ANNOUNCING: The Slaughter Stairs Poetry Contest Winners

Pictured: Drum roll.

First Place:

A Farewell to Stairwell
Christopher de Grandpre ’27

Although I know we’ve had our ups and downs,
You always stepped up where it mattered.
Without your incline I’m inclined to frowns,
Without your railing’s support I’m in tatters.
Always a step above (out of ten, an eleven),
Your banisters guided aspiring barristers along.
But now you’re ascending up to heaven,
Because Led Zeppelin’s playing your song.
As you go on to your second storey,
Your story shall be our duty to share,
Lest 1Ls walk the halls unschooled in your glory,
And the blank wall suffer only blank stares.
You staired well, dear stairwell.
In fact, you staired the best.
So now (much too soon) we bid you farewell,
and lay your fair stairs to rest.


Second Place:

Stairway to Kevin
Delaney Sniffen ’26

Summer came and summer went
And now we’re back in class
But my rhythm feels off somehow
My stride has reached an impasse

It’s hard to tell why I feel stuck
It could be anything at all
Is it the lack of open Slaughter air?
Or because when I have a question about what “nice student attire” means, I don’t know who to call?

The Stairway to Kevin is gone
And Kevin is gone, too
What will guide me, who will guide me
Through my private practice blues?

 To 1Ls, this may seem like gibberish
But it’s legalese to me
There’s a staircase-shaped hole in my heart
And a 5-part “URGENT! ACTION REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY!” email I feel like I need

Rest assured, you’re in good hands
Class of 2027
Kevin’s fine (he just retired)
And the Slaughter stairs have gone to heaven


Third Place:

Ode on a Virginian Staircase
Elizabeth Patten ’25

May 14th, I saw you last
Took you for granted
As I brushed right past
Now you’re gone, and I’m in Hell
Trapped inside
A tiny stairwell


Honorable Mentions:

Untitled
Anonymous (to avoid Admin retaliation)

Appreciate the moments
Remember the good times
Hold onto yesterday’s dreams
Amidst today’s horrendous crimes 

Chief among them the destruction 
Of a hallowed staircase so grand
So ordinary and yet legendary
Extravagant as it was bland

The Slaughter steps brought us
to joys and sorrows abound
They took us back to pastures
To walk Spies round and round

But now our leaders failed us
They took our pride without notice
A power grab this will be recalled as
To expand an office with what purpose?

Our tempers have been tested
Our livelihoods have been tossed
If this be our last stand 
Let us ring out what has been lost

Lo! Lo! The stairs that they have taken
We know not what to do
Our lives must be forsaken
The only steps we knew to go through

Where to go
How to get there
I know not what to say

Where to walk
Where to chalk (we can’t)
My aims lead to dismay 

The path that was less traveled
Now must be the way
Stolen with the gavelWe mourn each night and day 

But want not, lay still, and think of times before
Nary a thought for how we loved, the stairs we steeped in lore

The lives we lived, the steps we took, they’ll be there in the by
We must live on, and climb forth, nevermore the steps for which we cry


An Ode to ‘S Laughter Staircase
Randy Thomas ’25

Oh Slaughter Staircase,
As a 1L you represented our plights
Heavy backpacks taken up a dreaded flight
An ascent worthy of academic overload 

As a 2L you were our beacon
A funnel that would lead us to seminars
Smaller spaces to meet our classmates
We finally thought you decent

Perhaps as a 3L
you would have represented our 
triumphant landing
A place to spot long-unseen friends 

It is only now that I realize
That you embodied so much more 
not a merciless act
nor our trials and tribulations,

No, not Slaughter Staircase
But rather, the now stifled
Law School’s laughter


Lost Possibilities (and 1Ls)
Keeley Ausburn ’27

Mourning something you never knew is a fool’s errand
But as we bump shoulders in the narrow way, my thoughts run errant: 

In another life, I do not pull myself into a 61 degree stairway
A tucked away door that looks neither majestic nor elegant, but that of a broom closet castaway
From the reaches of heat, windows, or time
My alternate self shan’t have to feel the chips of decades-old paint and grime
There I must not lean aside when a fellow traveler seeks to descend that which I ascend. 
With no other pathways, it is on these gritty stairs I do depend.  

So, to that other me–the one taking those next steps–
Be in awe of those that let you reach these heights,
And remember the impermanence of the legacy on which your foot rests.

 

We received so many great submissions that we can't fit them all here. Stay tuned for the remainder next week!

Halloweekly Investigation Presents: Haunted House Law

Emily Becker '27, Alicia Kaufmann '27 
Staff Editors 


During my senior year of college, I hopped on a train from Philly to New York for what would be the second most disappointing haunted house experience I have ever endured. A dear friend of mine has long been obsessed with haunted houses, and after a copious amount of research, settled on one located on the Lower East Side. I will keep my summary brief, but what ensued was roughly thirty minutes of riding a rickety cart at a glacial pace, being lightly sprayed with water, and shuffling through what felt like a closet with strobe lights.

Still, optimistic pair that we were, we returned the next year in hopes that a couple of negative Google reviews (not written by us) would have inspired an improved experience. All I can say is that somehow the program was shorter and even less compelling than before. In an attempt to justify his continued support of what I would call more of an assembly of awkward skits than a haunted house, my friend made the point that some of the best places were too far away or have been closed down.

This same friend recently ribbed me for not flying up to Connecticut to attend another, supposedly better, haunted house this year, as apparently our old Lower East Side standby had closed down. The shuttering of our old haunt got me thinking about my friend's earlier comment about haunted housing being forcibly shut down, and I felt that as a first-year law student, it was my prerogative to investigate the legal history of haunted house regulation. As one might expect, there has been a spate of tort cases predicated upon alleged duties to protect haunted house patrons from harm. I will refrain from launching into an LRW-style memo on these, and simply note that courts do not appear to be too friendly toward patrons who have voluntarily assumed the risks incumbent in a haunted house visit. I will, however, share a few details of what was certainly the spookiest case I came across, that of McKamey Manor.

McKamey Manor garnered national attention as the subject of a Hulu documentary released in 2023. Its website boasts that it is “the one and only ORIGINAL ‘Extreme Haunted Attraction,’ and ‘Survival Horror Challenge’” in which “you will live your own horror movie.” Prospective participants must submit a doctor's note and proof of health insurance, sign a forty-page waiver, undergo a video screening, and pass a drug test.[1] McKamey is said to advertise a $20,000 prize for anyone who has successfully completed the haunted house program. An online petition to shut down McKamey on the grounds that the program targets easily manipulable individuals and tortures them has garnered nearly 200,000 signatures.[2]

In the wake of the Hulu documentary, the Tennessee Attorney General opened an investigation into McKamey Manor. This involved the issuance of a formal Request for Information pursuant to the Tennessee Code, which required Ross McKamey, the ostensible owner and operator of McKamey Manor, to comply with nineteen document requests and answer twenty-eight interrogatories under oath. The interrogatories began with the basics—when Mr. McKamey began operating the haunted house, how it is funded and/or makes money, whether anyone has won the rumored $20,000 prize. The questions then increased in specificity, requesting bank account information, a list of participants who have striven for the prize, and all films of McKamey Manor tours.

Mr. McKamey retaliated with a lawsuit against Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (and State Fire Marshal) Carter Lawrence requesting injunctions exempting Mr. McKamey from compliance with the Request for Information and barring state fire marshals from entering Mr. McKamey's property, as well as a declaratory judgment and attorney's fees. After a volley of motion amendments and responses, the court dismissed Mr. McKamey's claims, but not without creating what could be a fascinating glimpse into the investigation that we, as the public, may not learn much more about unless it results in civil or criminal charges.

The pleadings in this case may be lacunose with respect to the entire paper trail of this case, but for the investigatively minded reader, they hint at a number of intriguing questions—why does Mr. McKamey run this program? What is the history of law enforcement interaction with McKamey Manor and its participants? In his complaint, Mr. McKamey states that McKamey Manor is located in unincorporated territory—was this a strategic choice on his part and if so, why? Mr. McKamey also claims not to do business as a Tennessee entity—does the haunted house make money? If so, what is the money trail? Does Mr. McKamey control any corporate entities? The story of McKamey Manor has the potential to take on a spookiness beyond what it advertises—and depending on the outcome of the Attorney General's investigation, we may or may not learn the full story.[3]

If the McKamey case has not dissuaded you from pursuing a little extra adrenaline this Halloween, look no further than our very own Charlottesville. Our quiet town offers quite a few special Halloween scare events.

For non-jump scare enthusiasts, there is a an hour-long walking tour that guides you through Charlottesville’s most ghastly sites, flawlessly named “Charlottesville Ghost Tour.” According to the website, the tour covers how “Revolutionary and Civil War perils, haunted plantations, and dark deeds of Virginia’s founding fathers birthed the most spine-chilling hauntings of the Blue Ridge Mountains.”[4] So check it out… if you’re into that sort of thing.

For the horror movie and haunted house-loving folk, Madame Redrum’s Nine Gates of Doom may be for you. Just a thirty-seven minute drive from downtown Charlottesville, “[t]his attraction is unlike any other in the country. Madame Redrum WILL make you scream.”[5] The experience is set up as a winding path with 9 rooms, each scarier than the last, and features live performers in gory costumes, special effects, and strobe lights. But don’t worry if you get there and find your pants getting wet, they have designated “chicken” doors for those who just can’t handle the fear. Looking to impress someone special? This looks like the place.

