Meet the SBA Candidates

---

Simeon Daferede ’25
Presidential Candidate

My time at our law school has inspired me to not just to become a better lawyer, but an even better person thanks to becoming a part of this wonderful UVA Law family. Yet, our institution can always improve to allow everyone to be a part of our family whether it be through our resources, increased representation, or accommodations for our student body. As SBA President, I aim to campaign on extending accessibility to our events, our campus, and to academic success for our peers. Below are some of my ticket’s ideas.

To improve access to our events, I would decrease the prices for our marquee events—Barrister’s Ball, the PILA Auction, and Fauxfield—by allowing payment plans for Law School events. To improve the safety of our social events, I will work with SBA to create a team of volunteers that can act as designated “sober monitors” that would be points of contact for attendees to call or locate at an event to report if they feel unsafe or need a way to get home. Next, I would propose partnering with rideshare services for off-grounds events by providing attendees with codes, which would increase access to and from events safely. Lastly, we would plan a Law School Family Weekend. Our family members are only able to visit our campus in the beginning at orientation and at the end at graduation. But they never get to fully experience our community on a day dedicated just for them.

Second, our team will work with our administration to improve access to campus resources. I would begin with improving student access to parking spaces by ensuring clearer signage for permit parking and better enforcement of the Visitor’s Pass for events. Next, I would advocate to increase our financial aid options. We must have more need-based scholarships for incoming students; we need our law school to aid its future public servants with 3L Summer Stipends to study for the Bar. Further, I will push our administration to hire more OPP Counselors to increase the proportion of students to counselors. Additionally, I would ensure our library space is sacred during finals season for Law School students only by installing a Key Swipe Card to the library doors. Lastly, I would fight for better accessibility options for our student body during finals week by negotiating with administration to allow students to take their final flex exams on Sundays, to submit the flex exams with larger submission windows, and to provide easier access to testing spaces for students with learning accommodations.

I am prepared to undertake the responsibilities to run our existing SBA Committees and to execute these measures based on my prior leadership experiences and current involvement at this Law School. Currently, I serve on the Admitted Students Open House Cabinet, where I work with admissions to execute the school’s largest event for prospective students. I also serve as the Academic Chair for LPS where I have created initiatives to give access to academic and professional resources for LPS Members. Before law school, I worked at a research non-profit where I co-lead the implementation and project management of interventions designed to eradicate Youth Homelessness. During my undergraduate studies, I led UVA’s UPC equivalent, the Major Activities Board, to use our $250,000+ budget to book critically acclaimed musical acts, to procure sponsorships from local vendors, and to create an arts program fundraiser for local schools. I have cherished my time at UVA Law, and I believe that my experiences and our ideas can and will foster the community we deserve.

---

Ginny Reams ’25
Presidential Candidate

Hi everyone! For those of you who I have not gotten the pleasure to meet, my name is Virginia “Ginny” Reams, and I am running to be your next SBA President. If my name looks familiar, it is probably because my introductions usually start with a “Good Morning and Happy Monday!” as I have spent the past year serving as Secretary on the Executive Board of SBA.

Being a part of the Executive Board for the past year has put me in the unique position to witness firsthand the intricacies of the presidential role and the commitment that is required to perform it successfully. I have been able to develop a deeper understanding of what policies in the organization are successful and which are not—it is not lost on me that the student body is often frustrated with SBA, and students feel as if the organization is simply a soundboard for their complaints. Nolan Edmonson and I are running to change that. Our campaign is focused on refreshing the SBA structure, enriching the student experience, and creating space for student collaboration.

Firstly, we plan to refresh the committee structure that is currently in place by creating concrete goals for each committee to achieve throughout the year. In doing this, we hope to revitalize successful events of the past like Mental Health Week and Spirit Week, while additionally encouraging our committee members to create new programming. Further, we plan to have more direct Executive Board involvement on the Barrister’s Committee by placing either the Vice President or Treasurer as a permanent sitting member. We hope that this addition will alleviate continuing logistical concerns surrounding the event.

Secondly, we hope to enrich the student body experience. SBA is responsible for Fauxfield, Barrister’s, and many other signature events that students look forward to each year. In order to hold SBA accountable, we plan to publish a calendar at the beginning of the semester of the dates of these events. Additionally, this communication will include standardized event ticketing procedures and timelines in order to assuage current student frustrations.

Lastly, and most importantly, we are promising to prioritize student collaboration and communication throughout our tenure. Nolan and I plan to engage the student voice by having regular and open communication with not only student leaders, but the entirety of the student body. In order to achieve this, we plan to increase SBA collaborations with a wide range of student organizations, while specifically bolstering support for affinity organizations, so we can ensure that each student feels welcomed in the greater UVA community. Further, we will be opening the SBA office to public weekly office hours so that we can hear from any student who may have a concern or an idea.

If you got this far, I truly appreciate your time to listen to our ideas. I genuinely believe that Nolan and I have the combined experience and passion to take SBA to a level that it has never been. We would be truly humbled to be elected your next SBA President and Vice President and will work tirelessly to make this place that is so special to us, even more so.

---

Laura-Louise Rice ’25
Presidential Candidate

Hi everyone! My name is Laura-Louise Rice and I am humbled to be running to be your next SBA President. As I reflect on my time at UVA Law, these past two years have been filled with friendship, support, and memories that will last a lifetime. If elected SBA President, my goal will be to foster opportunities for each of you to similarly find deep fulfillment in your experience at UVA Law.

I’m running to make SBA more ACTIVE in the Law School along with my friends: Rahul, Asha, Mark, and Amelia. Our platform is ACTIVE – Accountability, Communication, Transparency, Inclusivity, Vibes, and Engagement. An ACTIVE SBA allows us to focus on the student experience from multiple angles by empowering student organizations, engaging in meaningful advocacy, and hosting events where everyone feels welcome. We believe that each of these tenets embodies our vision to make SBA approachable and reliable to both student organizations and the broader student body.

Accountability, Communication. Transparency. As SBA President, my time, my energy, and my efforts will be yours. Accountability, communication, and transparency all work hand in hand to make sure that each of you feels heard and your concerns feel answered. It is the SBA President's job to be vocal on behalf of students to Law School Administration. As we welcome a new Dean, I plan to leverage the many relationships that I have already established with Law School Administration to maintain a culture of collaboration and accountability. I will ensure that, when student concerns arise, a clear path to potential solutions can be found. I believe that the ability to self-govern as students comes with great responsibility, which I will approach with accountability, communication, and transparency.

Inclusivity. Vibes. Engagement. These efforts function to ensure everyone feels a sense of belonging here at UVA Law. I chose to attend UVA because of the collegial atmosphere that is uncommon in a law school experience, and I believe SBA plays a critical role in preserving our experience. SBA already sponsors and cosponsors so many wonderful programs, but we aim to leverage SBA’s role to make events more inclusive by considering financial constraints, having both alcoholic & non-alcoholic activities, and prioritizing the overall welfare of students. Mental health is often referred to in passing at the Law School, but we want mental health to be an ACTIVE consideration in all of our programming & advocacy.

By revitalizing SBA’s infrastructure and committees, we will ensure that SBA is a strong nucleus in the student experience at the Law School. In reflecting on my time as First Year Council President and then President of the Black Law Students Association, what I have learned most is the importance of bridge-building. SBA stands to bridge the gap between students, student organizations, and administration. We hope to be ACTIVE in bridging those gaps through organization alliance meetings, mini-org fairs, and integration of committees into much of SBA’s operations.

We recognize that SBA as it stands is often known to be an organization that provides funds and standard programming each year, but our goal is to accomplish much more. Throughout this upcoming year, an ACTIVE SBA will serve the student body as we navigate successes and challenges, both on Grounds and around the world. Strong, organized leadership that is focused on uplifting student needs will allow us to enhance individual student experiences while maintaining our collegial community. Thank you, and I look forward to getting ACTIVE with you all next year!

---

Toni Woods ’25
Vice Presidential Candidate

As Vice President, my campaign platform prioritizes student accessibility first and foremost. A campaign idea is only as meaningful as the students that are able to benefit from it. When considering how to best serve as Vice President, it is most important to me that as many UVA Law students are able and encouraged to participate in student life here as possible. I would aim to increase student event participation by making events more price-conscious, inclusive, diversified, and engaging.

Specifically, I propose the following plans: decreasing the prices of school events, especially hallmarks like Fauxfield, PILA, and Barrister’s Ball; increasing the safety and comfort of school events by designating sober monitors to help any incapacitated or uncomfortable students; partnering with ride-sharing companies or organizing bus shuttles or carpools to meet any transportation need; broadcasting the dates and details of events to students as early and often as feasible; participating in or at least informing the student body of more events happening in Charlottesville like Restaurant Week, concerts or performances, and the Carter Mountain Sunset Series; and involving more of the student body with events without alcohol and with invitations to include partners or family.

I am qualified to serve as Vice President because of my experience coordinating events, monitoring and serving on committees, participating in the Student Bar Association and its elections, and serving on Executive/Managing Boards and as a Senator twice. In college, I was elected Senior Chair of a student organization and performed many of the same tasks required of the SBA Vice President: planning graduation, class events, and bonding activities.

At UVA, I have served as a 1L Senator, 2L Senator, and Diversity Advisory Committee Member on the SBA. I have also served on the Managing Board of the Virginia Law & Business Review and the Executive Board of the Black Law Students Association, where I oversee my own committee and organize UVA Law’s Diversity Receptions, a formal school event for hundreds of people. I have the experience, skill, and passion to fulfill the role of Vice President and look forward to continuing to be an active participant in our student body by serving on the SBA.

---

Nolan Edmonson ’25
Vice Presidential Candidate

My name is Nolan Edmonson, and I am running to be your next SBA Vice President. I am excited to run for a position that will have an impact on student life, and I am pleased that I will be doing so alongside my friend, and current SBA secretary, Ginny Reams.

While I have not served in SBA before, I believe my leadership experiences at this school have prepared me to meet the challenges that lie ahead. For the past year, I have served as president of the Jewish Law Students Association, and in that role, I have spearheaded initiatives to build closer bonds between JLSA members through a number of activities. Enriching the student experience, refreshing the organization, and creating opportunities for collaborative ideas have been my watchwords as president, and they would guide me in this role as well.

The role of vice president requires that I work closely with SBA committees to ensure their goals for the year become reality. Our campaign would see to it that committees have concrete goals heading into the start of the year so that the programming like Mental Health Week and Spirit Week can be expectations that are guaranteed to every student. Part of that goal setting requires accountability on the part of SBA to follow through with what it plans. To that end, our campaign will create a “rolling” calendar of important dates to help students set their schedules so that they can maximize their involvement in SBA programming. Ideally, this calendar will include relevant information such as ticketing procedures and timelines to make the process of engagement as stress-free as possible.

Additionally, SBA must prioritize its relationships with student organizations which are the lifeblood of the student experience at this school. Speaking from personal experience, as a leader of a student organization, it was not always clear who on SBA I should turn to if I wanted to collaborate on events. Under our leadership, we would endeavor to reach out to organizations to collaborate on a wide range of events all with the intended goal of building community and fostering a sense of belonging among everyone at the Law School. In addition to reaching out, Ginny and I want to empower students to come to us with ideas that they might also have. With that in mind, we plan to open the SBA office to weekly office hours so that we can hear from students who want to be heard.

Ginny and I want to work for the betterment of the student body—enhancing and enriching the student experience at the Law School. We feel that our combined leadership experience and desire to build community will be invaluable in accomplishing that task. But it cannot be done alone. We need you and your support when you go to vote for SBA President and Vice President. We hope to have the opportunity to work tirelessly on your behalf.

---

Rahul Ramesh ’25
Vice Presidential Candidate

Hey everyone! My name is Rahul Ramesh and I am running on a ticket for SBA Vice President alongside Laura-Louise, Asha, Mark, and Amelia.

