Should an estranged husband have a say in whether the other person can adopt a child? Four Creighton University law students presented that argument before a panel of three judges as part of the school's annual Moot Court competition.

Moot Court gives second-year law students an opportunity to gauge their courtroom presentation talents, as well as research skills. More than 30 teams participated in the 2025 competition, culminating with the championship hearing before the judges.

Based on an actual case - Devin Rouse v. Rowan Schill and Mott Media - Rouse claimed Schill, the director of adoption services for Elmdon Department of Social Affairs and Citizenship (DSAC), denied him an adoption based on sex and defamed him after publicly repeating claims he had been a prostitute.

The prostitution allegations came from Rouse's estranged husband, who had told Schill that Rouse had engaged in prostitution. Schill denied the adoption application because of the prostitution claim, according to Rouse’s attorneys.

Schill later repeated those claims during an interview on a radio station owned by Mott Media.

The respondents requested that the claims be dismissed because, as Schill's legal team claimed, the domestic relations exception barred jurisdiction because the case concerned adoption.

Both Schill and Mott Media argued the defamation claim failed because as a "limited-purpose public figure," Rouse didn't allege actual malice.

The district court denied the respondents' motion, ruling that the domestic relations exception does not apply to federal question cases, and that Rouse didn't need to plead actual malice because the alleged defamation concerned his private life and were unrelated to his business, a legal bar preparatory service, but held limited-purpose public figures must always plead actual malice.

The federal appeals court for the 14th district ruled that limited-purpose public figures must always plead actual malice concerning defamation claims.

As the case weaved its way to the federal judicial system, the second-year law students would argue their case before three Nebraska judges. Hearing oral arguments in the championship round of Creighton University's Moot Court competition were: Francie C. Riedmann, who serves on the Nebraska Court of Appeals, Ryan C. Carson, who is a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Nebraska, and Lindsey Miller-Lerman, who was a justice on the Nebraska Supreme Court. Miller-Lerman, the first woman appointed to the state Supreme Court, retired from the bench on Oct. 31.

As the plaintiff, Creighton student Abby Myers addressed the question of the domestic relations exception, proffering it's irrelevant to the argument regarding Rouse.

"Federal courts have properly determined jurisdiction over the equal protection claim, because the domestic relations exception only applies to diversity jurisdiction issues, and because federal courts have all decided to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress grants," Myers said.

As for the defamation claim, Myers said Schill shared his bias on a radio program.

"Schill admitted on the radio that he was more careful toward single men who applied to adopt, because single women do a better job at raising children," she said. "Rouse (sought) an injunction to end the gender-based discrimination and for defamation."

Believing its long-held stance regarding defamation is now archaic, David Mabes said the Supreme Court needs to expand the coverage of New York Times vs. Sullivan to include limited public figures among those who can claim malice regarding defamation or libel. Mabes was the second half of the plaintiff’s legal team.

"We believe that with the developments of social media, the categories and the way that they are currently defined, the law needs to be changed, as does the rationale that applies," Mabes said.

It's time to update the 75-year-old decision, he said.

"What we're asking for is when you have a limited-purpose public figure, traditionally, they were supposed to claim actual malice," Mabes said. "We're asking this court to adopt the germaneness test, in which courts will analyze the speech, and if the speech is related to the limited-purpose public figure standing, they would get actual malice."

Representing Schill and Mott Media, the domestic relations exception was a state issue and not a constitutional claim, said Madeleine Bauer. The plaintiff must exhaust state and local remedies first, before addressing the federal forum, Bauer said.

"The circuit court's failure to apply the domestic relations exception violates democratic concerns," she said. "When a federal court refuses to apply the domestic relations exception, it steps directly into the area that the Constitution has been researched. There is equal protection of the law for same-sex marriage, but we can differentiate about the ability to adopt."

Judge Riedmann asked if the underlying issue is discrimination against single males being allowed to adopt.

"I'm having a hard time differentiating between a policy that says people of the same sex can marry and a policy that says a certain sex can adopt," Riedmann said. "They're both systemic properties."

Addressing the issue of malice, Rouse met the definition of a public figure, said Lauren Metz, the second attorney representing Schill and Mott Media.

"We are asking to apply the actual malice standard to all public figures," Metz said. "By doing this, we do not need the distinctions at all, because we have a uniform standard that applies to all public figures. While some plaintiffs may hesitate to sue because they are held to an actual higher malice, that hesitation reflects constitutional protections. This rule will still allow for the recovery of intentional falsehoods, reckless disregard for the truth.

"But it prevents lawsuits for honest mistakes by ensuring consistency and fairness. The actual malice standard strengthens both free speech and the integrity of public debate."

Following the oral arguments, the judges praised each participant on their presentation. In the end, the three judges ruled in favor of Rouse's legal team to cap the moot court competition.

Tim Trudell is a freelance writer and online content creator. His work has appeared in Flatwater Free Press, Next Avenue, Indian Country Today, Nebraska Life, Nebraska Magazine, Council Bluffs Daily Non-Pareil and Douglas County Post Gazette, among others. He is a citizen of the Santee Dakota Nation.