Ames Moot Court Competition 2023

Rachel Chu, the Vice President of the Ames Moot Court Program, welcomes attendees to the final round of the competition. She introduces the presiding judges - Justice Sotomayor, Justice Liu, and Judge Kovner. Chu also announces and congratulates the two finalist teams.

Daniel Flesh, representing the Petitioner OSHA, argues that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction because the case should have been filed directly in the Circuit Court. He engages in back and forth with the judges on whether it makes sense to remand the case despite the lack of jurisdiction.

Daniel Flesh argues that the text, structure and history of APA Section 706 show that vacatur is not the exclusive remedy mandated in every case. He highlights the flexibility of the phrase "set aside" based on its usage in pre-APA statutes and cases.

The judges question Daniel Flesh about his interpretation of the APA's language allowing courts to provide full relief, citing cases like CIC Services and Bowen. They also ask how his arguments relate to the scope of a court's remedial authority.

Monica Wang, also for the Petitioner, suggests two alternatives to wholesale vacatur that could have provided more targeted relief - partial vacatur and a balanced decree remanding without full vacatur. Justice Kavanaugh questions whether this contradicts Congress' intent regarding remedies under the APA.

Monica Wang argues that mandatory vacatur violates Article 3, which requires remedies tailored to the injury caused. Chief Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kavanaugh question the basis for this limit in Article 3 and ask Wang to clarify the proposed constitutional rule.

Justice Kovner asks why no court has previously articulated petitioner's proposed Article 3 limit on remedies. Wang grounds her position in the Article 3 case or controversy requirement, arguing that remedial tailoring is an implicit constitutional necessity.

Representing the Respondent Federici Contracting, Hayley Isenberg argues that the plain text of APA Section 706, through its use of "shall", mandates vacatur when agency action is found unlawful. She suggests Congress intentionally structured sweeping remedies to match nationwide agency harms.

The judges question why Congress would impose such an inflexible vacatur rule under the APA. Isenberg maintains that the mandatory "shall" language points to Congress' intent for robust oversight of agency actions through standardized judicial remedies.

Justice Sotomayor draws comparisons to "shall" language in the Emergency Price Control Act, which was still interpreted to allow judicial discretion per Heck v. Bowles. Isenberg attempts to distinguish the discretionary language in that Act.

Isenberg argues the statute's prejudice requirement and availability of post-judgment stays mean mandatory vacatur does not totally divest courts of flexibility. Justice Liu questions why the constitutional avoidance doctrine would not lead to a narrower interpretation.

Richard Dunn argues for the Respondent that there are essentially no Article 3 limits on congressionally mandated remedies, apart from truly advisory opinions. He suggests plaintiff injury determines the permissible scope, allowing sweeping relief where the violation causes widespread harm.

Chief Justice Sotomayor asks Dunn to identify the principle allowing unlimited congressional authority over remedies. Justice Kavanaugh distinguishes injunctions from vacatur orders and questions whether Article 3 implicitly limits lower courts' national policymaking power.

Dunn argues iconic civil rights cases demonstrate federal courts exceeding any notion of tailored injunctive relief to fully vindicate rights. He claims the Article 3 case or controversy requirement would not limit the ability to benefit non-parties through sweeping vacaturs.

On rebuttal, Daniel Flesh argues respondent has no statutory basis for injunctive relief under Section 706. He also contests the claim that "set aside" has a universally settled meaning. Flesh concludes by urging flexibility in APA remedies to serve equity.