The community at UVA Law means the world to me. I’ve been so fortunate to have met my best friends here and to have received incredible support from the faculty. My primary motivation for running for SBA Vice President is to pay back to this community all that it has given to me. It is my desire that all students feel a sense of belonging and comfort at the Law School, and I believe there is a lot SBA can do to accomplish that goal.

Our campaign is organized around six constitutive elements: Accountability, Communication, Transparency, Inclusivity, Vibes, and Engagement (ACTIVE). From our perspective, these are crucial ingredients for any functional student government. They make certain that messaging to the broader student body is consistent and reliable and also ensure that student organizations are always well-supported and given ample notice. Perhaps more importantly, they also speak to the importance of approachability. For too long, SBA has operated as a cordoned-off entity, often leaving student organizations in the dark about their next steps. In contrast, the ACTIVE campaign is fundamentally about centering student organizations and the student experience, rather than about preserving unimportant hierarchies between organizations. We will always be available to you, we will always set clear and realistic expectations, and above all, we will always prioritize your pursuits.

This year, as SBA treasurer, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a whole host of organizations and to play a part in organizing countless events from SBA after-school socials and 1L finals support to Fauxfield and 3@3. As a consequence of that work, I am also keenly aware of the procedural cracks and fissures in the communicative network between student organizations and SBA. Going forward, we want SBA to operate in a more proACTIVE fashion: consistently reaching out to organizations to facilitate new partnerships and events, raising awareness for organizations and causes in rapidly developing areas of the law, and strengthening the relationship between the law school and the broader Charlottesville community.

It is no secret that law school can, at times, feel like an impossible demand. UVA Law distinguishes itself from the field because it can go to great lengths to help us connect with one another and create formative relationships. Whether it’s visiting the Sunset Series for the first time with your 1L section, wondering where the time went at the Midway Toast with your 2L peers, or reminiscing about the good times at the 3L Bonfire, there is so much that the Law School has to offer when it focuses on creating space for each and every student. However, it is also true that there are times when UVA Law falls short of its promise of belonging and collegiality. 2024 is slated to be a massive year for our community. Against the backdrop of a new Dean of the Law School, a likely contentious national election, and ongoing geopolitical turmoil, I believe it has never been more important to center the student voice and to be cognizant of how deeply we can all be affected by what happens in the world. While SBA is certainly not a curative, our vision for the role of student government begins from a position of care and desire to support students facing a plethora of overlaying challenges. The path forward, we believe, is for SBA to remain ACTIVE and work tirelessly with student organizations to ensure that all students feel welcome and heard.

NSLF, LIST Host MoFo National Security Attorneys

---

Noah Coco '26
Staff Editor

On Tuesday, February 13, the National Security Law Forum (NSLF) and the Law, Innovation, Security & Technology Society (LIST) hosted five attorneys from the D.C. office of Morrison Foerster to discuss legal careers in national security and data privacy. The panel was composed of partners Brandon Van Grack, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s National Security and Global Risk + Crisis Management groups, and James Brower, along with associates Jonathan Babcock ’18, Whitney Lee, and Liv Chap. The group collectively gave the room, full of mostly 1Ls in the midst of private firm search, a broad sense of what a career in national security law might look like.

Van Grack began the discussion by emphasizing the broad scope of the national security law practice group, which encompasses issues ranging from sanctions and export controls to data privacy and cyber incident response, and even to issues of political law like foreign agent registration. This breadth was well-represented on the panel of attorneys, each of whom focused on at least one of these issues. Within these categories, Van Grack noted the one unifying characteristic: “Policy interests ultimately underscore everything.” Although this does not mean that attorneys in private firm national security practices are performing political roles, their practices are nonetheless responsive to current events and regulatory changes. “Whatever a national security issue is evolves over time,” Van Grack noted, as new regulatory regimes emerge and others are replaced.

This dynamic nature of the practice is what drew many of the attorneys on the panel to national security law. Contrary to practices like tax law where the regulatory regime is complex and has developed over a long period of time, national security law changes much more rapidly as it responds to emerging political and technological developments. Incumbency in the practice does not necessarily serve the same advantages as it does in other practice groups. Take artificial intelligence (AI), for instance. Lee noted that the firm has already started to address issues of cyberattacks promulgated through AI-generated deepfakes. This represents an entirely novel question of law in which even new attorneys can become the foremost experts in a relatively short period of time. It is not the case, Lee remarked, that there are partners at the firm with twenty years of experience to catch up with.

It is easy to see how technological advancements contribute to this dynamic, but political regulatory regimes have a nearly identical feature. Van Grack alluded to six new regulatory regimes that were proposed just last month—for example, new regulations on outbound investment similar to those administered by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for inbound investments. A new regulatory regime means a level playing field for attorneys to learn and become leading experts in an area of law.

Another theme that emerged throughout the discussion was that, although as a regulatory practice national security law does not require much litigation, there is plenty of opportunity to use similar skills in service of advocacy on behalf of clients before government regulatory agencies. Babcock, for instance, regularly advocates for clients in front of CFIUS. Although the advocacy does not take the form of courtroom litigation, he still appreciates the opportunity to use similar research and writing skills in a forum that allows him to advocate for his clients “face-to-face with regulators.” Van Grack made a similar reflection of his own experiences in front of regulators, and he highlighted the opportunity to work with clients to characterize the facts at the center of regulatory actions and to challenge regulator narratives. According to Van Grack, although this form of advocacy does not always require formal legal arguments, it nonetheless requires the same skills and is a rewarding feature of the job.

Finally, several of the attorneys gave insights into the life cycle of a typical matter in their practice groups. Two matters in particular were discussed. The first one was pulled from a recent sanctions violation case that Babcock negotiated with the Department of Treasury. Babcock outlined his team’s response from initial internal investigations and strategizing, through to his engagement and ultimate settlement with the Department of Treasury. The whole process lasted almost three years.

In contrast, Lee gave insights into what a typical cyber incident response might look like, which is likely to develop much more rapidly. The initial response is the most intensive because it often requires coordinating efforts to discover the source and scope of a cyber-attack while also managing relations with clients, regulators, and the media. Van Grack described this early phase as a “fast burn,” followed by weeks or even months of clean-up work once the incident is under control.

The Morrison Foerster attorneys followed up their panel with a happy hour at the Forum Hotel where students had the opportunity to engage with them in person and learn more about each of the attorney’s personal experiences working in national security law.

---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu 

The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights

---

Andrew Allard ‘25
Executive Editor

In Taft v. Hyatt,[1] an attorney and members of a Masonic lodge both claimed entitlement to an award for the arrest or information leading to the arrest of a Black physician, Robert E. Smith. Smith had met with the attorney, William Hyatt, as a prospective client. But when the two failed to reach an agreement, Hyatt told the county attorney where to find Smith. Just an hour later, lodge members Clarence Glass and Thomas Edwards—unaware of Hyatt’s actions or the award for Smith’s arrest—helped the police bring Smith to prison. The court concluded that none of the parties were entitled to the award, because Hyatt’s information did not lead to Smith's arrest and because the lodge members who were unaware of the offer could not have accepted it.

Law students might be familiar with this case—a classic illustration of offer and acceptance—or at least others like it. But when Taft v. Hyatt appeared in a 1972 contracts casebook, it left out a key fact: The Masonic lodge whose members helped arrest Smith was a “colored” Masonic lodge; they were trying to protect Smith from a lynch mob.

Pictured: Professor Dylan C. Penningroth gives his talk in Caplin Pavilion
Photo Credit: Andrew Allard '25

As legal historian Professor Dylan C. Penningroth of the University of California, Berkeley explains in his new book, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, omissions like this were part of a pattern that excluded Black lives from the history of American law. Under pressure to incorporate Black Americans in their curricula, top law schools in the 1970s began equating civil rights with minority status. “They implied that Black people encountered law meaningfully only in criminal justice, voting, the workplace, schools, and public accommodations—that is, in cases that were ‘about race,’” Penningroth explained. Indeed, one of the few contracts cases that did acknowledge the involvement of Black litigants was Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.,[2] a case dealing with the doctrine of unconscionability.

Penningroth was careful not to malign legal historians for their framing of Black history. As Penningroth explained, Black history as a modern field of study grew out of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. “Many leading Black historians came into the field profoundly shaped by their experiences as activists in the 1960s. Some of them explicitly said that their scholarship was a continuation of the struggle for Black freedom . . . Movement-centered scholarship is as urgent and necessary today as it was in the 1960s.”

But Penningroth argued that focusing exclusively on how white supremacists weaponized the law against Black Americans has made legal historians miss how Black Americans shaped legal doctrine by using courts to their advantage. “It has helped make Black history almost synonymous with the history of race relations, as if Black lives only mattered when white people were somehow in the picture.” And the Movement-centered framing has also placed a “moral burden on African-American history that few other scholarly fields have had to carry.”

In reality, Black Americans had been using the law long before the Civil Rights Movement to marry, divorce, care for their elders, own property, and run their churches and businesses. Penningroth’s research revealed that there were more lawsuits involving Black litigants in the Jim Crow era than during Reconstruction. And while Black Americans were plaintiffs less often than whites were, the gap was narrow. At times, such as in Illinois in 1892, Blacks were overrepresented as plaintiffs. Black litigants came to court for a diverse array of matters, including divorce, insurance, unpaid rent, easements, wills, assaults by white neighbors, town officials who damaged their property, and more.

While Black litigants were asserting their legal rights, most often they were not challenging white supremacy; most lawsuits brought by Black plaintiffs were brought against Black defendants. And when white defendants were involved, lawyers carefully developed strategies to avoid fomenting white fears of racial equality. Nor did Black litigants enter court on a level playing field. “The baseline rules of contracts, property, and civil procedure silently favored the haves over the have-nots, the repeat player over the one-shotter.”

But the fact that Black Americans had been asserting their rights in courts for decades helps solve a puzzling question—why did Black Americans put faith in law in the first place? “If we want to understand Black people’s demands for their rights that Americans denied them, then we have to pay more attention to how they talked about and used the rights that were not denied them,” Penningroth explained.

Beyond overcoming a popular framing, telling the story of day-to-day Black legal victories came with a practical challenge—most case records simply don’t mention the parties’ race. “I wanted to write Black history,” Penningroth said, “but I couldn't tell who was Black.” Penningroth’s fascination with these stories is evident from his respect for the documents where they lie. He described driving around the country, spending weeks at a time at a county courthouse sifting through forgotten papers in its dockets. “Very few people care about old court records,” Penningroth said. “But for now they're still there for anyone willing to look. And they have stories to tell.”

Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights is available now from W. W. Norton & Co.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

---

[1] 105 Kan. 35 (1919).

[2] 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Karsh Center Hosts Discussion on Trump's Eligibility

---

Pictured (left to right): Melody C. Barnes, J. Michael Luttig, and Kurt Lash
Photo Credit: VPM (Virginia Public Media)

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor

Last Tuesday, February 6, the Karsh Center for Law & Democracy hosted a discussion on Donald Trump’s eligibility for federal office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1] The Law School’s Professor Micah Schwartzman ’05 introduced the panelists: J. Michael Luttig ’81 and Kurt Lash. The event was moderated by Melody Barnes, a Senior Fellow at the Karsh Center. Luttig is a former judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Lash is the E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

The discussion was held just days before oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson, a pending Supreme Court case examining Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment’s applicability to former-president Trump. The case arrived before the Court on appeal from a Colorado Supreme Court decision determining that Trump was ineligible to hold federal office because of his alleged support for the January 6 insurrection. Oral argument for that case was held last Thursday, February 8.