But the “chicken doors” are the only relief Madam Redrum offers. Similar to the haunted house in the news above, Madam Redrum makes sure to advertise their lack of liability by citing Virginia Code § 3.1-796.139 on their website. Section 3.1-796.139 requires every “agritourism professional” to post a warning outside their site that reads:

WARNING: Under Virginia law, there is no liability for an injury to or death of a participant in an agritourism activity conducted at this agritourism location if such injury or death results from the inherent risks of the agritourism activity. Inherent risks of agritourism activities include, among others, risks of injury inherent to land, equipment, and animals, as well as the potential for you to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to your injury or death. You are assuming the risk of participating in this agritourism activity.

I’m having a little trouble reconciling “agritourism professional” with “Madame Redrum’s Nine Gates of Hell,” but I’m going to optimistically assume they have been counseled that their business falls under this statute. Nonetheless, a clear, short statement of liability in large lettering posted outside of the actual haunted house is probably more effective than McKamey Manor’s forty-page waiver no one is going to glance at.

Moral of the story is: Be careful out there and have a happy Halloween!


---
ejb6zt@virginia.edu, hcr9bm@virginia.edu

[1] https://www.mckameymanor.com/requirements.

[2] https://www.change.org/p/tennessee-state-senate-shut-down-mckamey-manor.

[3] Middle District of Tennessee Docket 3:24-CV-00363

[4] https://usghostadventures.com/charlottesville-ghost-tour/.

[5] https://madameredrums.com/.

Invitational Teams Hold Tryouts

Garrett Coleman '25 
Executive Editor 


On Sunday, October 27, North Grounds Softball League (“NGSL”) held the first round of open tryouts for the Invitational teams. This is a first in recent memory and a step towards transparency in the draft process, according to its organizers.

The four students running the operation were Luke Mottola ’25, Jack Parker ’25, Matan Siskind ’25, and Regina Argenzio ’26. While players were warming up on the Park 6 field, Mottola explained the structure. Because of overwhelming interest, especially from women, there will be three co-rec teams, one more than last year. And there will continue to be two open teams. The tournament committee chose Siskind and Argenzio as co-captains for the first co-rec team. This means that they will get to select a full roster from all tryout participants, after which the committee will vote on a second team captain who will repeat the process. Later captains will rely on the diligent notes taken by Siskind and Argenzio during both rounds of tryouts.

After warm-ups but before drills began, Parker and Mottola gave brief introductions to the crowd. Parker was pleased to say that this tryout improved transparency and opportunity within the Invitational, and Mottola echoed the same. No longer is team selection going to be a “black box.”

The full day consisted of a warm-up, infield practice with grounders and line drives, long throws from the outfield, batting practice, fly balls, and a scrimmage. All participants, even those who have played in years past, were evaluated. The same setup is expected for the alternative tryout this coming Sunday, November 3.


---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

Section H Wins 1L Softball Tournament

Alicia Kaufmann '27 
Staff Editor 


Students put their Torts textbooks aside and took to Park 6 and Copeley Field for a day full of sponsored jerseys and cleats. I, a 1L myself, am significantly biased in writing this article, but I will try my best to report impartially and make it impossible for you to tell which section I am in.

 Source: Ashley Ramsay '26 

The day started bright and early with two 9 a.m. play-in games: Cases Loaded (C) v. Omnishock (LLMs) and Clearly Erroneous (E) v. Jurist Dingers (J). Cases Loaded and Clearly Erroneous (not so) slightly edged out their opponents and won themselves a spot in the quarterfinals. The 10 a.m. play-in game, Foul Play (F) v. Bad News Barristers (B) was a close match, but the Section F-ers were victorious and took home their first win of the season (yay!). 

The quarter-finals came and went, the temperature upped 20 degrees, and suddenly it was the semi-finals. Acing and Abetting (A) squared off against the Injunctive Relievers (I), and Hit and Run (H) faced the formidable Foul Play (making it to the semis without winning a game the whole season, that’s got to count for something, right? Again, impartial, but come on.) During the game, Hit and Run did a lot of hitting and running. Foul Play did a little less of that but still managed to put up 3 runs despite their early start that morning. Alas, Section H came out on top, and Acing and Abetting squeaked out a win as well to advance to the finals.

3 p.m.. Copeley Field. The Championship. After a long day of game play, Hit and Run took home the trophy with a 14-3 win and were awarded some snazzy T-shirts (thanks Bracewell!). All in all, it was a great day out on the field. There were cute dogs, free pizza, sunshine, and two wins for Section F! Oh, and also congrats section H, you did great. Watch out for softball playoffs coming up at the end of the semester. I’m sure it will also bring great fun and glory.

---
hcr9bm@virginia.edu

Hurricane Helene's Ongoing Effects Felt through Virginia

Kelly Wu '27 
Staff Editor 


In the last week of September, from the 24th through the 27th, Hurricane Helene raged through the Southeastern regions of the United States, causing devastating destruction throughout the country. Being the deadliest hurricane in the mainlands of the United States since 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, the Category 4 hurricane ran through several states and spawned multiple tornadoes. The resulting major rainfall and high winds ripped their way through cities, farmlands, and more, causing property destruction and losses that government entities and nonprofits are still fielding aid for.

Although Helene weakened to a post-tropical cyclone by the time it approached the East Coast, it still had significant effects on Virginia through the aforementioned tornadoes, copious rainfall, and heavy winds. Rainfall totals varied across the state, with some areas receiving between three to five inches. Regions such as Tidewater, which includes cities like Norfolk and Virginia Beach, experienced significant downpours, leading to flash flooding. Wind gusts reached forty to fifty mph in several locations, particularly in coastal areas, causing large swaths of property damage throughout the state. Coastal flooding was also a major concern, especially during high tide. Areas along the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean experienced inundation, exacerbated by storm surges. Low-lying neighborhoods faced severe flooding, with many residents forced to evacuate.

As a result of the storm, many communities experienced power outages, transportation disruptions, and severe water damage with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the Virginia Department of Transportation closely monitoring conditions and coordinating response efforts. With the state’s large number of hills and trails, meteorologists warned of increased chances of mudslides in the upcoming weeks, and the effects of the storm are expected to be felt for months, if not years. According to the Virginia Cooperative Extension, agricultural and farm operational damages are estimated to be well over $125 million currently. With so much devastation reigned across the states, it is pertinent to look into various relief efforts that have been employed and organizations that are currently available to those affected.

In the wake of the storm, state and local agencies have launched campaigns aimed at educating residents about emergency preparedness. These initiatives include information on creating emergency kits, developing evacuation plans, and understanding flood risks. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has noted that 2,048 applications for individual assistance aid have been approved as of October 1. These applications amount to more than $6 million worth of aid.[1] The Disaster Aid Program is still ongoing and those affected are encouraged to apply using the FEMA website for household and individual aid. Furthermore, the Virginia Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster provides a long list of local resources, organizations, and volunteer opportunities both for those seeking aid and those wishing to provide aid to victims of the hurricane.[2] Although the news cycle has largely moved past this story, many are still awaiting recovery for their loved ones, homes, businesses, and more.

In the aftermath of both Hurricane Helene and Milton, which made landfall in Florida earlier this month, climate scientists warn this is nowhere near the end of rising rates of natural disasters and climate change within the country. The burning of fossil fuels has caused the globe to warm significantly within the past decade compared to rates before the turn of the millennium. With globally rising temperatures causing warmer ocean waters and increased rainfall, storms are likely to become more violent, and recent hurricanes are merely small examples of what is expected to come. Scientists at the World Weather Attribution argue that Hurricane Helene in particular experienced 10 percent heavier rainfall due to warming global temperatures.[3] Furthermore, the study also found that the rainfall totals over the two-day and three-day maxima were made about 40 percent and 70 percent more likely by climate change, respectively. Thus, while it is important to provide immediate relief to those affected by the current hurricane retrospectively, it is just as important to consider preventative measures before the break of yet another natural disaster.

Hurricane Helene had a notable impact on the regions it affected, specifically affecting us in Virginia. The combination of heavy rainfall, strong winds, and flooding highlighted vulnerabilities in infrastructure and public health systems. The storm served as a reminder of the importance of preparedness and community response in mitigating the effects of such natural disasters. As climate change continues to influence storm patterns and intensities, understanding the impacts of hurricanes like Helene will be critical for future resilience planning.


---
gcu2vn@virginia.edu

[1] Federal Emergency Management Agency. (n.d.). Hurricane Helene (DR-4831). Retrieved October 20, 2024.

[2] Virginia Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster. (n.d.). Hurricane Helene resources. Retrieved October 20, 2024.

[3] World Weather Attribution. (2018). Climate change key driver of catastrophic impacts of Hurricane Helene that devastated both coastal and inland communities. Retrieved October 20, 2024.

Game of Survivor Gives 3Ls Something to Do

Garrett Coleman '25 
Executive Editor 


This story first came to the Law Weekly newsroom from the solicitations of Seth Coven ’25. Upon further investigation, we learned that a massive game of survivor, organized by Kevin Hoang ’25, has been taking place on and around Grounds since the beginning of the semester. Friendships have been tested, professional relationships have imploded, and dozens of 3Ls have been incapacitated for weeks. Coven came out on top and thought that his Machiavellian successes merited some free publicity in this paper. We agreed.

The format of the game, which Hoang has organized before, is closely modeled after the Survivor television show. To start out, twenty-one players were divided into three tribes of seven. There were four “playing days” a week over the course of four weeks. Whichever tribe lost a particular challenge had to vote someone out the next day. As the competition went on, the number of tribes fell to two, then one, and then a set of three finalists. The remaining members of the final tribe formed a jury to determine who should be named Sole Survivor and bring home the $630 prize. Hoang, Claudia Daboin, and Ethan Nicklow hosted.

