2Ls Leah Kanihan ’25 and Madeleine Kim ’25 joined Minnesota Law’s Gender and Sexuality Moot Court team, fueled by a passion for advocating for people affected by this deeply personal area of law. So, Kim was disappointed when she learned that their team would represent the petitioners, requiring the pair to make the case for something they do not support.

But that challenge didn’t prevent the duo from shining, along with teammates David Lindgren ’25 and Kaz Lane ’25. Kim and Kanihan’s arguments prevailed, and they won the national Michigan State University Gender and Sexuality Moot Court Competition in March. In addition, they captured second place for best brief and Kanihan won third place for best oral advocate.

“We really did have to know our issues because it wasn’t an argument we believed in,” Kim says. “We had to rely on the strength of the case law—we couldn’t rely on passion or sympathy. We knew we had an uphill battle because most attorneys who volunteer do it because they feel strongly about these issues.”

Fortunately for Kanihan and Kim, judges set aside their opinions to assess the strength of competitors’ written and oral advocacy. This year, the problem centered on Title VII violations in the workplace and whether misogynistic music can create a hostile work environment for a group with multiple genders and sexualities. A second issue covered a question of the appropriate standard of review for the appellate courts considering the case.

The Gender and Sexuality Moot Court team is off to a strong start, having been in existence for only two years. At its two MSU competitions, teams earned top-two finishes and brief writing awards. Continuity has been key to this year’s success; the participants were coached by two students who advocated for the Law School to start the program and competed in 2023, says Randall Ryder ’09, director of the moot court program. 

Coaches include moot court veterans Mark Ficken ’20, Katja D. Lange ’23, and Andrew Nicotra Reilly ’23. Lange and Nicotra Reilly pitched Minnesota Law on starting a Gender and Sexuality team because issues surrounding gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation touch on diverse and intersecting areas of law, including civil rights and family, criminal, and employment law, Lange says.

The coaches helped Lane, Lindgren, Kanihan, and Kim focus on varied issues in sexual orientation and gender identity law to prepare them for the competition problem, which is typically based on a pending or recent case in federal court. After teams learn the problem in January, they are on their own for brief writing.

Kim and Kanihan had a head start because they often argued against each other during legal writing class as 1Ls, giving them familiarity with each other’s styles. It was fortunate that Kanihan also had just taken employment law, worked at an employment law firm, and completed an undergraduate research project about LGBTQ+ legal issues in Texas. 

The teams met twice weekly for oral advocacy practice, taking turns championing both sides and refining their arguments. “They improved with every single practice, and every time they argued they got better,” Lange says. “It was so rewarding to see that and see their confidence grow as advocates, and then see their hard work pay off.” 

For Kim, a dance major in college, joining moot court was a way to enhance her oral argument skills, and she gravitated to this team as a queer person. She appreciated learning how to strengthen her arguments and pivot from weak spots in their case. “Being able to hold your composure when someone is digging into a line of questions that you don’t want or having the grace to concede on an issue—that was a hard lesson but a good one to learn as a student,” Kim says.

Kanihan believes that the moot court course and competition helped her refine her written and oral advocacy skills. And constant feedback from teammates and coaches made all the difference. “They were not only great to work with, but they would make super great arguments during practice and push us to do better,” she says. “I think that’s why our team was able to do so well.”

Ryder agrees that an essential component of the team’s success stems from this partnership. “Their collaboration was off the charts,” he says. “David, Kaz, Leah, and Madeleine were incredibly supportive of each other. The fact that they won is a reflection of how well they worked together. With this team, and the program as a whole, the students really embraced and helped create a culture that the Law School is one giant team.”