Professor Lash argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision should be reversed based on its erroneous interpretation of the phrase “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” As Lash explained in an amicus brief he submitted in support of Trump,[2] “civil office under the United States” was contemporaneously understood to encompass only appointed officers. Lash pointed out that the language of Section Three, which moves from the high offices of Senator and Representative to a “general catch all phrase,” supports this more restrictive reading. “This structure naturally reads as if the drafters expressly named all the high offices they wished to include, and they did not include the President.” Lash argued that while it is “textually possible” to read civil office under the United States differently, the ambiguous question should be resolved in favor of letting voters decide whether to re-elect Trump.

In response, Luttig pointed out that Lash “is tracking very closely the arguments that my [former] law clerks are making on behalf of the former president. For that reason alone, I have concluded that the President is emphatically disqualified under Section Three.” Luttig, who also submitted an amicus brief,[3] framed the case as a test of America’s commitment to democracy. “It goes without saying the Supreme Court of the United States must not fail this test.” Luttig said that by trying to remain in office despite losing the 2020 Election and “prevent[ing] the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history,” Trump engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution that bars him from federal office. Luttig emphasized that insurrection against the Constitution, rather than against the United States itself, is what Section Three forbids.[4] But Luttig acknowledged that there were “legitimate offramps” that the Supreme Court could take in this particular case to decide that Trump is not disqualified from federal office.

Lash agreed with Luttig’s “insurrection against the Constitution” reading of Section Three. “It certainly makes sense in terms of my study of the Civil War,” Lash said, citing the seceding states’ “betrayal” of the Constitution. But Lash disagreed that Trump’s conduct clearly meets that standard. “Once again, I think you’re looking at a term that can be read in different ways. Of course it can be read in a very broad way to include any type of resistance against the ordinary, peaceful transfer of power.” But Lash, describing himself as an originalist, suggested that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment may well have had “something far more insidious and far more catastrophic” in mind.

Luttig responded that while he is not an originalist, other originalist scholars, such as William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, have concluded that Section Three does apply to Trump. “They are professedly not just conservatives, but originalists,” Luttig said. “There is no question in this world that under an originalist understanding and interpretation of the words of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment that the former president is disqualified. It’s incidentally also the case, that under a plain textual reading uninformed by the originalist meaning, that the former president is disqualified.”

Luttig also disagreed that disqualifying Trump would be undemocratic. “The Constitution itself tells us that disqualification is not anti-democratic . . .  Disqualification is not what's anti-democratic. What's anti-democratic is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification.” Luttig said. Lash offered a different view, saying that excluding Trump from the ballot is not necessarily undemocratic—if doing so is constitutionally justified. “On the other hand, if it’s not constitutionally justified to disqualify Donald Trump, then it would be profoundly anti-democratic to prevent the country—at least half of the country—from voting for their choice of President.”

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

---

[1] “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” U.S. Constitution, Article 14, §3.

[2] Brief for Professor Kurt T. Lash as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Donald J. Trump, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 2024 WL 61814 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2024).

[3] Brief of Amici Curiae J. Michael Luttig, Peter Keisler, Larry Thompson, Stuart Gerson, Donald Ayer, et al., in Support of The Anderson Respondents, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 2024 WL 61814 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2024).

[4] The pertinent language of Section Three bars from federal office certain government officials who “having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same . . . .”

Becoming a Peer Advisor at UVA Law

---

Pictured: Peer Advisors meet with new students, Orientation 2023
Photo and Caption Credit: UVA Law

Mark Graff '26
Staff Editor

The Peer Advisor program held information sessions on February 6 and 8 to inform potential candidates about the application process.

At the session, Co-Directors Jess Williams ’25 and Cynthia Eapen ’25 spoke about the Peer Advisor application and the responsibilities of the role. According to Jess and Cynthia, successful applicants are those with enthusiasm for UVA Law, previous leadership experience, excitement for the mentorship opportunity, and commitment to diversity. They stressed that these categories are defined broadly, and that they encourage anyone with excitement to mentor students to apply. According to Cynthia, the initial application is “straightforward,” with four to five responses of no more than 300 words. 

As most UVA students know, Peer Advisors are responsible for introducing 1L and LL.M. students to life at UVA Law, providing academic support and institutional knowledge, offering advice for the job search process, fostering cohesion with the section, and building friendships with peers. Jess emphasized that being a Peer Advisor is a “rewarding and incredible experience where you learn a lot from the people you teach.”

After giving an overview of the Peer Advisor role and application, a panel of peer advisors answered questions and shared their thoughts on the experience. Madalyn Moore ’23, two-time Peer Advisor, said that “You get to be an unbiased problem solver, and just help people figure things out.” Further, she explained that Peer Advisors hold the important role of “demystifying” challenges like the job search and filtering out faulty advice. Madalyn recalled an example of this, when one of her students heard of a rumor that “if you don’t have a job by February, you aren’t getting one.”

Madalyn suggested that potential applicants “think about formative experiences you had with your Peer Advisors and create a framework for how you would interact with 1Ls, including what changes you would make.” She echoed a sentiment that all the panelists stated—to find the “why” behind your application and present honest feedback on your experience with Peer Advisors. 

Another topic the panelists addressed was a recent change in the Peer Advisor program—disassociating with Student Affairs. As a newly independent student organization, the past year had some challenges, such as the lack of overlap between Orientation Facilitators and Peer Advisors. However, Cynthia underscored that students interested in working as an Orientation Facilitator, or other positions with conflicting timelines such as Legal Writing Fellows, should not be dissuaded from applying. This year, the Peer Advisor leaders are coordinating with Dean Davies to create greater cohesion between the different groups. Their goal is to include peer advisors in the orientation process, so that new students are familiar with their peer advisors before the school year starts.

Though the disaffiliation with Student Affairs may be new this year, according to Madalyn, this change is bringing the organization back to its roots. “When the [Peer Advisor] program started in 1992, by Black and LL.M. students, it was unaffiliated with Student Affairs. The goal is now what it was then—to give unbiased and direct advice,” said Madalyn.

1Ls and 2Ls interested in becoming a first-time PA are encouraged to submit an application by Thursday, February 15. After written applications are reviewed, a select number of applicants will receive an invitation to interview on February 21, with interviews being conducted the week of March 11–15. Interviewees will receive a notification of their decision on March 22, and all selected peer advisors will attend spring training on April 5.

---
mg2dja@virginia.edu

Judge Stephanos Bibas' Parental Insight on the Law

---

Pictured: Judge Stephanos Bibas
Photo Credit: Penn Carey Law

Caitlin Flanagan '24
Staff Editor

On February 3, 2024, the Federalist Society at UVA Law hosted Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before Judge Bibas was appointed as a circuit judge in 2017, he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where his research focused on criminal law and procedure. He has also worked in private practice and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where it was noted that he successfully prosecuted a world expert on stained glass who directed a grave robber to steal Tiffany windows from tombs in cemeteries.

Judge Bibas presented a talk which drew parallels between lessons he has learned as a father of four children and as a federal judge for the past six years. He recalled being asked during the process of judicial confirmation what experience had prepared him for the role. He knows now that a full answer to that question would have to include the experience of being a father. He framed his speech around four surprisingly similar lessons that a fair judge, and a successful parent, must learn.

First, Judge Bibas spoke to the importance of equal treatment, both real and perceived.  As a parent, he’s noticed that children are quite attuned to even the appearance of favoritism. He has therefore learned, when disputes between his kids arise, to resist showing any natural bias in favor of the poorly behaved but perhaps younger, cuter, and smaller party. As a judge, he’s found it pivotal to explain any distinctions he makes between the parties, explain why they are relevant, and apply them consistently. Judge Bibas spoke to the importance of identifying and rooting out his own unconscious biases, and celebrated judges who have had the courage to stand for constitutional rights even when they are unpopular. Further, Judge Bibas explained that he will bend over backwards to ensure that unrepresented parties with meritorious claims receive full and fair consideration, even if it requires some lawyering on his part, as an effort to guarantee substantive equal treatment.

Second, the parental and judicial roles both underscore the significance of setting clear rules and enforcing them consistently. Judge Bibas warned the room that the children of law students tend to have their own inherited lawyerly genes, and that when lawyers have families of their own, they will gain an appreciation for the unique challenges that young, argumentative minds pose for parents. He then, turning to judging, critiqued the judicial invention of multi-factor balancing tests which simply incentivize clever lawyering and thus favor whichever litigants have more financial resources. Bibas, as a judge and as a parent, strives to make clear rules, rather than mushy and manipulable standards.

Judge Bibas’ third parallel between judging and parenting was the importance to litigants, and children, of receiving fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. The thread that ties civil procedure together is fair notice, yet unclear standards and insufficient access to legal counsel leave many people in this country without sufficient notice and without a fair opportunity to be heard. Judge Bibas specifically criticized growing strict liability exceptions to the mens rea requirement in criminal law, which he thinks erode our system’s emphasis on fair notice. He also suggested that litigants seeking inexpensive legal aid in the U.S. should have an opportunity to hire a limited license lawyer or paralegal, who spent less money on their legal education but would be able to help ensure that less privileged individuals have an opportunity to be heard. Pressures to plead guilty and perfunctory plea hearings don’t give litigants sufficient understanding of their own process; Bibas works to speak respectfully and in plain language to ensure that every party in his court feels they understand their constitutional guarantees. 

Finally, Judge Bibas spoke to the need for a posture of humility and open-mindedness in both roles. Being a father is a daunting obligation, and no matter how many parenting books you buy, there are no easy answers. Bibas is driven to ask for guidance from his faith and from his community often, as a father. He spoke to the significant effect that genes and peer communities have on young, forming minds, explaining that the realization that children are not infinitely perfectible blank slates actually takes some of the burden off of his shoulders. As a judge, too, he thinks it is important to recognize the appropriate limits of the role and to embrace the humility of working to apply the law without infusing it with his own preferences. His process with his clerks in writing cases is quite collaborative, in part because a good judge, like a good father, should be willing to sometimes change their mind.

---
cf3tf@virginia.edu

LIST Hosts Technology Transactions

---

Brent Rice '25
Staff Editor

This past Tuesday, Law Innovation Security and Technology (LIST) hosted a panel of attorneys from the law firm Goodwin Procter to discuss their careers in technology transactions. Although  geared towards 1Ls wanting to get a better idea of the paths available at the intersection of big law and technology, the event was also attended by several upperclassmen. Sticks Kebob Shop was served for dinner.

Goodwin sent a variety of attorneys from various practice groups and experience levels to share their expertise, including Dennis O’Reilly (a Partner in the Private Equity group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office), Connor McMillan (a 4th year Associate in the Life Sciences group in the Boston office), and Sammy Tang (an Associate in the Financial Industry group in New York City). To help further clarify things, McMillan described his role as working with Biotech companies on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, while Tang explained her work as FinTech, often working on partnership agreements between banks and FinTech companies, who provide the user interface, apps, and advertising that help banks provide their services to their customers.

The panel kicked off with a description of each attorney’s background that led them to their practice group and to Goodwin Procter. Some notable takeaways included the importance of finding a practice area where you are genuinely interested in the material and curious to learn more each day by keeping up with industry updates and worldwide news. Also, you do not need to have a STEM background to pursue work in this field as an attorney.

Later in the evening, the Goodwin guests helped paint the picture for how the role of a tech transactions lawyer adapts as you progress in your career. While junior associates generally work on diligence and drafting ancillary documents, more senior members of the firm spend more time on the phone with clients lending big picture advice based on their experience in the field. Mr. McMillan noted that each practice group has its unique features—for example, Biotech often has fewer precedent documents and involves more free form drafting than other transactional roles.

The event concluded with some general advice for law school and skills to work on before starting in BigLaw. While the consensus of the panel was that there are no required courses to prepare you for a career in tech transactions and that it is generally more important to take those classes that interest you, the panel shared that they regularly employ material from their law school classes in Contracts, Securities Regulation, Intellectual Property Law, and Copyright Law. They also stressed the importance of developing strong skills in legal research using platforms like Westlaw. In their closing remarks, the attorneys noted it is important to be persistent, to avoid taking constructive feedback personally, to be able to distill complex knowledge and language into that which clients can understand, and to be excited about your role. Particularly, in the tech space, those clients are looking for attorneys who can match their speed and enthusiasm for the work they are doing.