Hoang’s favorite challenge was for the final nine contestants, called “Planning the Coven Gala.” It took place on the lawn in front of the Law School as rain poured down on everyone. Players had to solve a logic games style puzzle while running back and forth to get clues on the other side of the lawn. Hoang loved the chance to have an in-person challenge, but also the high stakes for that night. It came hot off the heels of a major vote, in which Coven did away with Sam Quinan ’25. And the pressure was on for Nick Hoffman ’25, who was likely the next target in the tribal council. Hoffman was able to come out on top, securing his much-needed immunity. When asked about his defeat, Quinan had this to say: “Emma [Howard ’25] and I were running the game. And then we trusted Seth, which was the mistake. But in the end, the Emma and the boys alliance won.” He added, “Tiger was uneventful. He and Hoffman were pawns.”

Some expressed concern with Hoang’s leadership. One contestant to make the final tribe, John “Tiger” Oliva ’25, had this to say: “Kevin is a sycophant who feeds on the torture of law students. I could not recommend playing it [survivor] less. The social and reputational damage done to some law students may never be recovered and may bleed into their careers.” Mackenzie Kubik ’25 voiced similar concerns about “this hellish psychosocial experiment.” But even Oliva could not avoid reminiscing fondly over some challenges, such as the time they had to design rave costumes for a fictional Midwestern girl who loved her prize rooster, Civil War reenactments, and the House of Ravenclaw.

The final three came down to Coven, Kubik, and Cameron Beach ’25. While hosts were not able to vote, Hoang thought that Kubik narrowly deserved the win, but that all of them were worthy finalists. Of his win, Coven said: “Law school is tough. It’s full of challenges, but I can say without a doubt that this was the biggest accomplishment in my three years at law school. It’s always been a dream of mine to be on real-life Survivor (I have an audition tape saved in my iMovie right now), but this was truly as close as it gets to the real thing. The blood, sweat, and tears that went into this were all worth it. It was tough because, in order for me to win the game, I ultimately had to backstab some of my best friends in law school. But that’s Survivor, baby.”

Hoffman was the deciding vote to name Coven the Sole Survivor. In explaining his choice to the Law Weekly, he said: “I chose Seth because he flew under the radar very well and controlled the game much better than I realized . . . and he played the middle very nicely, neutralizing my entire alliance. I was impressed.” But the game also offered him some happy memories. In one challenge, participants had to compete in “Survivor’s Got Talent” by submitting two-minute videos showcasing their special abilities. Hoffman used his video to break the world record in nostril flares in a single minute, hitting 205. Yes, he flared his nostrils almost three and a half times per second. Stunning. Unfortunately, this only put him in second place, behind a competitor who recorded him/herself drinking a great many shots and shouting expletives at Hoang in different languages. The polyglots that walk our halls are inspiring.        

Hoang is organizing the competition again for next semester, and casting is still out for that one. So, any Survivor fans should reach out to him before the start of next semester.

---
jxu6ad@virgina.edu 

Softball Stats

Jordan Allen '25 
Editing Editor 


The semester is reaching the halfway point, and we all know what that means: 1Ls begin to spend even more time in the library. It also means that the softball season has been in full swing (pun intended), including the 1L tournament this past weekend. As such, the time is ripe for an accounting of the performances of the illustrious teams competing amongst the Law School’s newly minted class—displaying that some of us have brawns as well as (or at least in place of) brains, while others were well-advised to pick a career that largely revolves around a desk. Please use this data responsibly, for bragging rights and good-natured ribbing. It is, after all, what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted.[1] 

---
guj9fn@virginia.edu

[1] If the guy could swing a bat, at least. He looks like he would’ve had his powdered wig blown off by a line drive instead. Luckily he avoided embarrassment by dying before the sport was invented.

How A Novel Issue of International Law Could Change the Tides of Russia's War in Ukraine

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 


For more than two years, Russia’s Central Bank has been blocked from accessing billions of dollars worth of overseas assets. The United States has been pushing for Ukrainian allies to seize these Russian assets. The recently passed REPO for Ukrainians Act authorizes the President to transfer the frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. But allies in the European Union remain leery about the proposal.

Lee Buchheit speaks to a packed crowd in Brown Hall. 
Photo credit: Jennifer Song '27 

A debate has emerged among the G7 over what to do with Russia’s frozen assets and whether international law permits them to transfer some of the assets to Ukraine. Proponents of the seizure say that the frozen Russian assets can be used as a down payment for war reparations that Russia will likely owe to Ukraine. Proponents note that the U.N. General Assembly has already ordered Russia to pay reparations.

Lee Buchheit, an international expert in sovereign debt and honorary professor at the University of Edinburgh Law School, spoke about the frozen Russian assets issue before a packed room of students and faculty. Buchheit explained that seizing the Russian assets could force Russia to negotiate a withdrawal.

“For so long as Putin believes that the Western democracies will grow fatigued with financing Ukraine . . . he believes that Father Time is a Russian ally. He need only wait us out. . . . But if we seize these assets, put them into a safe pair of hands, like the World Bank, such that they would fund Ukraine for years to come, all of a sudden, it punctures that belief of Putin. . . . And with that reality, he might just come to the settlement table earlier than he otherwise would.”

Some EU countries remain concerned about the legal and political implications of seizing the frozen assets. But by Buchheit’s telling, the American proposal should be an easy yes. “To my mind, this is not a particularly close call, legally, politically, or morally,” said Buchheit.

Buchheit explained that EU countries have expressed four concerns about seizing Russia’s overseas assets. Chief among them is concern for the reputation of the Euro, a concern Buchheit referred to as the “mythical Saudi Arabian finance minister problem.”

“The euro as a currency is only twenty-five years old. And the Europeans in those twenty-five years have always been walking on eggshells about doing anything that might frighten foreigners from holding euros,” Buchheit explained. If European countries seized Russia’s assets, it may send alarming signals to other countries holding Euros.

Buchheit dismissed this concern, noting that the United States, Japan, and the EU have agreed to work in lockstep, only seizing Russia’s assets if all of them agree to take that measure. “Well, if they all seize at the same time, the Saudi finance minister has got a problem. Where the heck are you going to put your money if you can't put it into US dollars, euros, sterling, [or] Japanese yen?”

The second concern expressed by the EU is that Putin may retaliate against Western investors if Russia’s assets are seized. But Buchheit explained that Russia has already locked up foreign investments by imposing restrictions on selling Russian investments. “If you haven't had your investment seized in Russia, it means you haven't asked for it back yet,” Buchheit said.

International law experts have noted a third concern: seizing the Russian assets may violate international law, and the action would open a “Pandora’s box.” If the United States and its allies seize Russia’s assets, it would create a precedent that any country can seize another country’s assets, even over simple policy disagreements.

Buchheit acknowledged that the action would set a new precedent, but he expressed concern that the alternative is much worse. “What comes out of this will be one or the other of two precedents. Precedent 1: You may invade your neighbor in violation of every norm of international law and the U.N. Charter. You may cause enormous destruction, but you will do so in the sure and certain knowledge that your external assets will be treated as sacrosanct and no adverse action will be taken against them. . . . The second option is, if you brutally invade your neighbor in violation of every norm of international law, you do so at the hazard of perhaps seeing your external assets frozen and used to recompense the victims of your aggression. It's got to be one or the other.”

Buchheit finished by noting that the outcome of the U.S. presidential election may make the Russian asset issue all the more urgent. Buchheit expressed doubt that Trump could resolve the war in a single day, as he has claimed, and speculated that if elected, Trump may pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to negotiate an unfavorable settlement. Buchheit suggested that using Russia’s assets to finance the Ukrainian war effort would alleviate the burden on American taxpayers, possibly de-politicizing support for Ukraine.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

Amazon's (not so) Quiet Overhaul of the Trademark System

Alicia Kaufmann '27 
Staff Editor 


On Thursday October 3, the Law School’s LawTech Center welcomed Mark McKenna ’00, UCLA Law Professor and Faculty Co-Director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy. After a warm introduction from Professor Danielle Citron, McKenna presented an upcoming paper that he co-wrote with Jeanne Fromer of NYU School of Law, titled Amazon's Quiet Overhaul of the Trademark System, that will be published in the California Law Review in 2025. The paper addresses Amazon’s unilateral impacts on trademark law, or the platform’s “ancillary spillover effects on how the legal system works,” according to McKenna.

McKenna began with the main assertion of the paper: the traditional system of trademark law is being turned on its head by Amazon’s new rules surrounding its Brand Registry. If you’re wondering what Amazon’s Brand Registry is, don’t worry, I also had no clue this existed. But apparently, as Amazon’s success grew, third party sellers on the platform became increasingly worried about a lack of accountability for counterfeiting established brands. Amazon’s solution to this concern was to create a Brand Registry, where brands could apply to be recognized by the platform, sort of like celebrities getting verified on Instagram. The registry provided a private dispute resolution system with automated enforcement, so registered brands could submit complaints about counterfeiting and have perpetrators taken down. Rather than building an entire recognition system from the ground up, Amazon decided that the “ticket to entry” to the Brand Registry would be the federal trademark registration system. If a brand was able to get federal trademark registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), they could be admitted into the Brand Registry.

In 2019, Amazon amended this rule. No longer did brands need to receive registration to be admitted to the Brand Registry, simple proof of submission of an application to the PTO was enough. The thrust of McKenna’s presentation surrounded the meaningful impacts of this change. McKenna outlined that in order to understand these impacts, an understanding of traditional American trademark law is necessary. In the United States, trademark rights exist at  common law. In a majority of countries, registration with the federal government is what establishes your right to trademark, but in the U.S., registration is simply official recognition of an already conferred right that arises out of use of the mark. Traditionally, in this system, localized small- and medium-sized companies have little incentive to pursue registration because unregistered trademarks hold up just as well in court as registered ones. Accordingly, McKenna articulated, Amazon’s amendment of their rule has caused a huge uptick in applications to the PTO from small- and medium-sized businesses that previously had little incentive to be registered. This has caused a back-log in the PTO, as they are not used to this high volume of applications.

