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.

 
Click to Register

The 61st Annual Theodore L. Reimel Moot Court Competition is set to begin with preliminary rounds occurring October 26–29. 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’s 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 ’84 CLAS, ’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. ’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’ 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 “clergy-penitent privilege.” The clergy-penitent privilege in Illinois exempts clergy from testifying as to information learned “in the course of discipline enjoined in his or her capacity as a spiritual advisor.” In practice, Illinois’ 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—a Catholic diocese—appealed the decision arguing that requiring Catholic clergymen to report instances of child abuse learned during confession violates a priest’s free exercise right by forcing him to choose between excommunication from his religion or abiding by secular law. 

Conversely, the Respondents—the family of a fifteen-year-old girl who was engaging in intimate relations with one of the Church’s parishioners—argue 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 ’22

Ryan Kiger ’22

Vanessa Ruggiero ’22

Kristi Arty ’22

Andrew Klee  ’22

Maximillian Santiago ’22

Andrew Bandini ’22

Max Lamcken  ’22

Allie Santulli ’22

Sofia Basich ’22

Sydney Legagneur ’22

Faith Simms ’22

Justin Bogle ’22

Aubrey Link ’22

Mara Stella ’22

Matthew Boling  ’22

Lisa Maeyer ’22

Sierra Stockley ’22

Luciana Brienza ’22

Sarah Martinho ’22

Gabrielle Talvacchia ’22

Nicolas Burnosky ’22

Andrew Milisits ’22

Tamar Tellado ’22

John Canning ’22

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville ’22

Ferrell Townsend ’22

Robert DeDona ’22

Emily O'Leary ’22

Taylor Tyson ’22

Seth Ford ’22

Samantha Ollmann ’22

Rebecca Velez ’22

Delann Fraschetti Finch ’22

Catherine Pelham ’22

Sarah Wing ’22

Elisabeth Freer ’22

Tyler Price ’22

Laing Wise ’22

Jake Glancy ’22

Rachael Reeves ’22

Ashley Woodruff ’22

Annalise Hodges ’22

Annie Ringelestein ’22

 

Christine Homer ’22

Caroline Rini ’22

 

Quarterfinalists

Luciana Brienza ’22

Emily O'Leary ’22

Robert DeDona ’22

Catherine Pelham ’22

Seth Ford ’22

Tyler Price ’22

Elisabeth Freer ’22

Annie Ringelestein ’22

Annalise Hodges ’22

Vanessa Ruggiero ’22

Aubrey Link ’22

Sierra Stockley ’22

Sarah Martinho ’22

Taylor Tyson ’22

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville ’22

Rebecca Velez ’22

Semifinalists

Elisabeth Freer ’22

Emily O’Leary ’22

Annalise Hodges ’22

Tyler Price ’22

Aubrey Link ’22

Rebecca Velez ’22

Tasha Stoltzfus Nankerville ’22

Vanessa Ruggiero ’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)