---
wrf4bh@virginia.edu

Kendrick To Be UVA Law's 13th Dean

---

Nikolai Morse '24
Editor-in-Chief

Pictured: Leslie Kendrick '06
Photo Credit: UVA Law

Professor Leslie Kendrick, law professor and Class of 2006 alumna, has been named the next dean of the School of Law. She sat down with the Law Weekly and discussed her gratitude at being selected as Dean, her hopes for the Law School, and her plans for strengthening its position as it progresses through its third century.

Professor Kendrick keeps a map in her office of where she grew up in eastern Kentucky, hung on the wall above the drafting table of her grandfather who was an architect. Kendrick studied classics and English at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and received her master’s and doctorate in English literature as a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford. She described her decision to attend UVA Law after Oxford, as among the best in her life.

 “In particular, I was won over by my visit. First, it was special that the Dean of admissions called me, an already admitted student, to invite me for a visit. And second, you could just tell how happy people were here and what a special community we have.”

During her time at the Law School, Kendrick served on the Virginia Law Review and received several awards. Following clerkships at the Fourth Circuit and United States Supreme Court, Kendrick returned to the Law School as a professor. Since then, she has taught various courses with particular focus on torts and freedom of expression. Kendrick is also the director of the Center for the First Amendment and serves as special advisor to Ian Baucom, executive vice president and provost, on free expression and inquiry. She also served as the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs from 2017 to 2021.

Pictured: Leslie Kendrick with her 1L small section
Photo Credit: Nikolai Morse '24

When asked what her primary responsibilities were as Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, Kendrick answered that on a daily basis they could vary, but she was generally focused on “supporting faculty scholarship, teaching, research, and inaugurated eleven centers related to different areas of the law.”

Additionally, Kendrick sat on the Appointments Committee. For those who remember (as this writer does), in the summer of 2021 the Law School hired a significant number of faculty,[1] which led to various Twitter posts joking that UVA Law was assembling its own set of Avengers. Kendrick remembered this fondly, saying, “The Avengers meme was my favorite! It was exciting to be part of such a noteworthy time in the Law School’s history.”

Kendrick’s selection followed a national search for the successor of the twelfth and current dean, Risa Goluboff. The search was led by a committee co-chaired by Baucom and John C. Jeffries Jr. ’73, Dean of the School of Law from 2001 to 2008.

Given her qualifications and time spent in the Law School administration, the choice of Kendrick makes perfect sense. But we wanted to know, why did Professor Kendrick want to serve as Dean? It does not seem like the easiest job in the world (to say the least).

Laughing, Kendrick answered that “This process began without my entirely realizing it, when I was a junior faculty member. I really love this place and love it to flourish. So anytime on a committee where I had an opportunity to improve the Law School, I was so excited.”

Kendrick pointed to her sense of service and an appreciation for the opportunity to steward the Law School as a primary motivating force. “For me the really meaningful thing that makes me excited about being Dean is continuing to try and build on all the strengths we already have and bring this institution into its third century of existence. I have the opportunity to steward the Law School event for a few short years, and I am really excited about it.”

Asked what challenges, as incoming Dean, she thought our Law School faces, Kendrick said “Writ large, the challenge for everyone is that we are living in a very dynamic environment. Things are moving very quickly and it is our job to adapt all of the Law School’s strengths to new conditions as they unfold.”

Specifically, Kendrick described the challenges presented by technology and the future of legal practice. She noted that the issue is twofold: understanding how the practice of the law is shaped by technology, and adapting our methods of teaching to appropriately utilize technological advances.

Kendrick was particularly emphatic in her view that the second challenge the Law School faces is to its sense of community, which she is determined to protect and nurture. “There are a lot of different forces that can pull against the sense of community and some of those forces can manifest in ways that polarize people. One of the huge strengths of this place is its community.” She hears this answer from her 1L Torts students over lunch. “I am amazed over the twenty years I have been at the Law School where a lot of things have changed, at how much that response is the same. It is the one I would have given as a student.”

Perhaps most significant in terms of what it portends for Kendrick’s tenure as Dean, is the apparently universal affection she inspires amongst her students. “As my Torts professor, Dean Kendrick was dedicated to ensuring that we understood the materials and how to apply it to real life concepts. She [made] me feel comfortable asking what I thought were sometimes ridiculous questions. She’s a great Professor and will be an amazing Dean,” said Amelia Isaacs ’26.

As if to prove this point, by a pleasant coincidence at the conclusion of Kendrick’s interview with the Law Weekly, her 1L small section from the fall surprised her outside her office with a gift of a framed record, Genius of Love.

Asked if there was anything she wanted to communicate directly to the students of the Law School, Kendrick replied, “this is a place that is characterized by excellence and empathy.” But she cautioned that this excellence might not always look as we expect. “I try to tell my 1Ls that you have been in a lot of situations where achievement is perfection. You get the grade or the perfect transcript, but you have to redefine success in law. Because there will not be trophies anymore; there will be the satisfaction of a job well done. It is going to be hard work, and it might look sweaty and ugly, and you will get in the ring, and you will do your best, and it will not be perfection, and it won’t be pretty, but it will be well-earned.”

Kendrick’s term as the thirteenth Dean of the School of Law will begin on July 1. The Law Weekly wishes her all the best and is sure her tenure will be well-earned.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1] Specifically, the Law School “Avengers” were Payvand Ahdout, Rachel Bayefsky, Jay Butler, Naomi Cahn, Danielle Citron, Kristen Eichensehr, Thomas Frampton, Mitu Gulati, Cathy Hwang, Craig Konnoth, Kimberly Krawiec, David Law, Joy Milligan, Richard Re, Bertrall Ross, Lawrence Solum, and Megan Stevenson. Thanos, is of course, Harvard Law School.

Law School Holds 8th Shaping Justice Conference

---

Garrett Coleman '25
Managing Editor

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor

On February 2, the eighth annual Shaping Justice Conference took place at UVA Law. This year’s event was titled (De)Criminalizing Poverty and featured keynote speaker Alec Karakatsanis, author and founder of Civil Rights Corps. The event was organized by Professor Annie Kim ’99, Noa Jett ’25, Rohini Kurup ’25, and Evan Carcerano ’24. Describing the program, Jett said, “Since it started eight years ago, the purpose of the conference has been to inspire law students and lawyers to promote justice through public service. This year, we brought together practitioners, organizers, and academics to discuss the criminalization of poverty in hopes of fostering conversations around the issue and potential solutions.”

Karakatsanis took to the lectern with his sleeves rolled up, the first indication that he wanted a more informal setting for his speech. He began with a few preliminary notes, the first of which was that he wanted to reserve significant time for questions and to encourage active audience participation during the address. And second, he wanted to make clear that his perspective is born out of his experience representing disadvantaged clients. Karakatsanis did not try to leave the impression that he had the answer to every problem facing the judicial system or the progressive legal community.

The framework for Karakatsanis’s address was built around a few stories from his career. The first was set in the local jail of Clanton, Alabama, where a mother was being detained for shoplifting. Upon realizing that she would be unable to contact her children, who did not know what had happened to her, Christie began to cry. After she was unable to calm down, jail officials took her to a corner of the hallway that was not covered by the cameras, restrained her, and tased her into unconsciousness. The next day, when Karakatsanis was able to meet with her, he took photographs of the sores that covered her body. Afterwards, Christie eagerly became a party to one of Karakatsanis’s many bail system challenges, as all of this had happened before she had even been convicted of a crime.

Karakatsanis then shared some of the history of the money bail system in the U.S. and its failed reforms. Led by Robert F. Kennedy ’51 while he was the United States Attorney General, the Federal Bail Reform Act made its way into law. But Karakatsanis diminished the progressive law’s impact, since the percentage of federal pretrial detainees has increased by roughly 300 percent since then. This is what Karakatsanis called the “new labels” problem. Before the Act, money bail was the norm. After it became law, he reasoned, the same judicial system remained but under different language. Judges now keep the accused in detention because they are either “dangerous” or a “flight risk,” in spite of the Act’s ultimate purpose.

That story went to the heart of Karakatsanis’s address. He argued that Band-Aid solutions applied to entrenched systems are destined to fail, no matter the progressive intent of the legislators and activists. And those Band-Aid solutions are what we learn in law school. Applied in the context of what he called the “punishment bureaucracy,” they are hollow. Even those lawyers who are reform-minded are stuck on a carousel that fails to substantively move the ball.

Karakatsanis left the audience with a few suggestions. First, he wants progressive lawyers to address the punishment bureaucracy head on, so that when these lawyers win in their immediate cases, they are also working on the “constellation” of social changes that are needed to make the win worthwhile. As he put it, “you can’t win on the bail issue in a silo.” Second, to actually implement that, he hopes that some progressive lawyers will leave public defender roles for private practice that works cooperatively. That means getting access to the tens of billions of dollars available to court-appointed private attorneys, who are no longer beholden to the political interests that currently plague public defenders. Along with that, he wants these lawyers to become a “human FOIA,” regularly speaking with journalists and compiling anecdotes of bad judges, crooked cops, and private medical care abuses in the penal system. This “entrepreneurial focus” is his solution to combat the entrenched systems that he has encountered throughout his career. It is also the way that he fights the feeling of complicity, which was raised by several students in their questions. That is, how can students who fundamentally disagree with the penal system help individual clients without legitimizing that system? Working as a private criminal defense lawyer in his cooperative setting, or as a traditional public defender with an eye toward exposing systemic injustices, is his solution.

The story that encapsulated his address came from another of his jail visits, though he did not specify where. As he said was common across the U.S., children of the detainees were not permitted to visit their parents. Karakatsanis claimed that this was motivated by the increased call revenue that the jails would receive from parents trying to reach their children. So, in response, the families of detainees would gather below a large window in the facility and would write messages and draw pictures with chalk on the sidewalk. By the time Karakatsanis was leaving, he saw the sheriff stripping the road of its messages. And this, Karakatsanis said, was the progressive sheriff who campaigned on humane reforms to the penal system. While he did not explicitly say so, I think this was a pretty clear example of the entrenched “punishment bureaucracy” Karakatsanis described and its inevitable consequences.

Karakatsanis’s work shows that combating systemic injustice requires creative solutions. Fortunately for Karakatsanis, he is in good company. As Professor Kelly Orians tells it, her students in the Decarceration and Community Reentry Clinic are helping families to disrupt the intergenerational cycle of poverty and incarceration. While much of the work that students in Professor Orians’s clinic do is traditional legal advocacy, such as helping former prisoners with criminal expungement and restoration of rights, students also apply their skills in creative ways. In collaboration with the Darden School and Resilience Education’s Prison Reentry Education Program, law students will soon begin teaching business law classes to prisoners at Virginia correctional facilities. Armed with entrepreneurial skills, once formerly incarcerated individuals are out, there’s a community of resilient professionals and partner organizations that provide low-interest capital to help launch and scale new businesses. “This is really some of my favorite work. This is the work that keeps me going, that feeds my optimism,” Orians explained.

Nearby in Richmond, Mayor Levar Stoney’s administration has been experimenting with a creative idea—guaranteed income. The Richmond Resilience Initiative, launched in 2020, has provided guaranteed monthly income—between $250 and $500—to low-income Richmond residents who are employed but don’t qualify for federal aid. “I’ll admit it, initially I did not buy the idea and the concept,” said Mayor Stoney. But he became convinced of the idea’s potential after seeing the 2020 pandemic stimulus save lives. As Mayor Stoney explained, “People were leveling up. Instead of working two jobs, now I can study and get a certification, so I can get more money in the current job that I have . . . You may think that $500 a month is small change, but for us, it makes a big difference in our lives.”

