About the 2024–2025 Competition
The Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition final arguments—part of the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Moot Court Program—are the culmination of a three-round elimination competition in appellate advocacy. This year, 66 students entered the competition. In the qualifying round, held during the fall semester, students briefed one of two issues on behalf of either the appellant or the appellee and presented their positions in oral arguments before panels composed of alumni practitioners and professors.
This year’s event marks the 99th anniversary of the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court final oral arguments. Originally started at Columbia Law School in 1925 by the Story Inn, a chapter of the legal fraternity Phi Delta Phi, the competition is named in honor of Harlan Fiske Stone 1898, who was a member of the Story Inn while a student at the Law School. Stone became dean of Columbia Law School in 1910. He served in that capacity until 1924, when President Calvin Coolidge appointed him attorney general of the United States. He was named to the Supreme Court of the United States the following year and was elevated to chief justice in 1941.
The case this year asked whether a child can successfully bring a defamation claim against a parent who is a social media influencer and whether a related claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress should be heard under the laws of New York or Washington, D.C. The final round of the competition was held on Thursday, March 27, 2025. Oral arguments were delivered by four outstanding student finalists: Miles Kim ’25, who won best final round brief; Nicole Morote ’25, who was awarded the Lawrence S. Greenbaum Prize for best oral presentation; Alice Park ’25, and Akesh Shah ’25.
For more information about this year’s competition, see the Student Directors’ Blog.
1. Did the district court err in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, based on a finding that the claim should be adjudicated under the laws of Washington, D.C.?
2. Did the district court err in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the defamation claim?
Plaintiff-Appellee Joshua Morgan (“J.M.”) is a young transgender adult. J.M.’s parents are divorced, and his mother, Defendant-Appellant Emily Morgan (“Ms. Morgan”), lives in New York. His father, Trevor Morgan (“Mr. Morgan”), lives in Washington, D.C. In 2023, when J.M. was still a minor, Mr. Morgan filed this action against Ms. Morgan on J.M.’s behalf. The suit asserts claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).
The conflicts between J.M. and Ms. Morgan center on long-running disputes over J.M.’s gender identity and Ms. Morgan’s past depictions of J.M. on social media. Ms. Morgan is a social media influencer with over 8 million followers. Her social media accounts have featured posts about J.M. since he was born. In Ms. Morgan’s posts, J.M. has been referred to by his former name, “Isabella” or “Bella,” and described using female pronouns. Ms. Morgan has also posted about J.M.’s grades, concerns that J.M. was using drugs, and other issues.
In 2021, when J.M. was a junior in high school and attending public school in Washington, D.C., Ms. Morgan transferred J.M. to a strict residential school, Stonebridge Academy (“Stonebridge”), with Mr. Morgan’s reluctant consent. J.M. was not permitted to communicate with anyone outside the school. The school did not recognize J.M.’s gender transition and disposed of some of J.M.’s belongings (such as masculine clothing) with Ms. Morgan’s permission. After several months, J.M. was able to call his father using a cell phone that had been smuggled into the school by another student. Mr. Morgan immediately withdrew J.M. from the school, and J.M. returned with Mr. Morgan to Washington, D.C., where J.M. has lived ever since.
In the fall of 2022, when applying to college, J.M. posted a copy of his college application essay on a private social media account. The essay described Ms. Morgan’s behavior toward J.M., including her lack of acceptance of his gender identity and her decision to send him to Stonebridge. One of J.M.’s cousins shared the post with a wider audience, and it eventually reached Ms. Morgan. Ms. Morgan then posted a public online response, expressing sorrow about the situation and asserting that she sent J.M. to Stonebridge because he was using marijuana and “had become a drug addict.” Ms. Morgan also asserted that J.M. was pretending to be transgender to create a “good story” for his college applications. Given Ms. Morgan’s large social media following, her response to J.M. sparked an online debate, with social media users and gossip sites discussing the family conflict.
In the spring of 2023, J.M. was rejected from every college to which he had applied. Mr. Morgan then filed this suit on behalf of J.M. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging (1) that Ms. Morgan defamed J.M. by calling him a drug addict and saying that he was pretending to be transgender for college admissions purposes; and (2) that Ms. Morgan should be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for repeatedly posting about J.M.’s personal life online, publicly using J.M.’s birth name and feminine pronouns against J.M.’s wishes, and sending J.M. to Stonebridge.
Following discovery, Ms. Morgan moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied. Ms. Morgan was granted permission for an interlocutory appeal, which is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The parties currently dispute whether New York or Washington, D.C., law ought to apply to the infliction of emotional distress claim and whether the defamation claim ought to have been dismissed as a matter of law.
