Each year, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law Students compete in the Edwin R. Keedy Cup, an internal mock trial competition that combines intramural brief writing and oral advocacy. The Keedy Cup culminates with four participants randomly paired into two teams facing off in front of a panel of esteemed guest jurists.
“Although this event has been going on for 70 years, it’s never taken place quite like this before, with, happily, an in person set of oralists and judges, and hundreds watching remotely,” said Ruger. “It took a lot of work and organization, and I thank everybody who worked to put this together.”
Keedy Cup participants
Duncan Hall L’22 and Corina Scott L’22, who argued for the petitioners, were named the winners of the Keedy Cup. Their opponents, Lily Moran L’22 and Amanda Smith L’22, argued for the respondents. Moran was named Best Oralist.
“The Keedy Cup provided skills-based training in both brief-writing and oral advocacy. I’m so grateful I was afforded an opportunity to work with this incredible group for the past few months and will undoubtedly use the skills I learned in Keedy throughout my own legal career,” Scott said.
Smith echoed Scott’s sentiment, reflecting that the challenging academic rigor of this year’s Keedy Cup helped her to build skills that will be invaluable as she moves forward in her legal career.
“Participating in Keedy Cup was a beyond rewarding experience,” Smith said. “Despite the complicated nature of the case, I am proud of what we were all able to accomplish. Collaborating with the other Keedy finalists was a highlight of the competition, and I am grateful for their support and friendship.”
The Case: American Hospital Association v. Becerra
Participants in Keedy Cup 2022 argued American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a case for which the Supreme Court granted certiorari after the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the holding of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The case involved questions as to whether the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) had the authority to reduce Medicare Part B reimbursement rates for certain drugs in a manner that deviated from procedures outlined in the Public Health and Welfare Act.
At issue were two matters: (1) Whether the hospitals’ suit challenging HHS’s adjustments is precluded by 42 U.S.C. §1395l(t)(12); and (2) Whether Chevron deference permits HHS to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and to vary such rates by hospital if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data.