And Law School alumna Mary Mergler ’07 is using her skills as an advocate to eliminate fees in the criminal justice system. Mergler is the National Advocacy & Campaigns Deputy Director at the Fines & Fees Justice Center (FFJC), an advocacy and research organization focused on eliminating fees in the criminal justice system and ensuring that fines are imposed equitably. Its current national initiatives include ending debt-based driver’s license suspensions and eliminating fees imposed over the course of the criminal justice process, such as phone call fees while in prison. Mayor Stoney added that after the Youngkin administration restored the previous practice of requiring individuals convicted of a felony to apply to the governor to have their rights restored, these prison fees can prevent Virginians from voting.

Although fines and fees have expanded since 2008 as a means of funding the criminal justice system, Mergler expressed optimism about the progress her organization has made. “The issues that FFJC works on are issues where we have been able to find a lot of consensus and bipartisan support . . . There is a lot of opportunity for success on these issues.”

---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
tya2us@virginia.edu

Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and His Legacy at UVA Law

---

Ashanti Jones '26
Staff Editor

Pictured: Keegan Hudson '24 and Blake D. Morant '78
Photo Credits: UVA Law

On Thursday, January 25, the University of Virginia School of Law held their annual Martin Luther King, Jr. community celebration. The event was co-sponsored by the School’s Center for the Study of Race and Law and its chapter of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA). For this year’s celebration, keynote speaker Blake D. Morant ’78 (Col. ’75) delivered a lecture titled “The Contextuality of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Legacy,” and Keegan Hudson ’24 received the 2024 Gregory H. Swanson Award.

Professor Kimberly Robinson (Col. ’92), Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law and director of the Center for the Study of Race and Law, welcomed those in attendance to Charlottesville and reminded guests of the impact of Dr. King’s legacy on Virginia Law and the legal community at large.

“We all owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. King,” Robinson said. “His legacy played a critical role in creating a path that allows us to gather together as the strong and diverse University of Virginia School of Law that we are today. His legacy challenges us to continue to work diligently to make equality, inclusion, and belonging a reality not just for our students, our faculty, and our staff, but even more importantly for the communities and clients that we serve.”

Following the opening remarks, Robinson invited Dean Risa Goluboff to present the seventh annual Gregory H. Swanson Award. The award was created in 2018 to honor the legacy of Swanson—the first Black student to be admitted to the University of Virginia and Virginia Law. In 1950, Swanson was denied admission to the Law School’s LL.M program due to his race. With the assistance of notable counsel from the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, such as Thurgood Marshall and Spottswood Robinson, Swanson sued the University in federal court and won. Goluboff began by reflecting on the adverse treatment Swanson’s legacy has received from the University and reframed Swanson’s story as one of success and triumph.

“The story of Gregory Swanson had long, at the University of Virginia, been considered a story of shame and failure,” Goluboff said. “It had often been excluded from the way the institution had told its history although Black students and alums had passed it down from one to another for generations . . . there was so much success here for Gregory Swanson. Success in using the law to do justice and the best traditions of our profession, success in changing the face of this university and this law school, success in inspiring other Black students who quickly followed him to UVA, prompting other universities in Virginia to integrate after his successful lawsuit, and success in helping make us the diverse and inclusive institution we are today.”

Goluboff described the Swanson Award as a link between the past and the present since it provides an opportunity to reflect on Swanson’s previous contributions to the institution while also honoring current students’ contributions that mirror Swanson’s by demonstrating “courage, perseverance, and a commitment to justice.” Dean Goluboff shared how this year’s award recipient, Keegan Hudson ’24, embodies these values at the Law School, both on and off grounds.

“Keegan is a true servant leader,” Dean Goluboff said. “He routinely puts others before himself and he builds community wherever he goes in the organizations, and classes, and friend groups he is a part of . . . through his example he sets kindness, wisdom, and encouragement above all else and shares those with everyone around him enabling everyone to become their best selves.” 

Hudson was recognized for his contributions and service to the University as chapter president of the Black Law Student Association, member of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal, fellow for the Center for the Study of Race and Law, admissions ambassador with the Office of Admissions, member of the Law School Curriculum Committee, member of the Raven Society, and member of the Student Advisory Group with the national Law School Admissions Council. Hudson is also a 2023-24 Ritter Scholar, which recognizes third-year law students who “best exemplify the qualities of honor, character, and integrity.” During his acceptance speech, Hudson thanked the University for the award and acknowledged how his accomplishments are the result of the support he has received from others.

“A person’s character is a direct reflection of the people that they share proximity to. As my great-grandfather would say, I have been fortunate to share proximity to ‘tall timber’ during my time at UVA Law and during my life generally,” Hudson said. “Let us not look favorably on the mentorship that I have enacted without acknowledging the mentorship that I have received from the many great professors, faculty, and peers here at UVA.”

Following the presentation of the Swanson award, Robinson introduced keynote speaker, Blake D. Morant. Morant is the Robert Kramer Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. Additionally, Morant is the former dean of George Washington University Law School and Wake Forest University School of Law, where he was the first Black person to serve as dean at both institutions.

During his lecture, Dean Morant recounted significant facets and moments of Dr. King’s life and explored the context surrounding them. He argued Dr. King’s upbringing in the Black Baptist church, educational background in philosophy, and belief in natural law were very influential on his beliefs in racial justice and equality.

Additionally, Dean Morant argued Dr. King knew the effect of context on the persuasiveness of messaging and tailored the delivery of his messages to particular audiences. To illustrate, Dean Morant examined Dr. King’s famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” where King addressed the white clergy who criticized him for protesting in violation of a court order, invoking Saint Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Dean Morant also discussed how context impacted Dr. King’s messaging when he delivered a speech at the University’s own Old Cabell Hall in 1963. To begin the story, Morant described the circumstances leading up to Dr. King’s visit, including the origins of the group that invited the famous civil rights leader to Grounds.

“In the early ’60s, the University of Virginia and many non-HBCU universities across the country were largely segregated and had very few students of color in attendance,” Morant said. “In 1963, however, several African American students attended the University [of Virginia], one by the name of Wesley Harris . . . after experiencing disparate treatment in academic programming, Harris, fewer than twelve other African American students, and a number of white students formed the Thomas Jefferson Virginia Council on Human Relations.”

Morant explained that the Council’s goal was to create safe spaces for students of color on Grounds and sponsor events to discuss the impact of social issues on the University and greater Charlottesville community. The Council would meet to study Dr. King’s philosophy, and one day, on behalf of the group, Harris sent a letter to Dr. King inviting him to speak, which Dr. King accepted. Morant noted Dr. King’s appearance at the University subverted the Council’s expectations.

“Wesley Harris and many others in attendance expected Dr. King . . . to deliver a stern sermon on the evils of segregation and the importance of racial equality and unity,” Morant said. “Much to everybody’s surprise, King offered a scholarly lecture on the meaning of democracy and the duty to adhere to fundamental principles of equality. Aware of the scholarly context of the University, Dr. King adapted his style of oratory to fit the academic setting to which he was addressing.”

Dean Morant argues that everyone engaged in the modern effort for social justice should continue Dr. King’s mission of spreading the philosophy of equality. Dean Morant further argues that the legal community must acknowledge how context impacts the law and legal outcomes in order to earnestly aid in the fight for equality.

“The lack of inclusion in society delegitimizes societal institutions that hold our democracy together,” Dean Morant said. “Society functions best when all classes of citizens have a seat at the decisional table and have access to competent legal representation that recognize that context shapes the law we study and implement.”

---
alj3emz@virginia.edu

Being a (Palestinian- American) Law Student During a Genocide

---

Catie Haddad '25
Guest Writer

I spent much of the first three years of my life at my teta and jidu’s[1] home in San Luis Obispo, California. In their backyard, they had a large garden with every fruit and vegetable variety imaginable. As my jidu and I would walk around the garden identifying different plants, I noticed everything from cherries, figs, grapefruit, and watermelon to avocados, zucchini, and edible flowers that he would incessantly encourage me to try. One summer, jidu chopped down one of the garden’s palm trees for the heart of palm, something my nine-year-old, suburban Californian self found both strange and exciting.

My teta and I would spend hours searching the patio for ladybugs as my grandparents’ Pomeranian, Jolie, played with her toys. When I think of their garden now, I feel grateful that they were able to have a sliver of homeland in their California backyard—that for a second when they woke up and looked out the window in the morning, they would be able to imagine they were not in San Luis Obispo but instead were in Baghdad or Haifa. When I think of my teta and jidu now, I think of the way my mixed identity has allowed me to grow up without certain Western biases. My jidu was Iraqi and Muslim, and my teta was a Palestinian-Lebanese Christian, but to me, even though I was half white and American, they were simply my grandparents.

In their garden and at their home, they taught me how to look at mundane objects and moments with tremendous love, curiosity, and humanity.  Now, I advocate for Palestine and for the universality of human rights because of this love—my love for humanity has fueled my belief that if everyone had access to the information I have used to learn about Palestine, they would naturally reach the same conclusions as I have.

They would come to view Palestinians not as a population of terrorists, but as a people who have been occupied, displaced, and terrorized for years in their ancestral homeland.[2] They would see Palestinians as human beings who deserve to live as much as anyone else. They would mourn the deaths of Palestinians as they do the deaths of Ukrainians. They would also come to learn, I believe, that Palestinian resistance is fueled by Palestinians’ profound love for their land and their culture, which are inextricably linked.[3] Opening their eyes and hearts, they would no longer see those tending to thousand-year-old olive trees as the aggressors, but rather those bulldozing them.[4]

Over the past three months,[5] I have felt around me a growing sense of cognitive and emotional dissonance. It is difficult to remain socially and academically engaged in a reality where my ethnic identity circumscribes the feelings I’m allowed to express. I often think that if I was not Palestinian- or Arab-American—if I was Ukrainian or from another ethnic group whose pain the West views as legitimate—the only thing I’d be doing right now would be grieving and resting. This is not my reality. Instead, I must first attempt to assist my peers in recognizing my humanity and the humanity of my people.

I have put my thoughts on this page to process what is happening and to bring others into this processing. Every day, I think about different avenues and ways of getting my peers involved in the Palestinian liberation movement. I think to myself, Palestine might not feel like a natural cause to support for everyone, but I can show them why it is. I will tell those interested in environmentalism about the ongoing destruction of olive trees, the rampant herbicide attacks unleashed on Palestinian land both pre- and post-2023, and the weaponization of resources as tools of ecocide.[6] For those who care about women’s rights, I will tell them about how women in Gaza have been taking pills to suppress their menstrual periods because they can’t get sanitary pads due to the siege, or that miscarriages in Gaza have increased 300% over the recent months.”[7]

Each day as I ruminate through these mental exercises, I pose numerous questions to myself: Which is more bearable—violently compromising my morals, my integrity, and my humanity while willingly enabling a genocide in the process, or speaking up and losing a job or friends? When someone asks me and my peers someday what we were doing during this time, will we feel proud answering “nothing, our hands were tied”? Who has tied our hands, and why can’t we help each other to untie them?

My jidu chopped down the palm tree in his garden to see its heart and its core and to share them with others, knowing that this tree would grow back because he would nurture and tend to it. Right now, I am asking you to perform a similar act of labor and of nurturing: I ask you to cut through some of the defensive tissue that might be preventing you from thinking about, talking about, and advocating for Palestine. Getting to the heart of this can only be done through love, curiosity, and humanity. It will at first feel strange, but it will also feel exciting, and when we tend to each other during our collective regrowth, we will be a taller and greater force than ever before.

---
avc4ku@virginia.edu

---

[1] Teta and Jidu translate to grandmother and grandfather in Arabic.

