⚖

MyAppealCoach

The Moot Court Simulator
Sound on · Approximately 3 minutes
⚖

Moot Court Simulator

MyAppealCoach.com · AI-Powered Preparation for the Bench
⚖

Moot Court Simulator

Oral Argument Tools
Ready

Configure session

Upload your brief, set the bench's appetite for questions, and pick your panel.
Case Name (For Your Records)
Brief (PDF)
📄
Drop your brief here or click to browse
team499brief.pdf
Opponent's Brief (PDF) — Optional
Drop opponent's brief or click to browse
—
Question frequency 5 / minute
Question difficulty 5 / 10

Panel of Justices · Select 1–5

You will receive a panel of five random justices unless you would like to select specific justices below.
0 justices selected
No. 25-1726 · OCT TERM 2025
Schimmel v. United States
Arguing for
Respondent — United States
Awaiting questions from the bench…
Now Questioning
Panel · 5 of 20 Justices
Now Speaking Counsel for Respondent
00:00
Your spoken argument will appear here…
Question 0 of 3
Rebuttal Coaching Report — Schimmel v. United States

Rebuttal Coaching Report

📄
Transcript ready
Your transcript PDF has been downloaded and emailed to you.
✓
A strong defensive performance under a hot bench. The advocate held the structural argument together, deploying both the statutory hooks and the canonical authorities with precision. Rebuttal should consolidate — not expand.
Triggered by — Justice Sotomayor's remedy-gap framing
Don't relitigate Bivens's scope on rebuttal — anchor to the structural point: Congress's deliberate choice in 1988 to preserve Bivens for constitutional claims would be empty if every constitutional theory could simply be re-routed through the FTCA.
Congress's 1988 choice was deliberate, and it is the answer to the remedy question.
Triggered by — Justice Gorsuch's last-antecedent challenge
Own the consequence. Under petitioner's reading, "seize evidence" has no federal-law limitation, sweeping in administrative inspectors with no nexus to criminal law. State it plainly and sit down.
Petitioner's canon cannot survive its own consequences.
Triggered by — Chief Justice Roberts's "super-immunity" framing
This is the line Congress drew in 1974, the line Burger ratified, and the line TSA itself enforces in MD 100.4. Not a gerrymander — a doctrine.
Congress drew the line in 1974. TSA enforces it today. There is no immunity gap to fill.

Overall Recommendations

  1. Consolidate the structural argument on rebuttal: Westfall Act, § 1346(b), § 44920(a) — in that order.
  2. Stop talking when the point lands. The strongest answers were the ones counsel cut off rather than extended.
  3. Hold the line on constitutional cognizability.
↻ Replay