McKenna also pointed out that there is a “distance between application and registration” in the PTO system, meaning a lot of people who apply for registration get denied in whole or in part. So, accepting brands that have applied but wouldn't necessarily qualify for registration has significant effects, one of which is trademark extortion. Exemplified in Home It, Inc. v. Wen,[1] Amazon's new rule has facilitated extortionists that look for unregistered brands on Amazon and submit an application to the PTO in that name for the purpose of threatening to invoke the Brand Registry against the original company in return for money or other payment.

Even more concerning, McKenna warns, is the increase in applications for generic, descriptive, and nonsense marks. A generic trademark is the common name for a product or service; a descriptive trademark merely describes a product or service; and a nonsense mark is a string of letters that does not mean anything on its own.[2] For example, for a trademark for a furniture store, “Furniture” would be generic, “Fabulous Furniture” would be descriptive, and “fff” would be nonsense. These types of marks are generally not registerable with the PTO. Nonetheless, brands applying to the PTO with these non-registerable names are allowed to be admitted to Amazon’s Brand Registry.

McKenna explained that the acceptance and use of these marks by Amazon essentially does away with the purpose of trademark law. The goal of trademarking a brand is to establish name recognition and build a reputation under that name. With super generic and descriptive brand names, like “Furniture” or “Mustaches,” companies are not building up the same type of recognition. Also, some brands have strategically entered the Brand Registry under a few different marks in order to try out different techniques for each one, and once they are successful under one they transfer all of their effort there. Again, this does away with the purpose of branding. Brands are supposed to have to deal with both the positive and negative reputations they create, while these tactics allow companies to only get the positive effects.

Thus, when a consumer is looking to purchase on Amazon, they rely on the site’s algorithm and customer reviews when choosing products. No longer are consumers relying on the reputations that brands have developed in order to narrow down options. McKenna refers to this phenomena as the “decentering” of brands on the platform. “Third party sellers aren’t reaching customers by branding anymore.”

Amazon’s house brands, however,  “AmazonBasics” and “Amazon Essentials,” are front and center for every product search. So, while other brands are being decentered and washed out, Amazon is upping its own brand recognition. A student from the audience asked, “is this not just how Walmart or Target strategically places its house brands in the eyeline on the shelf in a better view than other brands?” McKenna responded that, yes, the problem is not that Amazon is putting its house brands first, it's that it's putting its brands first, and homogenizing all the other ones. “That would be like Walmart putting Great Value in the best position, and covering up the names of all the other brands.”

McKenna explained that these effects challenge us to consider whether we are more confident in branding or Amazon’s algorithm and customer reviews to give consumers useful and accurate information about products. He argues Amazon’s algorithm is a “blackbox” and customer reviews can easily be faked, so the information we receive can be mystified and unreliable. So is Amazon replacing one mechanism for an equally bad, if not worse, one? Is brand recognition any better? Should the PTO and Amazon work together to solve this issue? I’ll let you sit on that while I order some more paper towels.


---
hcr9bm@virginia.edu 

[1] Home It, Inc. v. Wen, 2020 WL 353098 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020).

[2] Strong Trademarks, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/strong-trademarks.

Distinguished Plaintiffs' Attorneys Speak to Law Students

Emily Becker '27 
Staff Editor 


Law students run up against the public interest/private sector dichotomy before they know how to file a lawsuit. Many probably started weighing the pros and cons of each path before they arrived at law school. In fact, the Law School’s admitted students programming features job placement information sessions for each of these areas. While there are those students focusing on clerkships or academia, or perhaps plotting their jump to an alternate field, for the most part, law students tend to spend a great deal of time standing at the fork in the road, pondering which of these two options will be the best fit for them in five, ten, and twenty years.

What if the division between public and private sector is less dramatic than we think? These fields are not monoliths, after all. There are nonprofit law firms, Supreme Court litigation divisions at big law firms, and plaintiffs’ law firms, which all sit somewhere between our notions of quintessential public interest and private sector jobs. The Plaintiffs’ Law Association at the University of Virginia (“PLAVA”) helps demystify its eponymous practice area, most recently by co-hosting a litigation panel with the Mock Trial Association last Tuesday, October 1. PLAVA and Mock Trial brought in four alumni panelists, Sharif Gray ’14, Professor Susan Sajadi ’05, Kevin Mottley ’96, and Professor Anthony Greene ’16, who helped define what it means to be a plaintiffs’ lawyer. Andrew Searles ’25, PLAVA’s Firm and Alumni Relations Coordinator, moderated.

The panel began with a discussion of what constitutes the core of plaintiffs’ law. As Professor Greene, who teaches trial advocacy at the Law School, put it, “we are builders,” which comes with the “highest of highs [and the] lowest of lows.” Professor Sajadi, who teaches a course on depositions at the Law School, added that a great deal of what a plaintiffs’ attorney does is storytelling. Much like prosecutors, plaintiffs’ attorneys assiduously investigate and craft a narrative, ultimately with an eye to trial. In fact, Mr. Gray suggested that aspiring plaintiffs’ attorneys begin their careers as prosecutors, as young prosecutors have far greater opportunities for trial experience than newly hired civil attorneys. Mr. Gray himself garnered significant experience as a United States Army JAG Officer and as a drug and vice prosecutor prior to pivoting into plaintiffs’ law. Professor Greene, too, dipped his toe into trial work as a law student, trying three criminal cases as part of the Law School’s prosecution clinic.

Mr. Mottley, who runs his own firm in Richmond, added that humans are fundamentally driven by story—it is hard to pay attention to anything for an extended period of time without any narrative undercurrent. Mr. Mottley conducts a home visit as part of every one of his cases. He emphasized that storytelling is an inherently personal process in these cases, and that his visits allow him to develop a bond with his clients and more fully conceptualize how the story he will tell a jury fits into the larger framework of his clients’ lives. Mr. Gray added that mutual trust is crucial in this line of work, and that his role extends beyond that of a traditional attorney. Sometimes clients feel guilty and struggle with the stigma of vocalizing what they have experienced, and attorneys can assist them in addressing these obstacles. 

The gravity of plaintiffs’ work and the potential to change someone’s life emerged as deep sources of motivation for the panelists. Professor Sajadi has represented sexual assault victims, veterans, and former Abu Ghraib prisoners. She has dealt with negative press, high stakes, and fear of losing. Stress and failure are part of the job—in her words, attorneys who have never lost “aren’t really trial lawyer[s].” Professor Sajadi offered what she acknowledged was a bit of an unusual piece of advice about how to prepare for the intensity of a legal career, whether in plaintiffs’ law or another practice area: life partners matter a great deal. Other panelists echoed the sentiment, encouraging students to think beyond salary and lifestyle when considering future opportunities.

The panelists were unified in the profound satisfaction that they derive from their work, but also honest about the stresses of constructing a case, turning down potential clients, losing trials, and balancing the personal and professional. Hopefully, for those students who feel pulled between the seemingly disparate realms of public interest and the private sector, the panelists were able to elucidate a field which contains elements of both areas. Plaintiffs’ law can be mission- and impact-oriented much like public interest work. Still, a significant amount of plaintiffs’ work originates with law firms, and attorneys helming these firms can factor the health and success of the business into decisions about whether or not to take a case. Ultimately, for those law students who envision themselves as future storytellers, there will be a place for them in a variety of arenas—including plaintiffs’ law.


---
ejb6zt@virginia.edu 

Happy Birthday to the Education Rights Institute

Ryan Moore '25 
Historian 


Many academics spend their entire careers wondering if anybody will read their research. The generation and dissemination of knowledge is hard, often unrewarding work. So hard, in fact, that I left my graduate program after realizing that my research would amount to nothing more than screaming into the void.[1]

Not so for Professor Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, the inaugural director of the Law School’s Education Rights Institute (ERI) and a leading scholar in education law. Professor Robinson’s research on K-20 educational equity, school funding, and various other civil rights issues is influential in the educational rights field. Enough so that on October 16, 2023, Professor Robinson and the Law School launched ERI, made possible by a $4.9 million donation from an anonymous philanthropist inspired by her work. For the last year, Professor Robinson and ERI have supported scholarship about a federal right to education, opportunity gaps in providing a high-quality education to all, and how school districts can best comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This month, I had the pleasure to sit down with Professor Robinson to talk about ERI, her research, and how UVA Law students can help.

ERI’s three-part mission is to expand the opportunity for every student in the United States to enjoy a right to a high-quality education. To Professor Robinson, a high-quality education is one that prepares students to be college- and career-ready, and helps students become engaged civic participants. ERI also seeks to help schools understand their legal obligations to protect students’ civil rights under Title VI, which prohibits schools that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin. Finally, ERI promotes research about educational inequality and how law and policy reforms and federal resources can best address opportunity gaps. ERI is staffed by three full-time employees who are all former teachers: two Ph.D. researchers and a civil rights attorney in New Orleans. Professor Robinson also hires UVA Law students to support the institute. ERI staff not only conduct research, but gets that research into the hands of policymakers, school districts, and the public on the front lines of education.

Much research and activism focus on what is “wrong” with the American education system, and rightly so. Large socioeconomic gaps exist in this country along racial, class, and geographic lines, yet America’s vast wealth is not consistently invested or used strategically. As Professor Robinson previously stated: “We’re the only wealthy nation that provides less funding to disadvantaged students. We are undermining our education system and the democracy, economy, and society that relies on it to thrive.”[2] Poorly funded schools often have less-experienced and qualified teachers or infrastructure problems, including inadequate heating/cooling systems or pest infestations. And most depressing to me is the fact that society is willing to tolerate the high levels of inequality that afflict our fellow students.