[2] See Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (June 23, 2023), www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of- apartheid/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20place%20for,still%20suffering%20every%20single%20day; Omar Shakir, HUM. RTS. WATCH, A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution (Eric Goldstein et al eds., 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution; Press Release, United Nations, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in OPT: Israel Has Imposed Upon Palestine an Apartheid Reality in a Post-apartheid World (Mar. 25, 2022), https://www.un.org/unispal/document/special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-opt-israel-has-imposed-upon-palestine-an-apartheid-reality-in-a-post-apartheid-world-press-release.

[3] Rouhana, A. (2024, January 19). The Subversive Act of photographing Palestinian life. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/19/opinion/palestinians-photography-war-israel.html.

[4] “Since 1967, more than eight hundred thousand Palestinian olive trees have been illegally uprooted by Israeli authorities and settlers. Many were centuries old.” (this article was published in October of 2023, so this number does not include the number of olive trees that have been destroyed by Israeli airstrikes since then, nor the trees being destroyed by bombing right now in real time). Shehadeh, R. (2023, October 26). The uprooting of life in Gaza and the West Bank. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-uprooting-of-life-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank.

[5] Since the beginning of their retaliatory assault on Gaza, the Israeli Defense/Occupation Forces (IDF/IOF) have unleashed more than 65,000 tons of bombs on the besieged strip (around four times as much explosive power as the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima). 25,000 Palestinians, including 10,000 children, have been killed in just over 100 days. Nearly 8,000 more people are reported to be missing or presumed dead under rubble. Approximately 1,000 children have lost one or both legs. During the week of January 15th, the World Health Organization announced that none of Gaza’s 36 hospitals are fully functional, as many have been bombed and others are operating at 200% capacity with limited services. 95% of those facing starvation in the world are in Gaza. Siddiqui, U., & Pietromarchi, V. (2024, January 7). More than 8,000 people missing in the rubble in Gaza. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/12/16/israel-hamas-war-live-demands-for-justice-after-israel-kills-aj-journalist; Tétrault-Farber, G. (2023, December 21). Northern Gaza no longer has a functional hospital, WHO says. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/northern-gaza-no-longer-has-functional-hospital-who-says-2023-12-21; Coles, I., & Ayyoub, A. (2024, January 22). Tiny Gaza is home to most of the world’s hungriest people. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/tiny-gaza-is-home-to-most-of-the-worlds-hungriest-people-df62eeda.

[6] Forensic Architecture . (2019, July 19). Herbicidal Warfare in Gaza. Forensic Architecture. https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/herbicidal-warfare-in-gaza; Shuker , Z. (2023, December 19). War has poisoned Gaza’s land and water. peace will require environmental justice. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/war-has-poisoned-gazas-land-and-water-peace-will-require-environmental-justice/.

[7] Zhang, S., Images, A. via G., Sharon Zhang, Syed, R., Dilawar, A., Walker, C., Luthra, S., McNeill, Z., Hodge, R., & Johnson, J. (2024, January 18). Miscarriages in Gaza have skyrocketed by 300 percent under Israel’s siege. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/miscarriages-in-gaza-have-skyrocketed-by-300-percent-under-israels-siege/.

Heroic Rescue Lets Injured Robin Fly Again

---

Sally Levin ‘24
Staff Editor

Pictured: Celebration of Continuing Life
Photo Credit: Kailey Boatright

This is a story of what happens when nature collides with the good-natured community at UVA Law. On Friday, November 10, before the last prospective student had even left the building for the day, the UVA Law Admissions team as well as other faculty, staff, and students, met on the steps in front of the Law School for a special gathering that didn’t ruffle any feathers. They celebrated the release of a rehabilitated American Robin that had been injured outside of the Admissions Office two days earlier.

On Wednesday, Kate Granruth ’24 was working at the front desk of the Admissions Office when she noticed a bird on the ground outside in Purcell Garden. The robin was injured; it hadn’t moved for many hours after flying into a glass window and its head was slightly cocked to one side. Granruth said she “could see the bird wanted help.” At the end of her shift, she found two pieces of cardboard, gently pushed the bird into a box, and drove it to the Wildlife Center of Virginia, which is thirty minutes away in Waynesboro.

After dropping off the bird, Granruth and the Admissions team couldn’t help but wonder how the patient was doing. Assistant Dean of Admissions Natalie Blazer ’08,  who had seen the injured bird during her daily lap around the Law School, said, “I was asking for bird updates pretty regularly.” Granruth sent an email to the Wildlife Center inquiring about the robin. Fearing the worst, everyone was relieved when they read the first line of the Wildlife Center’s response, learning that the bird was still an active patient in care.

Although the bird wasn’t out of the woods from the head trauma just yet, the report from the Wildlife Center suggested that the extensive medical care it was receiving was helping.[1] The patient received oxygen therapy, pain medication, antibiotics, and supportive fluids. Once the bird was stable, it underwent anesthesia for radiographs to assess the trauma. The Wildlife Center promised to provide further updates about the bird’s rehabilitation.

Pictured: The injured robin in Purcell Garden.
Photo Credit Kailey Boatright

By Friday morning, Granruth learned the bird was ready to be released back at the Law School. She offered to drive back to Waynesboro to pick it up. She said, “I was so happy we were able to release the bird at the Law School. I truly didn’t expect this great of an outcome. When I got the call this morning that I could come and pick up the bird, I was elated. This was the best possible outcome.”

Admissions Office Coordinator Kailey Cox Boatright shared an email with the subject line “Huge Bird Update” with the other faculty, staff, and students who had all been asking about the bird. Professor Cale Jaffe ’01 and Senior Assistant Dean Kevin Donovan both replied with bird-themed song suggestions for the celebration, so Boatright created a playlist.[2]  Later, Boatright sent another email with a formal invitation to a Collision Recovery Celebration that afternoon. Despite their busy schedules, everyone wanted to be there. “I had a 2:00 p.m. meeting that I had to be at, and I would have been upset if I’d had to miss it,” said Dean Blazer.  

Fourteen people gathered on the front steps on the chilly, overcast Friday afternoon, and welcomed the bird, carried in a box by Granruth, back home. Just before the release, Boatright started playing the inspiring song, “I Believe I Can Fly” on the speaker. Granruth carefully set the box on the ground, opened the lid, and the bird dramatically flew out across the Holcombe Green Lawn towards the beautiful fall foliage on the side of the Law School.

It was a powerful moment. At least two people shed tears, including the author of this article and Dean Blazer, who said, “I was not emotional ahead of time. I was excited that the bird had recovered, and I liked that a lot of people around the whole Law School were invested. But then, I don’t know what happened, but the second the bird flew in the air, tears instantly came in my eyes. I was overcome that we had all come together to take care of this little bird, and that it worked. This bird, who could barely move when I saw it originally, burst out of the box and flew away into this gray sky. It was the togetherness and compassion too. It was a really special moment.”

Professor Jaffe was proud of his former Environmental Law clinic student and her commitment to helping others, including animals. He said, “I think there is a metaphor here. A lot of people would walk by [the injured bird] and not notice or say they are too busy. Kate cared and did something about it. How cool that we’ve got students in the community who care and do something.”

---
ezn3yy@virginia.edu

---

[1] The Wildlife Center of Virginia relies on donations to provide care, feeding, and rehabilitation for wildlife patients during their recovery. Wildlife Center of Virginia. https://support.wildlifecenter.org/give/434546/#!/donation/checkout.

[2] “Bird Ceremony” by Kailey Cox Boatright, Spotify.

Student Scholarship: Merits Decisions as Dignity Remedies

---

Rajan Vasisht '24
Guest Writer

Raised Sikh, you are taught that you are part of the “warrior class.” Imbedded into your religious constitution and daily routine is reinforcement that your purpose is to protect others. For example, you wear a turban around your unshorn hair and proudly display your untrimmed beard to represent your integrity and strength. You also carry a kirpan, or sword, as protection for the oppressed. As an adult, you decide to act on your duty to protect by joining the military. But, upon arrival for basic training, your commanding officers tell you that you are required to shave your beard and your head in the interest of uniformity. After objecting, and under physical protest, the officers restrain you and forcefully shear off your hair and beard. There is nothing you can do now; your Sikh beliefs instruct that this act alone has brought shame to your family and violates your conscience.

To vindicate your shattered religious morality, you sue the officers who shaved you, seeking both damages for what has already been done and injunctive relief to prevent this from happening again. The district court denies the injunction, holding that you have no standing to prove that the officers will shave you again. All that remains of your suit is the claim for compensatory damages and one of the most formidable and controversial barriers to recovery—qualified immunity—which requires dismissal of damages suits against executive officers who did not violate “clearly established” law. In theory, this shields officers from being haled into court to defend against frivolous suits that arise simply because they have the most frequent run-ins with on-the-ground constitutional decision making. In practice, it’s much more.

In the wake of Pearson v. Callahan, district courts are presented with a dilemma: Do they first consider the underlying merits of a civil rights claim or first determine whether the relevant law is sufficiently clearly established to defeat qualified immunity? Those asking what it means to be “sufficiently clearly established” are in good company—the Supreme Court has no obvious answer and circuit courts are struggling with this standard. But resolution of that difficult question won’t help the Pearson dilemma.

The easy answer is for the district court to begin with qualified immunity. Why waste judicial resources solving the merits of a case if it’s going to be dismissed on immunity grounds regardless? If a court can quickly determine that the relevant law is not so established that an officer on the ground should have known their conduct was unconstitutional, there is no need to do the extra step of fully defining the bounds of the law to decide that the officer crossed a line. Plus, qualified immunity only applies to suits for retrospective damages. Many constitutional plaintiffs are also seeking an injunction to prevent future harm to their rights. Therefore, even if the damages claim is dismissed on immunity grounds, the court will still have to wrestle with the merits to grant the injunction. So then, the argument goes, we should obviously allow courts to consider qualified immunity before the merits of the damages suit.

The problem with those arguments is that they are unfairly harmful not only to that plaintiff but also to future plaintiffs. The Supreme Court has already recognized what we already knew: Dignity-based harms can be righted with dignity-based remedies. Justice Thomas said as much in his 8-1 opinion in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski. Now, go back to imagining that you’re the free exercise plaintiff described above. Based on the conduct of the prison guards, your physical injury is pretty minimal, so your damages won’t be that impressive. But we know you deserve to sue because of the wound to your religious conscience. A decision on the merits in your favor cannot make you whole, as you deserve. But it can provide some of the compensation that you won’t get in real damages, even if the suit will eventually be dismissed on immunity grounds. A Sikh prisoner without any other options for redress at least deserves to be told he was right.

And even worse, if the district court resolves the case on qualified immunity grounds without reaching the merits then it is nourishing a Catch-22. As a reminder, defeating qualified immunity requires that the challenged law be so clearly established that an officer should have known that their conduct was violative. But if courts never make decisions on the merits, the law will forever remain obscure. When courts are making merits-based decisions they are at least rationalizing the law, providing opportunities for the Supreme Court to step in and fix mistakes and splits. Since that is the only agreed upon method of clearly establishing law, applying a merits-first framework will help future plaintiffs get relief. Maybe they won’t even have to be plaintiffs at all.

The Supreme Court knows that there is no clear answer to the order of battle problem in qualified immunity cases; that’s why it changed its instructions to district courts on how to handle it in only a few years. I don’t pretend that there is any clear answer for courts here. However, it couldn’t hurt to presume a merits-first default for free-exercise plaintiffs. Especially when it appears that the relief is “damages or nothing,” courts don’t have to settle for nothing when qualified immunity bars damages.

---
rkv4dm@virginia.edu

UVA Tradition: Lighting of the Lawn

---

Riley Lorgus (BA ’24)

As the semester comes to a close, the Lighting of the Lawn (LOTL) committee is excited to invite the UVA community to the 22nd Annual Lighting of the Lawn. This beloved University tradition will be held this Friday, December 1, from 7 to 9:30 p.m. at the Rotunda. LOTL is open to the entire University as well as the wider Charlottesville community. As we count down the days until LOTL, we hope that you will join us this upcoming Friday.

