The 2020 Case

AMC3 is a program TISL created to fill a gap between the moot court in law school and successful mock trial programs for high school and college students. Participation is limited to college students who are not in law school.

Legal teams of two to five members argue each side of a hypothetical case before the Tennessee Intercollegiate Supreme Court.

Important Dates

October 30

Briefs Due

November 6

November 19-20

November 21

Top eight (8) Briefs Posted/Announced 

Preliminary and Semifinal Virtual Rounds

Championship Virtual Round

Important Notes

  • Oral Arguments will be limited to eight (8) teams. The top eight come from the highest brief scores.

  • Preliminary round shall consist of eight (8) teams, semifinals four (4) teams, and finals two (2) teams. 

  • This year every Brief submitted will receive written feedback from the attorney brief graders. 

  • To maintain the mission of the TISL organization to promote a learning experience, the virtual oral arguments will not have a juror of view, but instead be an opportunity for a student lead experience.Our Justices are preparing for the oral arguments and will be prepped by a TN Supreme Court Justice. 

  • Attorney General Applications are due at 12:00pm cst on November 19th, 2020.

  • Please see AMC3 handbook for further information. 

The Brief

Each team submits a brief two weeks before the competition. Download MS Word template for brief. We strongly recommend preparing your brief in Microsoft Word. Alternate applications such as Google Docs frequently break the formatting.

Please submit your brief in a PDF format.

The Problem

Plaintiff, Tim Holpart, is a well-known salesman and owner of a successful lumber company. Defendant, Dale Root, works in the construction industry and has known Mr. Holpart for approximately nine years.

The relationship between Mr. Holpart and Mr. Root began to deteriorate when Mr. Root accused Mr. Holpart destroying some of his tools, something Mr. Holpart adamantly denied. After weeks of trying to receive an apology from Mr. Holpart, Mr. Root posted on numerous social media sites and blogs several untruthful and damaging statements about Mr. Holpart, resulting in a significant decline in his business.

Mr. Holpart filed a lawsuit against Mr. Root in federal court for defamation (libel). The district court found in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding monetary relief. However, upon learning of the Defendant’s judgement-proof status, Plaintiff moved for a post-trial injunction, which was granted in the form of a permanent injunction, which enjoined the Defendant from “repeating any of the particular statements that were found to be defamatory.” Mr. Root now appeals the Fourteenth Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the permanent injunction violates his First Amendment rights.

The Issue


Whether a permanent injunction enjoining a defendant from speaking or writing specific statements found to be libelous or defamatory is a constitutionally permissible remedy.


Teams will prepare a brief and top 8 teams will move on to virtual oral arguments.



There are two downloads. The first download contains the full technical record from depositions to Certiorari plus the List of Authorities. The second is a closed List of Authorities. Lawyers may reference cases outside the List of Authorities insofar as they are quoted by a case in the List of Authorities.

Root v. Holpart

PDF Case History

Case Authorities

Zip Folder

Our Sponsors