How Two UVA Law Professors Think About Living Constitutionalism

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 


Last Wednesday, September 11, Professors Sarah Shalf ’94 and Rachel Bayefsky, hosted by the American Constitution Society at UVA Law, led a discussion on living constitutionalism. Professor Shalf, the Law School’s Director of Clinical Programs, began by offering a “practical perspective” on living constitutionalism.

Professor Shalf explained that living constitutionalism is difficult to define because academics, jurists, and politicians have developed different versions of living constitutionalism. “You end up with a lot of different versions of . . . what living constitutionalism is. And there are also different flavors among different justices, different judges, different academics in terms of how they flesh out what the theory is,” said Shalf. “It actually describes a number of different theories.”

Professor Rachel Bayefsky (left) and Professor Sarah Shalf (right). 

Shalf also responded to how Professor Solum described originalism and living constitutionalism at a Federalist Society event last week. “Professor Solum would say that living constitutionalism rejects [that] the meaning the Constitution is fixed when it was ratified or it rejects that that should be binding on us. . . . Depending on what flavor of originalism and what flavor of living constitutionalism you’re comparing, they might actually have some overlap,” Shalf explained. “I’m not sure that in reality what people think originalism is and what people think living constitutionalism is are always necessarily mutually exclusive.”

Shalf continued by explaining the constraints on living constitutionalist interpretation. “You’re not just sort of making things up as you go along, but you’re looking to the Constitution trying to discern what the underlying constitutional value is. Then you’re applying those values and provisions to the modern context, in a way that reflects the diverse America that didn’t get to participate in writing the Constitution.”

This approach, Shalf explained, has defined Eighth Amendment jurisprudence since the 1950s, when the Supreme Court adopted the “evolving standards of decency” framework in Trop v Dulles.[1] “An originalist might say . . . we’re going to look at all kinds of historical evidence to see what in 1789 was considered cruel and unusual punishment,” Shalf said. But the Warren Court, which was more sympathetic to living constitutionalism, chose a different path, looking to changes in culture and legal practice among the states and globally.

The Supreme Court’s more expansive rights jurisprudence reached a high point in Roe v. Wade, an early decision of the Burger Court. But the prevalence of living constitutionalism that defined mid-twentieth-century jurisprudence ultimately resulted in a conservative backlash, Shalf explained. “There was a reaction against Roe v. Wade and also against a lot of the reforms, the Civil Rights Movement. And so a group of conservatives got together and developed a more methodological theory of originalism because they wanted to constrain the court.” That group of originalists became the Federalist Society.

Responding to the criticism that living constitutionalism is unconstrained, Professor Bayefsky explained how living constitutionalism does constrain judges, while also noting that originalism may not be as constraining as its proponents claim. Bayefsky focused on a popular living constitutionalist theory, Columbia Law Professor Philip Bobbitt’s constitutional pluralism. Bobbitt’s theory consists of six modalities—historical, textual, doctrinal, structural, prudential, and ethical—each of which judges use to decide cases. “You could see this as descriptive in the sense of—here’s how constitutional argument takes place . . . . We could also see this as normative—that these should be the accepted categories of constitutional argument,” Bayefsky explained, adding that it is common for judges to rely on multiple modalities in a single case.

Bayefsky acknowledged that constitutional pluralism may enable judges to simply follow the modality that they prefer in a given case. But she argued that multimodal arguing is already the accepted practice among judges. “Most if not all judges are, in fact, pluralists. Even in cases where judges purport to be saying, we’re drawing only on the original meaning, it’s very common to hear pragmatic arguments.” Ultimately, multimodal reasoning may be a necessary consequence of judgment, Bayefsky explained. “In the end, judging does require a certain amount of judgment. It’s impossible to completely extricate judicial discretion, and the purpose is to train judges, law students, academics, scholars, perhaps even politicians, to be thinking about how to wisely exercise their discretion based on their legal understanding and experience.”

Ironically, the debate between originalists and living constitutionalists may be the product of institutional incentives more than legal philosophy. Professor Shalf, citing the work of Professor Richard Re, pointed out that the current divide between conservatives and liberals may be realigning. “When the judges you have appointed are in the minority, then you want to constrain judicial interpretation by the judges who you don’t agree with. You want to say everything is very fixed and defined and objective . . . Whereas more expansive theories of constitutional interpretation might be adopted by the people who are in the political majority.” Professor Shalf suggested that the court’s fractured opinion in United States v. Rahimi[2] may indicate the beginning of such a realignment among the Court’s conservative justices.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

[1] 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

[2] 602 U.S. ___ (2024).