What Professor Robinson foregrounded in our conversation, and what is often overlooked, is what the American education system gets “right.” For example, the American education system includes many dedicated teachers, heavily invested in their students’ well-being and academic achievement. Many teachers spend their own money to ensure their classrooms are adequately supplied. My grandma was a kindergarten teacher for over 40 years, so I am acutely aware of the hard work teachers put in day in and day out. Professor Robinson also highlighted the potential for law and policy reforms to help build a stronger and more effective education system, just as it has helped build the unequal one that we have today.

On Monday, October 21, the ERI is holding an event titled “Celebrating Title VI at 60 and the Education Rights Institute at 1,” to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the first anniversary of the founding of the ERI. The event is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. in Caplin Pavilion.[3] Professor Robinson will moderate two morning panels where legal and education experts will discuss current issues affecting whether students receive a high-quality education, including race and national origin discrimination, the impact of Title VI, and the intersection between education and civil rights. The first panel, at 9:15 a.m., focuses on race and national origin discrimination; the second panel, at 10:45 a.m., will focus on the impact of Title VI. Be sure to catch the 12:30 p.m. keynote address by Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education. A networking reception will follow the keynote address and lunch.

Professor Robinson ended our conversation with a call to action for UVA Law students. “Join us as we work to understand and improve education. We need your help.” Whether that’s supporting the ERI’s research, writing law review articles or op-eds for newspapers, or working as an RA for Professor Robinson,[4] there are so many ways we can reduce inequalities in education  and help all students enjoy access to a high-quality education.


---
tqy7zz@virginia.edu

[1] The great thing about law is that at least one poor sap (i.e. a judicial clerk) HAS to read your work.

[2] University of Virginia Law Establishes Education Rights Institute, https://www.insightintodiversity.com/university-of-virginia-law-establishes-education-rights-institute/.

[3] Lunch provided; first come, first served.

[4] Apply if interested.

Professors' Forthcoming Article Frictionless Government and Foreign Relations

Bradley Berklich '27 
Staff Editor 


This past Thursday, October 3, Professors Ashley Deeks and Kristen Eichensehr presented on their forthcoming Virginia Law Review article, Frictionless Government and Foreign Relations. The presentation was the first of the 2024/2025 Virginia Law Review Speaker Series, and it was chaired by Andrew White ’25, Articles Editor for the Law Review, who managed the editing of the piece to prepare it for publication.

Deeks and Eichensehr opened their presentation with an explanation of their thesis and a definition of “frictionless government” as a “bipartisan and bicameral consensus,” meaning instances of lawmaking where both Republicans and Democrats agree, and the House, Senate, and president agree (“overwhelming bipartisan and interbranch support for a policy”).[1] Deeks and Eichensehr assert that during instances of perceived external threats, the government can join in lockstep and make foreign policy decisions with near-universal, frictionless agreement between the parties, houses of Congress, and the branches of government.

Though it is possible to make good policy while operating in a frictionless situation, Deeks and Eichensehr explain that this overwhelming consensus can lead to cognitive biases as a result of diminished checks and balances between agencies, parties, branches, and levels of government. These biases include groupthink, optimism bias, and confirmation bias. Three more, illusion of transparency (thinking your enemies know more than they do), fundamental attribution errors (thinking your enemies are acting based on ill motives rather than situational factors), and the secrecy heuristic (thinking secret information is more valuable and accurate than public information) seem to function with groupthink as a sort of state-level paranoia. Eichensehr said it was “a little ironic” to be “sounding the alarm” on instances where the government actually agrees among itself, especially in these polarized times.

The professors draw upon history for examples of frictionless government creating bad results, namely the internment of Japanese Americans, the waging of the Vietnam War, and some of the counter-terrorism policies that the United States pursued after the September 11 attacks. During each, mass support was galvanized after a focusing event: the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the September 11 attacks themselves. Also during each, parties, Congress, and the executive reached a consensus about an aggressive policy prompted by a perceived foreign threat, although that policy was later regarded as misguided.

The modern-day instance of frictionless government the professors were most worried about—and the genesis of the article—is United States conduct toward China, including restrictions on investment and technology transfers. If China cannot access chips made by the U.S. and its allies, it and similarly situated nations are far more likely to develop equivalent indigenous technology faster than they otherwise would and to divest from U.S. financial systems. In addition, the high level of consensus around these decisions may lead policymakers into a vicious spiral of tit-for-tat escalation, arising out of the cognitive biases that come with frictionless governance.

The re-introduction of productive frictions is the Professors’ grand plan to save U.S. foreign policy decision-making. Productive frictions are divided into two types by Professors Deeks and Eichensehr: internal and external. Internal frictions are those which the federal government can impose on itself, including forced dissent (institutionalized “red teaming” or devil’s advocates), mandated reason-giving (institutionalized sharing of reasoning, such as Congress forcing the president to create, explain, and justify a particular national security policy), and policy off-ramps (such as periodic sunset clauses, which force Congress to affirmatively vote to continue a policy, as was included in the Patriot Act). External frictions are those imposed by outside forces. These are more emergent and “stochastic,” said Eichensehr, likely to pop up when push-comes-to-shove on the external forces themselves, namely individual states, corporations, and foreign nations. External entities’ methods of influence include litigation, policy, and lobbying. With these internal and external factors in tandem, the authors hope that competition of ideas can be reintroduced to the national security space.

The role of U.S. states in spurring this frictionless moment with respect to foreign policy on China is the topic of a second paper, still in the works, by Professors Deeks and Eichensehr, tentatively titled “States and the New National Security.” They gave the attendees a preview of their arguments.


---
jqr9gh@virginia.edu

[1] Ashley Deeks & Kristen E. Eichensehr, Frictionless Government and Foreign Relations, 110 Va. L. Rev. at *7 (forthcoming 2024). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4727989.

UVA Law Takes on Fauxfield

Kelly Wu '27 
Staff Editor 

Photo Credit: Kelly Wu 


Grab your florals and best blazers because another Fauxfield has raced past! Held on Saturday, September 28, the Law School spent the day at Ellie’s Country Club, filled with colorful drinks and colorful-er outfits. Though most showed up in preppy pastels, a surprising lack of outlandish headwear undermined the theme just slightly. Nevertheless, the event saw lots of dancing, slightly out-of-pitch singing, and an overall good time!


---
gcu2vn@virginia.edu

Environmental Law Forum Convenes "Supreme Court Round-Up"

Emily Becker '27 
Staff Editor 


Last Thursday, September 26, the Virginia Environmental Law Forum (“VELF”) convened students and faculty to discuss cutting-edge environmental questions. VELF Vice President Sarah Zube ’26 introduced the two panelists: Professors Cale Jaffe and Michael Livermore, both of whom are affiliated with the Law School’s Program in Law, Communities, and the Environment. The discussion touched on many hot-button issues, including the much-whispered-about Loper Bright, the lesser-known but highly influential National Environmental Policy Act, and the renaissance of superfund laws.

Professor Jaffe, who also runs the Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic, led off the discussion with Loper Bright. Loper Bright overturned the Chevron doctrine, which arose from a decades-old SCOTUS decision that had established a tradition of deference by the judiciary to federal agencies allowing agencies, not the courts, to interpret ambiguous statutes. To give the audience an idea of how powerful the Chevron doctrine was, and how controversial Loper Bright has been, Professor Jaffe invoked Justice Kagan’s dissent, where she lamented the majority’s judicial power grab: as Professor Jaffe put it, “she’s throwing down on this one.” Justice Kagan is far from alone in her concern over the magnitude of the decision. Professor Jaffe emphasized the fact that just about any environmental regulation could be in jeopardy under Loper Bright.

In light of the vast ambiguity, dramatic language, and potential for far-reaching implications of Loper Bright, it is easy to paint a very stark picture of what is already a highly politicized, complex area of government regulation. However, both professors suggested that the future may not be as grim as the anxious law students taking their first administrative law class may think. Professor Jaffe mentioned the Commerce Clause’s application in environmental cases, alluding to the fact that we may have become accustomed to a great deal of administrative power. Perhaps there will be some salutary effects of Loper Bright in this respect. Professor Livermore approached the issue from another angle by asking the question, what will happen, practically speaking, on the ground in courts? Will Loper Bright be applied as dramatically as one might expect? He asserted that one of two things will likely happen: the courts will decide to defer to the agency, or they will rely on ideological priors. Chevron allowed agency deference, and Professor Livermore contended that ideological priors were not absent pre-Loper Bright. There may not be as momentous a shift in interpretation of statutes as there could be. Courts may refrain from calling in experts and engaging in protracted proceedings to decide policy when they could, in fact, rule to defer to agencies.

Students concerned about the vulnerability of environmental statutes could perhaps then breathe a sigh of relief after hearing these more tempered views on Loper Bright. However, that would  have been premature, as there is another environmental statute in jeopardy irrespective of Loper Bright: the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). As Professor Jaffe explained, NEPA requires environmental agencies to produce environmental impact statements before undertaking major initiatives. SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case that challenges the scope of these impact statements on behalf of the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”). In assessing the impact of a new rail line designed to transport crude oil to refineries, the STB poses the question of whether their impact statement should consider the rail’s implications beyond its very narrow regulatory area. Professor Jaffe explained that if SCOTUS finds that the STB can disregard broader implications of its actions, the Court will effectively negate one of NEPA’s main historical functions, which has been to encourage agencies to consider the ramifications of their actions within the larger environmental framework.

