Merten Caption correction

Question 1

Page 1 of the Problem indicates that Merten is the Petitioner. However, the circuit court opinion suggests Merten won both issues at the circuit court level. Can you please confirm that the Caption on p 1 designating Merten as petitioner is correct?

I wanted to confirm that Petitioner is Merten as opposed to Remington, Merten seems to have won in the Appellate Court but Merten is listed as petitioner in the SCOTUS order.

Question 2

The problem indicates that the prospective student (petitioner) won on both the Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment claims in the Fourth Circuit. But the prospective student is then the one who is appealing to the Supreme Court.

We are a little confused about this because the student won in the Fourth Circuit which typically means the school would be the one appealing the decision. Thus, the school would be petitioner, not the student. And so under the current facts, this would mean that those writing for the petitioners side are asking the Supreme Court to affirm the judgment below and the respondents are asking for a reversal, which is not the usual procedural posture.

Response to Questions 1 & 2

The Caption on Page 1 incorrectly identifies the student, Justin Merten, as the Petitioner. The procedural posture explained in the Appellate Court decision is correct, and Merten has been granted summary judgment on both issues. The University of Remington is now appealing to the United States Supreme Court. The University should have been listed as the Petitioner in the Caption on Page 1.

Pastafarianism

Question 3

Initially, the problem appears to have created a fictional Pastafarian faith. For example, the problem asserts that Pastafarians abide by the 'Gospel of the Pasta Alien,' whereas real-world-Pastafarians abide by the 'Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.' However, on page 17 of the record, the Court of Appeals writes "[T]his court agrees with the District Court of Nebraska, that Pastafarianism is not a religion," citing Cavanaugh v. Bartelt.

While the problem instructions note that resemblance to actual persons/places/events are purely coincidental, page 17 of the record appears to assert that the Evans problem addresses real-world-Pastafarianism. Is there a difference between Evans-Pastafarianism and real-world-Pastafarianism?

Question 4

We have a question regarding the scope of permissible research we can do regarding pastafarianism. We recently realized that there is much more real-world content on pastafarianism than we originally anticipated. Are we permitted to research pastafarianism and include real-world information in our brief, or should we restrict our understanding of it to what is provided in the Evans problem document?

Response to Questions 3 & 4

The fictional Pastafarianism created for the problem is loosely based on the real-world religion of Pastafarianism. Please do not do any outside research to gather more information about the real organization. It is up to the competitors to argue whether the information provided about Pastafarianism in the problem would or would not amount to First Amendment protection.

Remington Affirmative Action Pie Chart

Question 5

Per page 6 of the problem, the pie chart data regarding students' racial identity comes from Remington's most recent student survey. Given that the most recent survey illustrates the difference between proportions of race represented in enrollment before the affirmative action plan (via upperclassmen) and after (via lowerclassmen), is it safe to assume that Remington's affirmative action program has been in place for only two years (by virtue of the fact that freshmen and sophomores are underclassmen, thus only two admissions cycles have used the program)?

Response to Question 5

Yes, that is an accurate inference.

Outside Research

Question 6

Page 3 of the rules states that we must limit our research to federal jurisdiction. Does this mean that we are not allowed to gather information from secondary sources, such as real-world studies, reports, and scholarly articles?

Question 7

Can you clarify how your response to questions 3 & 4 squares with the record at page 17, specifically the last paragraph. There, the district court agrees with the “real world” Pastafarianism court case (Cavanaugh) that our “fictional” Pastafarianism is also a parody.

I understand to do no further outside research about Pastafarianism and only use the information provided within the record. However, I want to clarify whether or not we are dealing with “fictional” Pastafarianism. The record seems to suggest we are not.

Question 8

To confirm my understanding (with regard to question 6), real-world studies of racial wealth gaps, racial equity in education, or similar data would not be acceptable?

Response to Questions 6, 7, & 8

There have been several questions regarding the extent of outside research that is permissible for this competition. The fictional Pastarianism created for the problem differs from the real-world organization. Competitors are allowed to compare and contrast the fictional Pastafarianism to any real world religion, including the real-world Pastafarianism if they wish. Competitors are also allowed to use outside scientific studies on racial inequality, vaccine efficacy, or related topics. However, competitors are not allowed to add facts to the record from any outside sources or use outside research to question undisputed facts in the record. Though creative arguments are encouraged, a brief can be well-written without any outside research.

Additional Questions

For any additional questions that are not addressed on this page, email evanscompetition@gmail.com.