�鶹��Ƶ

Is it constitutional for law enforcement to search data from networks of private surveillance cameras to track a driver’s movements without a warrant? And can a state revoke a personalized license plate because it objects to the message?

Those questions helped propel a team from Liberty University School of Law to victory in the 17th annual Billings, Exum & Frye National Moot Court Competition at �鶹��Ƶ School of Law on Oct. 24, 2026.

Liberty’s Team 25, represented by advocates Nawel Noore and Randall Shirey, captured Chief Justices’ Cup — the championship prize — after facing fellow finalist team from Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in the final round. Noor, a third-year law student, also earned Best Oral Advocate in the Final Round, while Shirey placed second among oral advocates across the competition.

Forty teams from 25 universities nationwide competed in this year’s event, which challenged students to analyze a fictional constitutional dispute involving two issues with real-world implications: government surveillance and freedom of speech. The competition honors three former chief justices of the Supreme Court of North Carolina — Rhoda Billings, James G. Exum Jr. and Henry E. Frye — who also served as advisers to �鶹��Ƶ Law during the school’s formative years.

In the fictional state of North Greene, police used a network of 300 automated license plate readers to track Malcolm Merriweather, a university professor who had protested federal immigration enforcement, during an investigation into vandalism. Authorities arrested Merriweather but later dropped the charges after confirming his alibi.

When the state also revoked Merriweather’s personalized license plate criticizing immigration enforcement, he sued, raising two constitutional questions: Did the warrantless surveillance violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches? And did revoking his license plate violate his First Amendment right to free speech?

Students prepared written appellate briefs and presented oral arguments before panels of volunteer attorneys and judges, responding to questions about constitutional precedents and how they apply to emerging legal controversies.

Alan Woodlief, vice dean, professor of law and director of �鶹��Ƶ Law’s Moot Court Program, praised the preparation of competitors and the volunteers who helped make the event possible.

“We were honored to welcome so many excellent teams from across the country, along with so many attorneys and judges, including �鶹��Ƶ Law alumni, who volunteered for the competition,” Woodlief said. “I’m especially proud of the exceptional leadership our Moot Court Board displayed in coordinating this year’s competition, and I’m grateful to the students, alumni, faculty and staff who contributed to its success.”

Reflections from the winning team

For Noor, the competition marked her first experience competing in an external moot court tournament. She appreciated the opportunity to explore a constitutional question that federal courts have recently confronted.

“I enjoyed the currentness of the problem’s First Amendment issue. The Fourth Circuit decided this question just a few months ago, and it was the first circuit court to do so,” Noor said. “The problem also clearly cabined the arguments to one specific doctrine — government speech — allowing competitors to dig deep and master the key precedents.”

To prepare, Noor repeatedly reviewed U.S. Supreme Court decisions and listened to oral arguments in several of those cases during the weeks leading up to the competition.

“All in all, Liberty Law had a wonderful time at �鶹��Ƶ,” Noor said. “Thank you to the whole team for hosting us!”

Shirey, a third-year law student, previously won the 2021 American Moot Court Association National Championship while competing in Liberty’s undergraduate moot court program. He praised �鶹��Ƶ Law’s timely constitutional questions and the professionalism of opposing teams.

“The drafters of this year’s problem did a fantastic job of capturing current constitutional issues,” Shirey said. “This made preparing for the competition incredibly rewarding, because it felt like I was able to master areas of the law that are of great importance in our country today. Throughout all of our rounds, we faced teams that were exceptional, not only because of their skill, but because of the way they treated opposing counsel even when the stakes were high.”

Competition Awards

Championship

• First place: Team 25, Liberty University School of Law
• Second place: Team 21, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Semifinalists

• Team 15, Fordham University School of Law
• Team 19, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Quarterfinalists

• Team 1, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
• Team 22, University of Houston Law Center
• Team 29, Marquette University Law School
• Team 31, Mercer University School of Law

Oral Advocate Awards

• Top Oral Advocate: Andrea Subtirelu, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
• Second Place: Randall Shirey, Liberty University School of Law
• Third Place: Kaitlyn Ebright, University of Houston Law Center
• Fourth Place: Katy Walsh, William & Mary Law School
• Fifth Place: David Koster, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
• Best Oral Advocate in the Final Round: Nawel Noor, Liberty University School of Law

Best Brief Awards

• First Place, Petitioner (tie): William & Mary Law School and University of Richmond School of Law
• Second Place, Petitioner: Marquette University Law School
• First Place, Respondent: Mercer University School of Law
• Second Place, Respondent (tie): University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and Liberty University School of Law

Final Round Judges

• The Honorable L. Patrick Auld, U.S. magistrate judge, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
• The Honorable Allegra Collins, judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals
• The Honorable Richard Dietz, associate justice, Supreme Court of North Carolina
• The Honorable John M. Tyson, judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Semifinal Round Judges

• Enrique Armijo, professor of law, �鶹��Ƶ School of Law
• The Honorable Andrew “Andy” Hanford, resident superior court judge, North Carolina Superior Court District 17
• The Honorable Sarah N. Lanier L’10, judge, North Carolina District Court, District 37
• Gregg F. Schwitzgebel III, retired associate general counsel, North Carolina League of Municipalities
• The Honorable Barron Thompson L’09, judge, North Carolina District Court, District 37
• The Honorable William Craig Turner Jr., judge, North Carolina District Court, District 17

�鶹��Ƶ Law Moot Court Board Committee co-chairs for the 17th Billings, Exum & Frye National Moot Court Competition

Overall Competition Chairs: Isabel Craig L’26, Elizabeth Gregory L’26 and Sierra Watkins L’26

Judge Committee Chairs: James Galipeau L’26, Cayla James L’26, Bailey Langford L’26, Renata Navarro L’26

Bailiff Committee Chairs: Madisyn Butler L’26, Sydney Daniel L’26, Megan Eldredge L’26, Addison Noe L’26, Tyler Sesker L’26

Scoring Committee Chairs:  Daulton Hadaway L’26, Yanila Noy L’26, Jackie Rullman L’26, Rebecca Vairin L’26

Hospitality Committee Chairs: Matt Cottrell L’26, Emma Farrell L’26, Courtney Maxwell L’26, Clare Rudolph L’26