Doors to the event open at 6 p.m. with a performance from the undergraduate band Weekends and Wednesdays on the South Lawn, accompanied by food trucks, photo stations, free snacks, hot beverages, and so much more. The performances begin at the Rotunda stage at 7 p.m. and feature student dance and acapella groups, with the signature light show as a finale (which will feature a few more songs this year!).

LOTL was born from the terrifying events of September 11, 2001. Following the national tragedy, an air of sadness, fear, and grief remained on Grounds. Seeing their once joyful community now overwhelmingly scared, a group of student leaders came together during that dark fall season to uplift the community. Members of the Fourth Year Trustees Committee of the Class of 2002 were determined to uplift and unite the community in any way possible. Trustee Matt West proposed the idea of bringing light, literally, back to Grounds by illuminating the lawn with string lights. As soon as the University administration and Facilities Management team got on board, students got to work hanging lights on the Rotunda and Pavilions before the very first Lighting of the Lawn on December 15, 2001. 

What started out as a modest event has grown exponentially in the years since the first LOTL. Today, this cherished event draws over fifteen thousand attendees across the University and Charlottesville community. With performances from over twenty-five student acapella and dance groups, receptions across the Lawn, and the iconic, colorful light show, LOTL is a huge celebration of love, light, and people we hold dear to our hearts. What remains consistent each year is the universal message of unity and community as we gather together before the fall semester draws to a close. As always, LOTL is planned entirely by a dedicated group of undergraduate students, who share the same determination to illuminate Grounds as the 2002 Fourth Year Trustees.

LOTL has adapted to our recent history and experiences as a community. As we pass the one-year anniversary of the tragic deaths of our peers D’Sean Perry, Lavel Davis Jr., and Devin Chandler, this year’s Lighting of the Lawn remains committed to celebrating their lives and the light that they brought to our community. Their numbers, 41, 1, and 15 will be illuminated during the event.

This year, we would like to invite the community to join us at the Disglow! The LOTL committee designed this night of Disglow fun to celebrate the spirit of community, the joy and strength that is found in togetherness. Despite hardships faced by members of our community, LOTL shines bright and is a beacon of hope for those at the University, the Charlottesville area, and even attendees joining us virtually. We hope this year is no exception. What is more joyful than a night of glow-in-the-dark disco fun? Wear your brightest disco outfit and bring your glow sticks to the Lawn. Our night at the Disglow will uplift the community and celebrate their hard work during the fall semester.

More information on this year’s Lighting of the Lawn can be found at our website lightingofthelawn.com or on our Instagram page @lotluva.

The LOTL committee has put in countless hours of tireless work during the fall semester to put on this event. All of us on the committee hope to see you on the Lawn and we can’t wait to celebrate with you!

---
ral8pd@virginia.edu

UVA Panel Hosted by Karsh Institute Says Update To Immigration Laws Needed

---

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor

A panel of University of Virginia professors and policy advisors met on Thursday, November 16, to discuss the ongoing strains on the U.S. immigration system. The panel was hosted by the Karsh Institute for Democracy. The Law School’s own Professor Amanda Frost and Professor Emeritus David A. Martin were among the four panelists.

The panelists were generally critical of Congress’ failure to pass legislation updating immigration law, particularly asylum law, which hasn’t seen major reform for nearly thirty years. “I think it's reasonable to say—is Congress broken?” said Professor Frost, who specializes in immigration law. “And are they breaking the courts through their inability to enact legislation dealing with immigration?”

Frost said that without a needed change in immigration law, the Executive has attempted to resolve immigration problems on its own through new rules or guidance. Frost cited three cases in which these actions have been challenged in federal court.[1]

Frost explained that these legal challenges are involving the courts in partisan fights over immigration policy. “Those who are challenging laws and executive branch policies—if they’re on the red side, then they’re bringing these cases in red state fora, where they think they’re going to get—and often do get—handpicked judges that will rule in their favor. And equally, the immigrants’ rights advocates are choosing to litigate in fora where they think there will be a friendly outcome.”

Angela Maria Kelley added that the present policies for asylum seekers are not working. Kelley, who worked as an immigration lawyer and was formerly the Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security under the Biden Administration, explained that asylum cases can take years to process. During those intervening years, while asylum seekers have temporary legal status, they find work, build relationships, and buy houses. But they are often still turned away. “They put down roots, they live their lives. But when they get up under the immigration judge, finally, the person who had a really strong asylum case seven years ago doesn’t have one now,” said Kelley. That means that asylum seekers can never truly settle down. “They’re always looking over their shoulder—Is ICE going to come get me? That’s not sustainable.”

While panelists mostly focused on how to manage the current immigration crisis, Professor David Leblang of UVA’s Frank Batten School of Public Policy suggested that the crisis itself is being exaggerated for political purposes. “There's only about 3% of the [global] population that lives outside of their country of birth,” said Leblang.

Leblang, a Professor of Public Policy at UVA’s Frank Batten School, suggested that some opponents to immigration reform are motivated by animus. Leblang also criticized efforts to deter migration, saying that they are ineffective. Leblang explained that those who come to the United States have often been displaced by conflict or climate change. “There's data on how many deaths have occurred on the southern border of the United States. And if death doesn't deter you, I don't know what will.”

But Professor David A. Martin, noting his work in the Clinton administration, said that deterrence canwork. Martin explained that in the early days of Clinton’s presidency, asylum became a “high visibility issue” due to two major crimes committed by asylees: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and a shooting at the CIA’s Virginia headquarters that killed two agency employees. With Martin’s help, the administration adopted new policies, such as a six-month waiting period before asylum seekers could receive work authorization. “It worked. It did deter claims. The numbers dropped considerably,” said Martin.

As to whether similar reforms are achievable now, Martin was less certain. “I understood that I’d be here as the old timer on the panel to bring some historical perspective and maybe to find some glimpses of times in the past when bipartisanship worked, or executive initiative worked.”

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

---

[1] The cases Professor Frost cited were Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498 (5th Cir. 2022) (invalidating the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)); E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, No. 18-CV-06810-JST, 2023 WL 4729278 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2023) (invalidating a rule creating a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for asylum seekers that fail to schedule an appointment with a mobile phone app prior to applying), argued, No. 23-16032 (9th Cir. Nov 7, 2023); Texas v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 6:23-CV-00007 (W.D. Tex. filed Jan. 24, 2023) (challenging the Biden administration’s use of  parole status for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela).

Maliyekkal and Gray Win 95th Annual Lile Moot Court Competition

---

Nikolai Morse '24
Editor-in-Chief

Pictured: Aquila Maliyekkal '24 and Sean Gray '24
Photo Credit: UVA Law

On Thursday, November 9, Aquila Maliyekkal ’24 and Sean Gray ’24 won the 95th Annual William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition. They argued against third-years Audrey Payne ’24 and Hunter Heck ’24. Held annually, the competition starts with a field of about fifty individual competitors who write briefs and argue student-written problems in a mock federal or state appeal. To reach the finals, these teams advanced through three previous rounds of the Competition in their second year and the fall of their third year. In each of the rounds, the students wrote a brief and presented an oral argument before a panel of judges on a problem written by a fellow law student.

In the final round, the competitors argued before a panel of three distinguished federal judges. The chief judge was Judge Allison Rushing, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting in Asheville, North Carolina. The next judge, Judge Allison Nathan (who has judged the final round of Lile previously), is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose chambers are in New York City. The final judge, Judge Jesse M. Furman, also hails from New York City, where he is a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the final round of oral argument, the judges joined the competitors and their families for a reception.

Ben Buell ’24 wrote this year’s problem, which was used in the semi-finals and final rounds. The problem concerned a computer programmer, James Oliver, who had been hired by a microchip manufacturer, Edison Technologies, to create a cybersecurity software program named Citadel. Nearly a decade later, Oliver learned that Edison sold dozens of copies of Citadel between 2014 and 2017. He promptly registered a copyright and sued for infringement as soon as it was secured. Edison Technologies appealed the decision of the district court, which found that Oliver owned the copyright and was able to receive damages.

In writing the problem, Buell focused on two issues common to copyright infringement suits: ownership of the copyright and the availability of damages. The first issue turned on whether Oliver was the sole owner, such that he possesses the exclusive right to distribute copies of the software, or whether Citadel was a “work made for hire,” in which case that right vests in Edison. Importantly, whether the software was a “work made for hire” turned on whether Oliver was an independent contractor or an employee of Edison while he built the software. Second, even if Oliver owned the copyright in Citadel, does the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations for civil infringement claims preclude retrospective relief, such that his claims to damages stemming from Edison’s sales of Citadel from 2014 to 2017 were barred?

Buell said, “The problem was designed to test different skills. One issue was heavily fact-intensive and the other was a pure question of law on which there’s a significant circuit split. The second issue is on the cutting edge of copyright law–the Supreme Court will resolve the split this spring in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy.”[1]

Indeed, Lile President Kathryn Kenny ’24 emphasized the efforts of the many students involved in administering the prestigious competition. “The Lile competition is fairly unique since it is entirely student run; students organize the rounds, research and write the problems for each round, serve as preliminary round judges, and invite judges for the semifinal and final rounds.” From the initial rounds, where students serve as judges and brief graders, up through the process of facilitating later rounds, Kenny affirmed that running the Lile competition had been among the most rewarding experiences in her law school career.

When asked how they decided to partner, Gray responded that “Aquila and I became friends on the first day of law school and never looked back. During 1L, after we both made the Extramural Moot Court team and once we heard about Lile, we decided that we'd team up.” Maliyekkal echoed Gray’s comments, noting also that while they are “very different people—our backgrounds, politics, and legal philosophies couldn't be further apart,” he had “improved tremendously as a thinker and writer just by being Sean's partner. I've improved as a person by being Sean's friend.”

Gray described the intensive writing process he and Maliyekkal followed: “We'd each write our portions, then come together and meticulously edit the brief as a whole. Highlights of our writing process included: debating whether the article ‘a’ needed to proceed every item in a list; arguing about the use of the past perfect tense; deleting most of the em-dashed phrases that we both litter throughout our writing; and workshopping way too many metaphors and one-liners. Sounds fun, right? Harmonizing our styles was one of the more demanding parts of the process, but it was also quite rewarding.” Maliyekkal agreed, noting that their “[writing] styles aren't vastly different, but we each certainly had our literary peccadilloes and hang-ups we had to negotiate with the other about. Some of the most fun we had came from competing with each other to come up with pithy lines we could pepper through the brief to make it an engaging read (or the closest a brief on copyright and statutes of limitations could get to it).”

Maliyekkal and Gray were thrilled to have won and spoke highly of the demanding experience, which spanned more than a year. Maliyekkal described it as “an intense but rewarding experience . . . It pushed me to become a better writer and advocate and allowed Sean and I to test our skills against people we respect tremendously.” Gray echoed these sentiments, calling it “one of my favorite experiences in law school . . . It honed skills that will serve me well for practice—I became a better writer, speaker, advocate, and teammate throughout. But most importantly, I had a great time working with my best friend.”

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1]  60 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023).

Winter (Pro Bono) Is Coming

---

Ashanti Jones '26
Staff Editor

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the Pro Bono Program at the Law School held a session to educate students on winter break pro bono. The session was hosted by Assistant Dean for Pro Bono and Public Interest Kimberly Emery ’91 and Assistant Director of Public Service Andrew Broaddus.  For any who were unable to attend or any who did attend but got distracted by thoughts of their impending major memo, the Law Weeklyoffers this article as a step-by-step guide to finding and securing a winter break pro bono project from our resident pro bono experts.

What should I look for in a project?        