97th Annual Lile Moot Court Competition Kicks Off with Info Session

Noah Coco '26 
Managing Editor 


Most 2Ls roll into their second year of law school, many with summer associate positions in hand, content to ride out their remaining years of school with light schedules and ample softball. For a minority of students, however, the fall semester of their 2L year offers an opportunity to engage their competitive spirit with more case research and appellate advocacy in the first round of a venerable Law School tradition: the William Lile Minor Moot Court (“Lile Moot Court”) Competition.

The Lile Moot Court Competition, named after the first dean of the Law School, is entering its ninety-seventh year of competition. This past Wednesday, September 11, the Lile Moot Court board, composed entirely of students, introduced the competition to a group of eager and curious 2Ls in advance of the first round in October.

The Lile Moot Court Competition is open to all 2Ls. Participants in the competition will compete in teams of two in a four-round tournament (hopefully) spanning their second and third years. In each round, teams are presented with a problem created by the Lile Moot Court board and tasked with preparing appellate briefs and oral arguments. The first two rounds are conducted during consecutive semesters during 2L year, and the competition culminates in two additional rounds conducted during the fall of 3L year. Teams are cut from the pool of competitors in each subsequent round of competition.

The competition begins with the preliminary round running from October 1–25. Every team that signs up by the deadline of September 27 is eligible to compete and will receive materials containing a single-issue problem at the commencement of the round on October 1. Teams have until October 21 to brief the issue and are capped at a 3,500-word argument section. Teams will then present at oral arguments conducted between October 22–25. Although teammates may collectively prepare the brief, they will have to argue their issue individually during this round of competition before a panel of judges composed of the Lile Moot Court board and previous competitors. The written brief constitutes 50 percent of teams’ final scores, with the remaining 50 percent allocated to performance during oral arguments.

Only eight of the original teams will advance to the quarterfinal round scheduled for February–March 2025. Advancing teams will be prompted with a new two-issue problem to brief, this time capped at a 7,900-word argument section. Teams will then, seeded by their preliminary round scores, compete against opposing teams at oral arguments judged by Law School professors.

The pool of teams will then be narrowed to four who will compete in the semifinal round hosted in September–October 2025. For the final time, the remaining two teams will be presented with a new two-issue problem to brief. Each team will again face off at oral argument against an opposing team, this time appearing before acting judges, usually representing state supreme courts, state courts of appeal, or federal district courts.

The final two teams will compete one last time in November 2025 in what will certainly by then be an adept display of appellate advocacy. The same issues briefed and argued in the semifinal round will again be argued in the finals, although both teams will be given an opportunity to revise their briefs before competing in oral arguments.[1] The final round is generally presided over by acting federal circuit court of appeals judges.[2]

The winning team will be announced at the conclusion of the final round. In addition to receiving a cash prize (of a currently undisclosed amount), the winners of the ninety-seventh  Lile Moot Court Competition will be honored with a plaque to be adorned on the walls outside the moot court rooms in Slaughter Hall adjacent to the ninety-six winning teams preceding them, including the yet-to-be-determined winners of the ninety-sixth competition chosen this November.[3]

Any 2Ls interested in competing in the ninety-seventh  Lile Moot Court Competition may sign up with a partner, or sign up individually and be assigned a partner, by the September 27 deadline. Questions may be directed to Amy Vanderveer (fvu2tr@virginia.edu) or Natalie Little (ngl17vc@virginia.edu).


---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu

[1] One team may be required to switch sides between the semifinal and final round.

[2] Historically, the finals round has occasionally been presided over by sitting Supreme Court justices, including Justices Marshall, O’Connor, and Brennan.

[3] Astute observers may notice at least one notable name on a plaque memorializing the 1959 Lile Moot Court winners: Edward “Ted” Kennedy ’59.

First-Years Introduced to Program in Law and Public Service

Jamie Newton '27 
Staff Editor 


On the afternoon of Monday, September 10, the Program in Law and Public Service (LPS) crowded Caplin Pavilion with prospective first- and second-year fellows to decorate cupcakes, learn about LPS, and connect with current LPS fellows. Students iced their cupcakes with their choice of frosting and sprinkle variety—the classic take of chocolate frosting and rainbow sprinkles seemed to be exceedingly sought-after—as LPS Director and Professor Annie Kim ’99 discussed the many components of this tailored curriculum and “hub” for students interested in a career in public service.

In 2009, President Jim Ryan ’92, then a professor at the Law School, created the Program in Law and Public Service to better prepare and support the minority of students at the Law School seeking public service careers in law. LPS offers special classes and curricular requirements, opportunities for faculty mentorship, academic advising, an outline bank, and more.

In the past fifteen years, the Program has expanded in size and capacity. In 2023, a total of 130 law students were LPS fellows, forty-five of them 1Ls. The 2023 cohort was the largest ever in LPS’s history, in addition to a record number of applicants. Currently, the program boasts around 400 alumni working in and adjacent to the public sector as resources for support and networking. Given that every seat in Caplin Pavilion was filled, and the cupcake supply was quickly demolished, interest in the program continues to thrive for the foreseeable future.

