubbard, '26, who took second place with his teammate Raam Tambe, '25.
Two men wearing suits stand side-by-side posing together in a mock court room with one of the men holding a plaque.
Dean Miles with Raam Tambe, '25.

The final round of the Edward W. Hinton Moot Court competition was argued on April 16 before a panel of three federal judges. The competition began with more than 60 second- and third-year law students who participated in the preliminary round in the fall. Fourteen semi-finalists advanced to the second round, which took place during winter quarter.

The four finalists, in two-person teams, argued the case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, before a panel that included Judge Kevin Newsom of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and Judge Mary Rowland of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The petitioners, Coby Goldberg, ’26, and Helen Zhao, ’25, took first place, earning the Hinton Cup. The respondents, Alec Hubbard, ’26, and Raam Tambe, ’25, took second place, earning the Llewellyn Cup.

The case arises at the intersection of the Constitution’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. It concerns a virtual Catholic school that applied to participate in Oklahoma’s public charter-school program. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that state law and the Establishment Clause barred chartering a religious public school. The school then sought review in the US Supreme Court, claiming that the decision below burdened its free exercise rights by denying it the benefit of a charter solely based on its religious status.