Professor Livermore introduced a new topic to the discussion which should give big oil enthusiasts, conservationists, and everyone in between some food for thought about what environmental regulation and litigation will look like in the coming decades. While we may be accustomed to thinking about environmental regulation as a federal action, Professor Livermore drew attention to a new movement by state legislatures to enact what amounts to superfund laws with a twist. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or the Federal Superfund Act, funded and created mechanisms for holding major polluters liable for their actions. Some states have or are considering enacting similar acts specifically focused on emissions. Vermont enacted the Climate Superfund Act earlier this year which, as Professor Livermore explained, allows the state to retroactively tax emitters who will mostly be big oil companies. A similar bill awaits the New York governor’s signature.

Professor Livermore anticipates three types of challenges to these statutes as they pass: due process as it relates to foreign entities, due process as it relates to retroactivity, and pre-emption by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The professor explained that he expects the due process challenges to be the weakest, as personal jurisdiction could very well still be established with foreign corporations, and the federal superfund act itself is retroactive, meaning that it is unlikely that a retroactivity due process challenge would be successful. What Professor Livermore did flag as a dispute to look out for, though, was pre-emption by the CAA. The CAA does not prevent states from implementing more stringent policies than its own, but it is potentially unresolved whether it would preempt states whose statutes implicate emitters’ out-of-state behavior. Professor Livermore predicts that the current Supreme Court majority would have to grapple with tension between two of its core ideals in consideration of this issue: federalism and skepticism of environmental protection. While Professor Livermore presented the counterargument to preemption that the state statutes are retroactive and the CAA is regulatory, meaning that there would not be a conflict, he acknowledged that this is a thorny enough issue, where the stakes are high enough, that he considers it worthwhile to flag.


---
ejb6zt@virginia.edu

VLR Honors Judge and UVA Law Alumnus

Garrett Coleman '25 
Executive Editor 


In honor of his fortieth year on the bench, the Virginia Law Review published an online edition dedicated to Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III ’72 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Wilkinson was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1984, after he had served in the U.S. Army, worked as an editor for a Virginia newspaper, taught at the Law School, and served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

The edition begins with a tribute from Professor John C. Jeffries ’73, who gave a sense of Judge Wilkinson as a law school professor. While teaching Miranda v. Arizona in Criminal Procedure, “Jay began to complain of the heat in the classroom and, to the growing consternation of the students, took off his jacket, then tie, then shirt, to reveal the “famous cases” tee shirt of Miranda, which encapsulated the Supreme Court’s advice for custodial interrogation: (1) call a lawyer; (2) STFU. The class roared.”[1]

Judge Wilkinson also seemed to be a natural for the judiciary. A former clerk of Judge Wilkinson and now colleague in the federal judiciary, Judge Daniel A. Bress for the Ninth Circuit had this to say: “What was immediately apparent to me when I began clerking for Judge Wilkinson was that this was a person who was most naturally at home in the medium of law.”[2] And in the same vein, he noted that Judge Wilkinson brought that knowledge and enthusiasm to every case that came before him, no matter how small.[3]

The special edition concludes in classic UVA Law fashion with an ode to civility. And Judge Wilkinson seems to have practiced that kindness well in his tenure. Another former clerk, Professor Allison Orr Larsen of William & Mary Law School, said that “Judge Wilkinson practices what he preaches” when it comes to collegiality.[4] According to Larsen, the Judge loves telling those in the legal field to “disagree agreeably.”[5] In her words, “To disagree agreeably, one must commit to creating a culture in which repeat players both act in good faith and give each other the benefit of the doubt.”[6] And Larsen saw this on full display in the many friendships Judge Wilkinson has with colleagues of other political or ideological dispositions, though this never meant that the Judge was forfeiting his own beliefs.

It is one of the many privileges of going to a law school like ours to celebrate fellow alumni who have reached the heights of a Judge Wilkinson.


---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

[1] John C. Jeffries, Jr., Jay Wilkinson as Teacher, 110 Va. L. Rev. Online 248, 248 (Sept. 2024).

[2] Daniel A. Bress, The Judge, 110 Va. L. Rev. Online 261, 262 (Sept. 2024).

[3] See id. at 266.

[4] Allison Orr Larsen, Learning to Disagree Agreeably, 110 Va. L. Rev. Online 283, 284 (Sept. 2024).

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 285.

Real Deal: Government

Jason Vanger ‘27, Alicia Kaufmann ‘27, 
Staff Editors 


On Tuesday, September 24, the Public Service Center hosted the fifth and final installment of its Real Deal series, a program focused on hearing from current professionals in public service-related jobs. Last week’s panel was dedicated solely to government careers. While snacking on sandwiches and oatmeal raisin cookies, students heard from Robyn Bitner ’14, Yan Gao ’15, Cassondra “CJ” Murphy ’18, and Megan Watkins ’16. Full bios of the panelists, with more detailed descriptions of their positions, can be found on the Public Service Center website.[1] The panel was facilitated by Assistant Dean for Public Service Ryan Faulconer ’08, who posed questions about their positions and solicited advice for folks interested in pursuing a career in the government.

Faulconer opened with a positive, “What is the most rewarding aspect of your job?” Bitner, a trial attorney in the Special Litigation Section at the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division whose work involves investigating violations of children’s rights in juvenile justice systems, started the panel off strong, saying “to work on behalf of kids that have been written off.” Murphy, an Assistant Counsel with the U.S. Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel, spends her days helping Senators, committees, and their staff turn proposed policy into legislative text. She expressed that being a part of drafting important legislation is the most fulfilling to her. Gao, a General Attorney in the Mergers 1 Division of the Bureau of Competition within the FTC, compared his experience as a first-year attorney at the FTC to those at a Big Law firm. Rather than reviewing documents, at the FTC you are thrown into the deep end and quickly get first hand experience while being supported by higher-ups.

The panelists were then asked to speak on the most challenging aspects of their positions. Watkins, a deputy attorney in the Henrico County Attorney’s Office, leads the office’s School Law Practice group where she represents the Henrico County School Board and school administration. She explained that since she is so “embedded with her client,” she is always on call to hear concerns, so at times it feels like there is no privacy. “Even in the bathroom stall,” she joked (not jokingly at all), “people will keep talking to me.” Murphy followed, expressing that her schedule is “very client driven,” so it changes a lot based on Senate activities.

Faulconer then posed the age-old question, “How do you handle the government salaries?” The panelists were refreshingly honest and transparent in their responses to this question. While I will not publish their honesty, they admit that government salaries can be found online. All panelists acknowledged that while they may not drive luxury cars, they are able to live very comfortably. Murphy explained that government employers are much more transparent about pay and total benefit packages during the recruiting process than firms are. Bitner and Gao also advised to keep earning potential in mind when contemplating positions.

Asked about advice for current 1Ls, the speakers agreed that students should be open to trying new opportunities and should recognize that their long-term careers may be different from what they expect now. Bitner suggested that students avoid putting too much pressure on any one job to be “the job.” She encouraged them to take jobs because something about it excites them and not to be afraid to leave a job if necessary. Watkins recalled that she had received unexpected job offers from employers who had seen her performance. Students should “put your best foot forward in everything you do” because you never know who is watching, she said.

The panelists also gave more concrete examples of experiences that helped them get to where they are now. Most panelists had summer internships in government or other public interest paths. Gao highly recommended externships, crediting one with his career after graduation. “The bar for getting these great opportunities is so low” for students, he said, but gets higher for graduates, so they should take advantage of it now. Faulconer interjected to add that experiences that rule out a career can be just as useful as ones that open a path. Murphy also noted that the timeline for public service jobs is different from the private sector and told students not to panic if some of their friends have job offers before they do.

The panelists spoke about other aspects of government work. For example, Faulconer asked them to name agencies that they have heard are especially good to work for. Murphy said that the Congressional Research Service, which advises members of Congress on policy matters, would be a good choice for students interested in policy research. Gao said that he had a lot of respect for the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, which does similar work to the FTC. Bitner suggested that students might be interested in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the Department of Education as both do work on student loans.

One audience member asked how politics impacts the panelists’ work. Most panelists saw the impact as relatively minor and enjoyed the nonpartisan nature of their careers. As Gao put it, “If I were not tuned in to the news, I couldn’t tell who’s in charge.” However, Watkins said that there is a chance that elections can change clients’ focus dramatically and suggested that students ask about the impact of politics in interviews. Bitner said that learning how to adapt messaging to different administrations is an important skill.

Students who are interested in government careers should look out for Federal Government Career Day on October 23.


---
hcr9bm@virginia.edu 
nnk2gn@virginia.edu 

[1] https://www.law.virginia.edu/protected/public-service/real-deal-government.

OPP Dazzles with "Introduction to Employer Interactions:

Bradley Berlich '27 
Staff Editor 


This past Tuesday, September 24, the Office of Private Practice (“OPP”) hosted one of two sessions entitled “Introduction to Employer Interactions.” The session was intended to help law students, a group not always renowned for their social fluidity, gain exposure to normal, professional, basic, human interactions. One might think, given the attendees’ status as students at a good law school, they would possess enough social ability or tact to engage in networking, or “making work friends.” However, you would be wrong. The question is not one of quality, but quantity. The manners at hand are simple yet numerous. A violation of even a single one can put your networkee in a foul mood.

“Remember the attorney’s name,” was one helpful piece of advice given by an anonymized member of OPP, referred to here as “OPP 1,” and accompanied by OPPs 2, 3, and 4. According to OPP 1, one could scarcely believe the amount of grief referring to an attorney by the wrong name causes. All sorts of adverse reactions, like un-responded-to emails, scowling in the hallways, and a lack of return offer can result from this one simple error.