One of the most emphasized components of LPS during this information session was the vital role core faculty play in advising and guiding students in the public service journey. While other professors working and researching in fields directly involved with or adjacent to public service are available for support, LPS hosts four “core faculty members”: Professors Kim, Andy Block, Chinh Le ’00, and Josh Bowers. These four professors assist in teaching the required spring semester course for new 1L fellows, supervise a recommended 3L capstone course, host a faculty dinner series, and provide all-around support to the LPS fellows.

Professor Kim highlighted that LPS gives public service students, often isolated by the experiences and interests of their private sector peers, “your cohort, your tribe.” To access the niche support system and community of faculty and peers offered by LPS, fellows must complete a series of requirements. Apart from the spring semester course for new 1L fellows, students must work at least one full summer in public service (excluding judicial internships) after their first or second year of law school, take at least one clinic or do one externship, enroll in ten broadly defined credits that support a student’s specific public service aspirations, and write a substantial research paper related to those aspirations. Given the latitude fellows have in pursuing their interests, it was noted that these requirements are only natural stepping stones any student in public service would likely take during their law school career.

Both 1Ls and 2Ls with intentions of working in public service are invited to apply. Professor Kim and LPS Outreach Chair Carter Farnsworth ’26 recommended applicants talk honestly about their intentions after graduation, as the program exists primarily for those planning to start their public service careers directly out of law school. They stress this as an important factor for Professor Kim and other faculty in evaluating applications, especially during a competitive cycle such as last year’s. Aside from post-graduation plans, students should not stress if they don’t have a resume jam-packed with previous experience in public service. Students aren’t selected based on their specific interests or niche aspirations; they need only provide “something” to demonstrate a general interest in public service, whether that be newly found or long-established.

To apply, students must submit a resume, an unofficial copy of their undergraduate transcript if they’re a 1L or law school transcript if they’re a 2L, and a list of two references “who know you well.” In addition, students should write two 400-word responses to questions regarding their passions and any expected hurdles or stressful factors in pursuing a public service career. After applying, students will have a quick meeting with Professor Kim to discuss their interest in LPS and foreseeable contributions to the community. Professor Kim stressed that the application and interview are relatively informal and low-stakes. Farnsworth advised students not to “select out” because of the application requirement.

After outlining the application process and makeup of the Program, Professor Kim turned it over to current fellows to mingle with prospective students. By this point, the cupcakes were gone, but conversation was still lively. Fellows spoke to their various interests in public service, the paths they took to finding those interests, and how LPS has played an integral role in uplifting and honing their passions. Many of the current fellows expressed a sentimental appreciation for the community LPS has provided them. Cheryl Bond ’25 remarked, “I get to have friends in the same boat.” At a law school with seemingly infinite resources for those looking to pursue careers in the private sector, these fellows credited LPS with affording them a safe space for those with interests outside of the norm.

Students interested in applying to the Program in Law and Public Service should submit their applications to Professor Kim by October 18. More information is available on the LPS page online.


---
jmn5jgk@virginia.edu

Common Law Grounds Addresses Homelessness

Kelly Wu '27 and Mayan Lawent '25 
Staff Editors


On Tuesday, September 10, 2024, Common Law Grounds (CLG) gathered students across the ideological spectrum in Caplin Pavilion with a brand new topic of discussion: “Shelter Under the Law: Addressing Homelessness Through Law & Politics.” Students grouped into small sections, introduced themselves to each other, and shared their honest feelings and experiences with the specified topic, and interactions with politics at large, over a provided lunch.

To begin the discussion, every small group was handed information sheets explaining and examining the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, decided mere months ago in June 2024. Within the decision, the city of Grants Pass, Oregon was ultimately allowed to pass a law that prohibited camping with bedding on public property, with the U.S. Supreme Court noting it did not constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” This decision came six years after a 9th Circuit case, Martin v. Boise (2018), in which the court found that such laws would in fact violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In the aftermath of this decision, students were asked to read responses from legislative and judicial figures across an array of ideologies from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s celebration of the decision’s ability to provide local and state officials the authority to clear unsafe encampments, to Justice Sotomayor’s criticism of the decision’s punishment based on the status of homelessness. The groups were supplied with both big-picture and specific questions to get the conversation started and asked to reflect on what the decision meant to them.

