Most lawyers never have a chance to argue before their state's supreme court. However, two Minnesota Law students recently enjoyed that rare opportunity as finalists in the 2025 Maynard Pirsig Moot Court Honors Competition earlier this spring.
The tournament (named in honor of former Law School Dean Maynard Pirsig) is the culmination of the year-long Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Moot Court course, which focuses on practical writing and oral argument in appellate venues. Students work in small sections (this year, there were 12), each taught by an experienced attorney and a third-year student director.
After students complete the required written and oral arguments in their sections, directors pick the “best oralist” and “best brief” from each for the final tournament. A committee selects the best briefs, but the oral competition requires participants to present their arguments in front of judges. The oral competition culminates in a semifinal round before judges from the Minnesota Court of Appeals and a final round before justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
This year’s finalists, Katell Ané ’26 and Pia Puentespina ’26, said the experience ranks as a highlight of their Law School careers.
“I can’t overemphasize how incredible it was to argue in front of the two highest courts in our state,” Ané said. “Where else are you going to get that experience?”
Puentespina agreed with that assessment and also pointed to the broader experience. “I had this feeling that, ‘Wow, the Law School community is very collaborative,’” she said. “I was competing against other people, but it felt like we all wanted each other to succeed.”
For Professor Randall Ryder ’09, who directs the Moot Court Program, the competition has proven its value over its 33-year existence.
“Everybody who takes Moot Court comes out of it being a better advocate than when they started," Ryder says. "Making the tournament is a level of recognition that you’re an outstanding oral advocate. If you advance to the semifinal rounds and the final round, it’s demonstrating a next level of advocacy that puts you on par with a lot of practicing attorneys. The judges at the Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court justices say that year after year. And they don’t throw that praise out to make the students feel good—it’s coming from a place of experience.”
Ané and Puentespina said they were impressed that the judges and justices did more than just grade their performances.
“We went through a ton of rounds leading up to the final, and every time the judges were just so helpful with their feedback and in ways you wouldn’t necessarily get otherwise,” Ané said.
“All the justices we met were so kind,” Puentespina said. “They gave us great advice and always took the time afterwards to really get to know us.”
Ryder pointed out that one of the elements that makes the Pirsig Moot Court Honors Competition unique is that it focuses on a critical contemporary issue involving civil rights and civil liberties. This year, the issue involved First Amendment rights of noncitizens.
Especially for the students who make it to the final rounds, arguing before some of the state’s top jurists can be intimidating. To help them deal with nerves, Ryder provides a few pointers.
“I tell all participants that the value of the tournament is doing the tournament, not whether you win or lose. If they make it to the semifinal or final round, I give them the same advice, but also tell them it’s important just to enjoy this experience, because they may never be in a similar situation again. Embrace the opportunity and recognize that you are the best of the best from a very good program.”
The winners in the “best brief” competition, Christina Griesgraber ’26 and Lowell Wolfe ’26, agreed with the oralists that the competition provided a great learning experience.
“I think the main thing I learned, and the challenge that appellate advocacy presents, is framing,” Wolfe said. "A lot of what the case came down to, and how we ended up writing our briefs, is based on a specific perspective that we’re trying to convince the court to read the facts through.”
Griesgraber said the prime value for her was the experience of taking a position that is not necessarily in accordance with her personal views. “I think the biggest challenge writing this brief was making an argument that I didn’t necessarily feel very confident in,” Griesgraber said. “I had to learn how to rely on the facts of the case and advocate for my client, even when their views didn’t necessarily align with my own.”
In the end, both brief finalists and both oral finalists agreed that the experience was invaluable.
“I feel like I’m walking away from it feeling like I believe in myself,” Puentespina said. “It was something I wasn’t sure I’d be good at, but I think I’m more comfortable now with wanting to do something because I want to grow.”