“Remember the attorney’s name” was followed by its close corollary, knowing your own name, an especially important step to the method of greeting that OPP 1 described as “the handshake.” The handshake is a deceptively simple tactic, whereupon meeting someone, you take their hand in yours and shake it. But the speed, timing, and strength with which you shake are crucial. Step one is to look at the other party and make sure that they would indeed like to participate in the shaking of hands. Follow their lead. If they extend their hand, grasp it. If they do not extend their hand, do not, in a manic fit suggesting some type of aneurysm-induced spasm or a simple lapse of judgment, reach forward and take their hand in yours.

Once it is established that the attorney intends to shake hands, the actual shake should be conducted with a firm grip, fingers “web to web,” with medium vicariousness, and a range of motion confined to one to one-and-a-half inches from the initial center of handshake mass. “Do you see this hand,” said OPP 1, holding up their left hand. “This hand never gets involved.” Attendees nodded solemnly. Some scribbled furiously in notepads. “None of this,” said OPP 1, reaching around to pat or hit OPP 2, with whom they were demonstrating the handshake, on the back. Then comes the tricky part: knowing and reciting your own name. This is “your line,” and it’s good practice to know it, and rehearse it ahead of time. In a mirror if you must.

The presentation then turned to the topic of food and drink. Unsurprisingly, it is unbecoming for young professionals to wander around ballrooms clutching two trays of hors d’oeuvres, limbs slathered in barbeque sauce. Rather food should be taken, eaten, and napkins and toothpicks disposed of quickly, preferably the whole arrangement being done out of sight of an attorney. As for the alcohol, many law firm events will feature guest appearances by a veritable jazz quartet of potent potables. But, cried OPP 1, as if Hatchet Granny upon her soap box, the prudent law student should stop imbibing at least one drink before it looks like they’ve drunk anything at all. Visible intoxication is terrible form. Invisible intoxication, however, a tradition as timeless and stately as the corner office pop-up bar, is totally fine.

Next, OPP addressed attire. Clothing, and appropriate clothing at that, is mandatory at all networking events. The ideal student should be dressed conservatively. Suits should be dark, either navy or gray. Blouses and jackets could be permitted a splash, perhaps no more than a speckle, of color. Socks, ties, and jewelry should be “normal,” and should not contain occult symbols, risqué jokes, or general novelty. Heels should err on the low end. But though you should be well dressed, you ought not be “richly” dressed. In fact, “the hungrier you look, the better,” said OPP 1. Hiring teams at Biglaw firms appear to want someone who looks like they need the job for the money and will work like it too. So, leave any custom tailoring in the closet. No comment on whether smearing soot on yourself like a Dickensian orphan will yield even greater results, but there’s only one way to find out.

And, if the worst should come to pass, counseled OPP 3, and you happen to commit some grievous error like spilling a glass of wine, your manner should be that of absolute unflappability; your face, an unmoving visage the likes of which ought to be chiseled into stone. Stop. Apologize. Offer to clean it up. And move on. The aura you project is of the utmost importance, especially when you want to encourage others to approach you, or for you yourself to get in the right headspace before entering a conversation circle. Even when standing idly by the table proffering the light lunch, your manner should convey: “I am ready for professional conversation.” OPP 1 demonstrated, dropping their hands to their side, and adopting a vacant-looking grin somewhere in between nitrous addict and recent lobotomite. OPP 1 did look extremely approachable. It was a grin that conveyed a level of familiarity and ease with the Clio dashboard and fluorescent lights. It was a grin of unconscious competence. It was a grin that said I belong.

This reporter found the “Introduction to Employer Interactions” genuinely helpful. An identical session will be held on Wednesday, November 6.


---
jqr9gh@virginia.edu 

Federalist Society Hosts Fifth Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt

Bradley Berklich '27 
Staff Editor 


This past Thursday, September 19, Judge Kurt Englehardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was given a warm reception when he spoke at a Federalist Society lunch event, delivering a prepared statement about the role the Anti-Federalists played in the founding of the United States before taking audience questions. He presented as a chipper, thoughtful man, and seemed very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to law students. Judge Engelhardt was appointed to the Fifth Circuit in 2018 by President Donald Trump, and he currently serves as one of seventeen active judges on the court. Prior to his appointment to the Fifth Circuit, Englehardt served as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt speaking with Ann Kreuscher ’25 
Photo Credit: UVA Federalist Society 

Englehardt began by speaking about the roles the Federalists and Anti-Federalists played in the ratification of the Constitution, and how the Anti-Federalists, though they are often overlooked in favor of the Federalists, made a great number of contributions to the Constitution and the founding ethos of the United States. Engelhardt reported that the “American Nationalist” Federalists—among them the authors of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—believed in a strong, centralized national government. This ran contrary to the views of the “American Radical” Anti-Federalists that a government could only serve the people if it was small and localized, a mechanism aimed to bolster the rights of individuals and reduce the risk of tyranny.

Engelhardt at one point quoted Patrick Henry, an Anti-Federalist, whose sentiment was emblematic of the dispute: “What right had [the signers of the Declaration of Independence] to say, ‘We, the people . . .’ instead of ‘We, the states?’” Where the Federalists wanted a strong, centralized state (“rejecting a monarchy for a republic”), the Anti-Federalist vision was closer to the initial Articles of Confederation, where the powers were vested in the states, with a weak central government. Ultimately, their vision was not realized, but, as Engelhardt pointed out, the entire Bill of Rights is an Anti-Federalist invention, added to the Constitution post-hoc as a way for the Federalists to placate the opposition and secure the votes necessary for ratification.

As far as many members of the public are concerned, the Anti-Federalists have largely been relegated to the wastepaper basket of history or confined to high school American history class. “We forget the Anti-Federalists,” said Engelhardt, “because they lost the ratification battle. But they won when it came to the application of the Constitution.” Despite this, Engelhardt said that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, designed to protect non-enumerated rights and to reserve all powers not explicitly assigned to the federal government to the states or the people, respectively, are “plow[ed] over” by the expansive interpretation of Congress’ regulatory power.

Concluding his speech, Engelhardt invoked the Anti-Federalists’ conviction to individual liberties to call upon attendees to “resist cancel culture . . . [which is] designed to suffocate free people until they forgo the joy of persuasion.” Engelhardt encouraged the listeners to speak “freely” and “truthfully” about their feelings on issues such as American exceptionalism, human rights violations in China, and the character and value of the founding fathers, whom he described as “deeply flawed men, but historic visionaries.”

At the end of his prepared remarks, Engelhardt took questions in a discussion chaired by Federalist Society President Ann Kreuscher ’25. One question was about the Fifth Circuit’s recent Supreme Court track record. In the 2023–2024 Supreme Court term, the Court reversed or vacated seven of the ten cases that it took from the Fifth Circuit. This arguably falls just short of the record for the most negative treatment ever received by a Circuit Court in a single term, a number set by the Fifth Circuit just last year, when only one of their nine judgements was substantively affirmed.

Engelhardt remarked that he obviously would have preferred different outcomes, but that he was not overly bothered by the results. To him, it was most frustrating when the Court rejected cases on grounds of standing, mired in the question of “how much does your ox have to be gored [to have a stake in the matter],” and did not reach a discussion on the merits of the arguments. He also commented that the amount of negative treatment the Fifth Circuit received had a lot to do with the circuit splits that the Fifth Circuit often generates, prompting certiorari to be granted. “Scalia said he can live with a few bad decisions, but not with a circuit split,” quipped Engelhardt. “Circuit splits are tough cases. Texas tests the government’s authority every chance they get . . . We don’t invent these cases. They come to us, and we rule on them.”

Still, the wins the Fifth Circuit did get last term were big wins. Self-described modern-day Anti-Federalists should be beaming, especially after the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Security and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, where they ruled that defendants are entitled to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud. Trial by jury in civil cases, Engelhardt pointed out, was such a large deal to the Anti-Federalists that they very nearly did not ratify the Constitution in Pennsylvania because of its absence from the document.

The ruling removes the ability of federal administrative agencies to dish out monetary penalties in-house, and it makes a big difference. According to a 2015 Wall Street Journal article, “SEC Wins with In-House Judges,” when the SEC tried cases before an administrative law judge, they won 90 percent of the time.[1] When in federal court, that number dropped to 69 percent. The illusory nature of the Fifth Circuit K/D ratio might explain why Engelhardt is so relaxed. With Supreme Court rulings coming one after the other that curtail what he calls “gain of function regulatory bureaucracies,” it’s clearly a good time to be an Anti-Federalist.

However, when asked, Engelhardt was staunchly against the concept of judges as policymakers. Speaking negatively, he said “[people] are constantly bringing policy issues to the court. [If they] can’t convince enough people to enact the law, then [they]’ll just create a law with a judicial opinion.” For Engelhardt, “policy choices . . . [don’t] impact the fundamental principles. [They don’t] impact what we do constitutionally.”

Judge Engelhardt stayed after the Q&A ended and took time to talk with students, giving them an opportunity to meet him personally, hear more about his reading list for clerks (which includes Anti-Federalist thinkers, Loper Bright, and Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olsen), and gave them a chance to examine his necktie, which bore the text of the Constitution in diagonal stripe.


---
jqr9gh@virginia.edu 

[1] Jean Eaglesham, SEC Wins With In-House Judges, Wall Street Journal (May 6, 2015 10:30 p.m.), https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-wins-with-in-house-judges-1430965803?msockid=27a5e5ba31216dc8003df16f30366c7b.

Sound Justice Lab Hosts Panel on Banned Books

Noah Coco '26 
Managing Editor 


From September 19th through the 20th, the University of Virginia’s Sound Justice Lab hosted a conference titled “Technologies of Silence.” The two-day multidisciplinary conference featured panels of speakers and performances by artists exploring the legal technologies and tactics used to silence stories, individuals, and groups.