Emery opened the session acknowledging that students have a variety of reasons for pursuing winter break pro bono projects, and nailing down your specific reason is crucial when beginning your own search for a project. However, regardless of reason, all students should first determine when they are actually available during break.

If your driving motivation is getting your forty hours of pro bono to qualify for the Public Interest Law Association’s Public Service Summer grant or your fifty hours for the New York State Bar, Emery suggested students make sure their desired project qualifies as pro bono under that organization’s specific definition.

For the PILA grant, any project on GoodWorks qualifies, and students finding their own projects should ensure the project is unpaid and serves “low-income or under-represented clients, legal services providers, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, or private law firms providing pro bono services.” Emery also stated that, while judicial internships are valuable (unpaid) learning opportunities, they do not qualify as pro bono work for the Pro Bono Program or the PILA grant. For the New York State Bar, students should email the New York State Pro Bono Bar Advisory Committee at probonorule@nycourts.gov with any questions.

Emery also noted that students can use winter break pro bono to establish a geographic tie, if planning to work in person, to a specific market for a summer or post-grad job or establish an interest in a specific practice area. However, this may not be possible for students trying to target international markets or transactional work.

“There are a few markets that can be a little harder,” Emery said. “Overseas projects can be a problem, unless you have personal contacts, or really know an NGO, or are working with a professor who has contacts.”

How do I apply to winter break pro bono projects?

There are two ways to apply to winter break pro bono projects: through GoodWorks or by reaching out to the organizations directly via email. Emery recommended students only apply to three projects total. If applying through GoodWorks, Emery suggested students use the sample interest statement available on their website when crafting their own interest statement. If applying via email, Emery stated students can use their sample email available on their website as a guide or simply copy and paste their sample email and fill in their specific information.

Additionally, Emery recommended students look to the organization’s staff directory and email their materials to the organization’s volunteer coordinator, internship coordinator, pro bono director, or something along those lines. If you are unable to locate a staff member with one of those titles, Emery recommended students email materials to a staff attorney or the general organization email instead. If you have not heard from the organization, Emery suggested reaching out to her or Broaddus for help, or simply calling the organization directly.

Finally, Emery urged students to utilize the Pro Bono Program staff while applying to projects, because they may be able to connect students personally to staff in the organization’s office. “We have lists of public service alumni, so if you’re just gung-ho about X organization, and you’re going to apply, shoot me an email,” Emery said. “We are here as a resource; we don’t want you to feel like you’ve been thrown out to the wolves.” 

When should I start applying to winter break pro bono projects?

As of November 1, some winter break pro bono projects are available on GoodWorks with more to come throughout the month. Emery stated most will remain open until the first week or so of December, so there is no rush in applying. For those applying via email to organizations not listed on GoodWorks, Emery stated that now is a good time for students to start sending their interest emails. Additionally, while there is no exact deadline to submitting interest emails, Emery shared that it is ideal to send them before finals season starts to ensure a timely response from your targeted organizations.

“We do not recommend waiting until after exams,” Emery said. “You’ve now moved into the holiday season, and a lot of offices are going to be operating with a skeleton crew or are closed entirely.”

---
alj3emz@virginia.edu           

LSAC's Change to LSAT Speaks to a Larger Issue

---

Garrett Coleman '25
Managing Editor

On November 1, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) announced that it would pull its free prep course offerings from Khan Academy and transition them over to the subscription-based LSAC LawHub.[1]This decision came after some broader restructuring of the legal gatekeeping test in October of this year, which saw the removal of the logic games section.[2] While many of us may want to put LSAC in the past as an uncomfortable hurdle, it is important to remember how pivotal their role is in shaping the legal field. Many of our future colleagues will be products of LSAC’s restrictions, so I think its practices merit continued consideration. And as a group of people uniquely adept at the LSAT, its changes are at least somewhat interesting.

I am happy to criticize a standardized testing apparatus because I am one of the decreasing few who think they still have merit. Having students from a variety of undergraduate institutions sit for a single exam that requires no background knowledge is a good thing. It helps to separate those who have genuine legal potential from those who benefited from better academic opportunities—though, I admit, no test could do this in full. But that goal is undermined when LSAC is allowed to raise profitable barriers throughout the application process. The LSAT itself costs $222. If you want to apply to law schools with your score, that will be an additional $200. But if you want to actually apply to a particular school—as opposed to having some CAS report floating in the ether?—that will be another $45 per school, not including the specific application fee. And I have a hard time believing that they are pricing at cost, given that their 2021 net assets totaled $270 million.[3] Even with all this cash, there have been widespread reports of terrible remote LSAT experiences after LSAC went from ProctorU to Prometric.[4]

During undergrad, when helping other pre-law students with their LSAT preparation, I always loved how simple the ideal prep plan was. In my experience, Khan Academy paired with Mike Kim’s The LSAT Trainer was an effective combination for many students. The videos covered every basic problem type and were free, with some accompanying practice tests.

LSAC would respond to my criticisms by touting their fee waiver structure, in which independent students earning below 300% of the federal poverty level can receive these services for free, including the LawHub subscription. For that, I commend them. But the fee waiver system still leaves out plenty of people who earn slightly more but are still wary about spending hundreds of dollars for the subscription and accompanying prep courses.

Those of you who know me are aware that I am not a “vive la révolution” type. LSAC’s officials are entitled to fair compensation because they do provide a unique product that undergoes extensive testing. And I believe that such a product is quite helpful to law schools who want to develop the best lawyers possible. But those good results are predicated on wide availability of opportunity. If large swaths of the population are functionally excluded from adequate preparation, then it is not really a test for merit. Further, law schools and lawyers should not allow LSAC to abuse their position and extract money from aspiring law students. This is because LSAC does not actually provide a valuable good in and of itself. It is a service to help us choose the next generation, and its opportunities should be spread as widely as possible.

The larger issue that underlies this entire concern, though, is that we have a profession built around credentialism when it is not necessary. Your LSAT determines what schools you can get into. Then, even if you want to work in mergers and acquisitions, your Torts grade will factor into what firms will hire you. And when you are actually practicing, the luster of your resume will affect how clients see you. This is true even though some have said that a “generally intelligent high-school student [could] pass the bar with a few months of preparation.”[5] Lawyers as influential as Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson did not even attend college before practicing law.

I doubt many people here will appreciate this perspective, since we have largely won the credentialism game. By virtue of having UVA School of Law on our resumes, we send hundreds to the lucrative Big Law firms. But if credentialism abates, there may be a future in which law students don’t have to enter heavy debt to pass a test that many others could prepare for.

---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

---

[1] Annmarie Levins, Khan Academy LSAT Test Prep Resources Coming to LSAC’s LawHub by June 2024,  LSAC (Nov. 1, 2023) https://www.lsac.org/blog/khan-academy-lsat-test-prep-resources-coming-lsacs-lawhub-june-2024.

[2] Karen Sloan, Law School Admission Test to drop 'logic games' questions from exam, Reuters (Oct. 18, 2023) https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/law-school-admission-test-drop-logic-games-questions-exam-2023-10-18/.

[3] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/132998164.

[4] Doug Lederman, Problems With Law School Test Frustrate Thousands, Inside Higher Ed (Aug. 14, 2023) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/graduate/2023/08/14/proctoring-issues-affect-thousands-taking-lsat.

[5] George Leef, Some Very Contrarian Thoughts on the LSAT, National Review (Oct. 12, 2022) https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/some-very-contrarian-thoughts-on-the-lsat-and-law-school/.

Hunter-Gatherers and the Nature of Property

---

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor

Christina Martin says that a Supreme Court opinion from last term shows that the justices are interpreting property rights through the lens of natural law. Martin suggested the court’s opinion in Tyler v. Hennepin County[1] recognized a property interest so obvious that it could not be resisted. “It pretty much doesn’t matter what history was, what state law is. The mind rebels at it. We all reject this.” 

Martin, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, recently made her debut oral argument before the Supreme Court, winning a unanimous opinion for the petitioner. Martin recapped the case and interpreted the court’s opinion at an event hosted by the Federalist Society at UVA Law last Wednesday.

The facts of the case made for an unsurprising unanimous decision. Martin’s client, Geraldine Tyler, is a 94-year-old condo-owner in Hennepin County. Ms. Tyler had accumulated $15,000 in unpaid property taxes, and the County seized and sold Ms. Tyler’s condo for $40,000. But rather than returning the $25,000 excess to Ms. Tyler, the County kept all of the proceeds for itself. This practice, which Martin and others have called “home equity theft,” was decisively rebuked by the Court.

The question posed by the case is deceptively simple: Was the County’s taking of the surplus $25,000 unconstitutional? But underlying that question is a much more complex one: Where does property come from? Is it a bundle of rights protected by state law? Or does property have an “irreducible core” which states are bound to respect? And  as Justice Roberts asked at oral argument, “[I]f there is an irreducible core to the property, where does that come from?”

Recalling the oral argument, Martin explained: “Without saying it, I was essentially trying to say that it comes from natural law. The Declaration of Independence says that we all have certain unalienable rights, and this I believe is one of them . . . Property is something—it existed before government. Government exists in part to protect it.”

As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, natural law is “a philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action.” As Martin notes, natural law had a significant influence on the American founding. And its history goes much further—to the roots of Western civilization.

But if the justices had anything to say about natural law, like Martin, they did not say so overtly. Nor did the justices opine on human nature. Instead, writing for the court, Chief Justice Roberts offered a more familiar answer: history and tradition. Relying on sources from the Magna Carta to 18th century state laws, the court found broad consensus that “government could not take more property than it was owed.”[2]

The problem with a natural law gloss on the court’s opinion does not stop at the text of the opinion itself. Anglo-American property law traditions, as it turns out, are not a universal aspect of human society. On the contrary, some hunter-gatherer societies think of property in a way that is entirely unfamiliar. And given that foraging is “the original condition of humankind and 90 percent of human history,”[3] it is arguably a much better reflection of human nature than modern American society.

Anthropologists have observed a custom of reciprocity in some hunter-gatherer societies called “demand sharing.”[4] One such anthropologist, James Suzman, lived with and studied the Ju/’hoansi people in Namibia for more than two decades.[5] In an article for the anthropology magazine Sapiens, Suzman describes how foreign the practice seems to a Western observer. “Where we usually consider it rude for others to ask unashamedly for something that we own or to just expect to receive it, the Ju/’hoansi considered this normal. More so, as far as they were concerned, denying someone’s request ran the risk of being sanctioned for selfishness.”[6]

Despite what this practice might suggest, the Ju/’hoansi still recognize private ownership. But the rights of the owner are much more limited. “The net result of this was that, while private property was respected—after all, if there is no private property, how could you enjoy giving or receiving a gift?—material inequalities were quickly ironed out.”[7]

Of course, one group’s cultural practices cannot inform an entire theory of human nature, nor should it be the basis of American property law. The fact that hunter-gatherers’ lifestyles are arguably more “natural” does not mean that every American must practice demand sharing. Rather, these radically different customs are a reminder that observations about human nature are just that—observations. If there comes a day when we can discern universal behavior from those observations, perhaps we will have a basis for a natural law of property. But for now, human societies remain stubbornly diverse and unsusceptible to such broad generalizations.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

---

[1] 598 U.S. 631, 143 S. Ct. 1369 (2023).

[2] Id. at 641.

[3] Richard B. Lee & Richard Daly, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers 3 (1999).

[4] See e.g., Nicolas Peterson, Demand Sharing: Reciprocity and the Pressure for Generosity Among Foragers, 95 Am. Anthropologist 860 (1993).

[5] James Suzman–About, https://www.fromthebush.com/about (last visited Oct. 29, 2023).

[6] James Suzman, Why Envy Might Be Good for Us, Sapiens (June 21, 2018), https://www.sapiens.org/culture/hunter-gatherer-inequality-namibia/.

[7] Id.