- Studying Law at Yale
- Our Faculty
Centers & Workshops
- Centers & Workshops
- The China Center
- Cultural Cognition Project
- Debating Law and Religion Series
- Global Health Justice Partnership
- Gruber Program for Global Justice and Women’s Rights
- Human Rights Workshop: Current Issues & Events
- Information Society Project
- John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Public Policy
- The Justice Collaboratory
- Abdallah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization
- Law, Economics & Organization Workshop
- Legal History Forum
- Legal Theory Workshop
- The Arthur Liman Public Interest Program
- Middle East Legal Studies Seminar
- The Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund
- Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights
- Robina Foundation Human Rights Fellowship Initiative
- The Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy
- Yale Center for Law and Philosophy
- Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy
- Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges
- Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law
- Yale Law School Center for the Study of Private Law
- Yale Law School Latin American Legal Studies
- Quinnipiac-Yale Dispute Resolution Workshop
- Workshop on Chinese Legal Reform
- Student Life
- YLS Today
- Info For
Spring 2013 2L/3L Competition
The Thurman Arnold Prize Finals of the Morris Tyler Moot Court competition will be called to order Monday, April 22 at 4:30 p.m. in the Levinson Auditorium. The competitors will be arguing Bond v. United States, which concerns the extent to which international treaties can give Congress the power to pass legislation addressing issues traditionally under the control of state governments.
The questions presented are:
- Whether the Constitution's structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress' authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government's treaty obligations.
- Whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court's decision in Missouri v. Holland.
The decision below is reported at 681 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 2012).
Matthew Letten '14 and Nafees Syed '14 will argue for the petitioner, Carol Bond. Christine Buzzard '13 and Andrew Tutt '13 will represent the respondent, the United States.
The final round panel will consist of Judge Thomas Griffith (D.C. Circuit), Judge Scott Matheson (Tenth Circuit), and Judge Christopher Droney (Second Circuit). A reception will follow the final found.