On Thursday, September 19, the conference convened a panel at the Law School titled “Banned Books, Tabooed Art, Unspeakable Subjects.” The panel featured moderator Amy Woolard ’08, Breanna Diaz, Andrea Dennis, Mame-Fatou Niang, and Paul Halliday.

The unifying theme of the speakers’ remarks was the socio-legal mechanisms through which dominant cultures have suppressed, erased, or weaponized information, experiences, and creative expression of marginalized communities—particularly people of color and the LGBTQ community.

Sound Justice Lab Co-Director, Professor Anne Coughlin, briefly introduced the panel and offered a tribute to the late Professor Frederick Schauer, who was originally scheduled to participate in the discussion. Following Professor Coughlin’s remarks, Woolard, Chief Program Officer at the ACLU of Virginia, spoke to frame the discussion.

She articulated the process by which ideals adopted by the dominant culture inform societal norms and taboos. Through the inherent power embodied by such a position, these norms manifest through laws that govern society. The active suppression of information and experiences by such socio-legal mechanisms as book bans, therefore, “don’t happen in a vacuum, and they leave wake,” commented Woolard. Rather, she described the use of such socio-legal tools as part of a designed and coordinated attempt to “block out information and experiences” and “paralyze and chill stewards of that information and those experiences.”

Book bans, said Diaz, Policy and Legislative Counsel at the ACLU of Virginia, make up the “sad majority” of her work. She proceeded to describe the nationwide “coordinated attack” on school curriculums and community and school libraries. Although cloaked in a nominal effort to protect students and the public from harmful rhetoric—sexually explicit content, obscenity, pornography, etc.—in practice, these efforts primarily target books about, and authored by, people of color and LGBTQ people. Rather than the putative goal of protecting the public from the dissemination of harmful rhetoric, the real goal motivating these efforts, Diaz alleged, is to “erase [their] historical contributions and experiences from classrooms and the public generally.”

On the ground, this “coordinated attack” has materialized through efforts to regulate school policies around the selection and removal of materials, pro-book ban and classroom censorship campaigns, and efforts to remove school and public library staff or board members. Most of these efforts are concentrated in five states: Texas, Florida, Missouri, Utah, and Pennsylvania.

Virginia, too, has been the site of active campaigns to censor content. In 2022, for example, Governor Glenn Youngkin’s Executive Order Number One banned instruction in “inherently divisive concepts,” which includes critical race theory. That same year, SB 656 was signed into law, requiring the Virginia Department of Education to develop, and local school boards to adopt, model policies ensuring parental notification of curricula including sexually explicit content and allowances for parents to opt out of instruction of such materials to their children. Diaz noted, however, that parents in Virginia always had similar opt-out rights. Instead, she explained, this bill intentionally targeted specific content from racial and LGBTQ communities and has already been used as a premise for the removal of books from school libraries.

Halliday, Professor of History at the University of Virginia, spoke about various manifestations of book bans and book burnings throughout the history of the British Empire. He began with the burnings ordered by King Henry IV of the philosopher John Wycliffe’s books at the turn of the fifteenth century for their allegedly heretical doctrines of Catholic theology. Halliday proceeded to the 1634 order to burn William Prynne’s Histriomatrix—a screed against the immorality of contemporary theater viewed, in part, to directly implicate the Queen—in front of Prynne in a public setting. In both of these accounts, Halliday noted, divine authority was asserted, in part, as justification to burn the books.

Halliday also noted, however, that this precursor to the book ban, as well as the modern form of the book ban itself, bestowed no inherent authority upon the suppressors. Instead, the authors’ ideas persisted through dissemination by the original audience and readers of the proscribed content. Despite the heavy hand of authority, the survival of these ideas depended on the traction they gained among contemporary audiences and the democratic process of dissemination among the public. It is “not the ideas that were burned,” said Halliday, only their physical publications.[1]

Dennis, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Georgia School of Law, examined an analogous socio-legal mechanism in her remarks: the use and misuse of rap music in criminal procedures. She traced this history back to the antebellum slave code prohibitions on reading, writing, and drumming; the use of the criminal process in the 1930s to harass and investigate jazz musicians who expressed social critiques through their music; all the way to the targeting of black artists and civil rights activists under the guise of the FBI’s COINTELPRO program in the 1960s.

The suppression of black creative voices has manifested in recent decades, in part, through the criminal prosecution of rap artists for the communication of threats through their lyrics. “Creative expression has become a means and instrumentality of crime” under the law, said Dennis. Compounding these efforts at suppression is the continued silencing of incarcerated artists, and the delicate strategic decision of whether to testify during trial. “We are not hearing from those held behind bars,” said Dennis, and the hesitation to testify in one’s own defense deprives those same artists of the “opportunity to defend their art and provide an explanation for their creative process.” Posed with the question of whether the use of rap lyrics should be banned from the criminal legal process, Dennis expressed ambivalence. “Should we be proposing silence as a solution to the problem?”

Niang, Director of the Center for Black European Studies and the Atlantic at Carnegie Mellon University and Artist-in-Residence at the Ateliers Médicis in Paris, began her remarks with a provocative statement: “I am an unspeakable subject as a French black person.” By that statement, she meant that the story of slavery and black people in France has been erased from France’s history and culture. Race has been formally removed from official documents; there is no word for “blackness” in the French language; and French history is taught in schools without any reference to slavery beyond that which had happened in the United States.

What is most striking about this omission, for Niang, is the unifying role of history as “the backbone of French national identity.” “Nothing explains how I got here,” she said. The lack of language and vocabulary to talk about the black French experience suppresses this identity and personal expression. The twin tools of history and language cohere to erase these stories from the public consciousness. Artists like Niang are working to fill this void with creative projects to give voice to these stories and identities, including her most recent work, “Sounds of Silence,” a “sound tapestry” to preserve and promote the lived experiences of one particular community in France.


---
ebj6gs@virginia.edu

[1] Much credit is owed to Julia Sabek ’26 for graciously taking notes during Professor Halliday’s discussion because I had to leave early.

The Real Deal: Legal Aid & Nonprofit

Joshua Jolly '27 
Staff Editor 


The Public Service Center recently put on their third installment of the “Real Deal” series, where they bring in speakers from different segments of public interest law to share their journey. This week’s edition showcased four alumni working in the Legal Aid and Nonprofit sphere.

Ruby Cherian ’23 is an attorney with the Charlottesville based Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC) in the Civil Rights and Racial Justice branch. She shared her experience recently joining the organization after working with them during her time in law school.  Cherian emphasized how gratifying it is to do work that impacts the local community in a way that is tangible and visible. Cherian expressed how one-on-one interaction with community members and finding out what their priorities and concerns are are the most rewarding parts of her work. Among her many endorsements of the LAJC is the variety that each day brings with it. One day you may be lobbying members of the Virginia General Assembly, and the next you’re working on media strategy for the Center’s projects.

Megan Keenan ’18 is a staff attorney for the ACLU Voting Rights Project. She joined the ACLU after two clerkships and working as an associate at Covington & Burling LLP. Keenan shared that the scope of her work being voting rights, the substance varies widely based on what point in the election cycle the country is in. With an election upcoming in the next few months, day-to-day activities with the Project involve a lot of fielding questions from voters who feel they have been adversely impacted in some way, and helping in decision-making for on-the-ground strategies relating to voting rights.  Keenan talked about how now, being more than five years out of law school, she is getting to a point in her career where she is starting to feel more like an expert in some areas, emphasizing how rewarding it is to be confident in the work you’re doing, despite it still being very challenging. As the ACLU Voting Rights Project is primarily focused on impact litigation, Keenan said she had expected a bit more of an arms-length relationship with clients, though she was pleasantly surprised. She found that even with the impact litigation model, she has found ample opportunities to work with people on the ground and to find ways to bring their considerations to bear in her work.

Sujaya Rajguru ’22 is a staff attorney at the Pennsylvania based Women’s Law Project. She praised the experience of working with the Project for a combination of the personal quality of life she can have and the consistent victories she is able to win on behalf of clients who would otherwise be lacking legal representation, or even brief legal advice. Rajguru shared an anecdote which stood out to her, in which a client reached out with concerns over lactation discrimination, where her employer was not giving her adequate time to breastfeed. She said she was able to instruct the client as to the relevant laws in the client’s area, and upon sharing an obligation of breastfeeding time with the employer, the client was granted adequate time. This was just one example, but one which Rajguru says is representative of working with the Women’s Law Project.

Kolleen Gladden-Sorensen ’21 is a staff attorney at Restoration Immigration Legal Aid. She recently transitioned to this position after doing public interest housing work. Giving an overview of her week-to-week experience, Gladden-Sorensen said that she is primarily working with defensive asylum cases. She described these as cases in which an individual is before an immigration court facing deportation, as opposed to what she called affirmative asylum cases where an individual initiates the process by seeking asylum. She contrasted this position with from her old housing work in terms of the responsibilities from day to day. Previously, she would handle many cases at a time, with daily juggling of different clients but now she is working on a much more flexible schedule with a more manageable client load.

The thing on much of the room’s mind seemed to be the viability of working in public interest for those anticipating a considerable amount of student debt . The panelists, all recent graduates of UVA Law, were transparent with their experiences but all framed a similar message: It’s doable if you do it right. Primarily, “doing it right” seemed to mean being aware of the cost of living. Rajguru and Gladden-Sorensen talked about their experiences with high cost of living cities, and encouraged people to think about this when considering both what position and what geographic area they want to enter practice in. Keenan, on a positive note, explained how national public interest organizations have higher starting salaries than people are generally anticipating. She explained that in her experience, it did not need to be a choice between financial stability and working in the field she wanted to.


---
ebj6gs@virginia.edu