Once broken out into smaller groups of five or six, the audience was quickly spurred into open discussions on things as large in scale as “Is housing a basic human right that the government is responsible for providing?” to smaller ideas concerning reactions towards Newsom’s idea that homelessness should be addressed through local government rather than national. Within the small groups, people with backgrounds from big cities where homeless encampments are prominent to those from smaller areas where homelessness is less visible began to reflect on how their upbringings had shaped their view on the topic. This led to related discussions on thoughts about anti-homeless architecture, drug usage within homeless communities, criminalization of homelessness, human dignity’s place within the law, and the role of community and religion in society.

These conversations then spurred questions about the role of policy, with CLG facilitating the shift through a look into various policy approaches. Considering proposals such as Housing First policies, which provide permanent housing to individuals through housing vouchers and rental assistance, the students were then asked to discuss the benefits and detriments of various policies. Despite the large breadth of topics and opinions discussed, no clear policy answers were easily found. Overall, the discussions showcased the murky and ambiguous nature of homelessness and the law, with complexities at every corner. Many groups found themselves affirming these were questions with no clear answers, and policies all had their caveats. The lunch concluded with the development of a deeper understanding of differing viewpoints, and as students headed back to their classes, many were reflecting on how the state of homelessness should be addressed in a modern context.

The event showcased the ultimate goal of Common Law Grounds: to prompt difficult conversations on relevant, controversial topics. Started almost eight years ago, the organization was founded on a foundation of respect and civility for those growing up in any background. CLG hosts a series of roundtable discussions every year, with topics including abortion, gun control, and the role of religion in the judiciary. For the board members and those who attended, it was clear that the organization is not merely for centrists seeking fellow like-minded people; it aims to be the exact opposite. Before every discussion panel, attendees are asked to rate how liberal their views are on a scale of 1 to 10 for the facilitators to both form more diverse groups and see how to cater to differing opinions. If you ever find yourself wanting to step out of your comfort zone and learn more about how the rest of the Law School understands various topics, be sure to look into future discussion panels hosted by Common Law Grounds!


---
gcu2vn@virginia.edu 
zuc9mq@virginia.edu 

Law Alumni Present on Prosecution

Bradley Berlich '27 
Staff Editor 


This past Tuesday, September 10, the Office of Public Service hosted a panel of four Law School alumni to discuss their experience as prosecutors. The panel was chaired by Ryan Faulconer ’08, himself a former federal prosecutor, now the assistant dean of public service. The panelists were buzzing with excitement at being back at the Law School and having an opportunity to share their experiences when Faulconer prompted them to talk about the most rewarding parts of their work.

Some panelists focused on the responsibility of bringing bad guys to justice. “Solving the big crime . . . Saying ‘my name, on behalf of the United States of America’ . . . never gets old,” said Zach Ray ’16, an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he focuses on healthcare fraud cases.  “We get to play FBI and Sherlock Holmes . . . Taking [a defendant] down when they never see it coming . . . is really rewarding,” echoed Alec Ward ’21, a trial attorney in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division at “Main Justice”—the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

Others talked about their ability to meaningfully change the lives of people in hard situations for the better. Megan Mers ’20 and Amanda Swanson ’20 both work on matters of domestic violence in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, respectively. Both conceded that line of work often exposed them to difficult situations, and vicious cycles of relationship violence, from which the victim was unable to escape. Mers elaborated: “It is everyone’s worst day. It’s the worst day of your defendant’s life, witness’s life, survivor’s life. And sometimes they take that out on you.” But, Swanson added, “[e]very now and then, when you stick with a case long enough, you find someone who is willing to stand up for themselves and not live [in a violent relationship] anymore.”

However, the bad days are still bad. And sentencing is the worst. “Sentencings are like funerals,” said Ray, who explained that he stands right next to the defendant during the procedure. “I walk out, and I pass their mom, their dad, their spouse, and their kids . . . . [We] don’t celebrate convictions.” Mers agreed. “The day sentencing feels fun or not impactful to you is the day you should stop being a prosecutor.” It’s easy for some to think of the prosecutor as the good guy, but this is not strictly the case. The person you convict might otherwise be a pillar of their community, a good spouse, parent, coworker, and neighbor. Or worse, the unstated fear that they could very well be innocent. “Some people go in thinking they’re going to be the superhero . . . [but n]o one with a conscience who does it for very long comes away not seeing shades of gray,” said Ward.

That’s why it can really matter that you have some degree of discretion within your role as a prosecutor. All four attorneys stressed the importance of personal autonomy in their work. Often, the ability to follow an assigned case from beginning to end is an office policy known as “vertical prosecution.” Many prosecutor offices are horizontal, not vertical, and instead break up assignments by case stage to improve efficiency with some attorneys only dealing with the beginning, middle, or end. “[It is] very hard to wield discretion at a horizontal office,” said Ward. “[In contrast] most of the cases I prosecute, I was the lead investigator on.” But with discretion comes more complications, and more responsibility. “Sometimes it’s difficult dealing with the uncertainty of if you’re prosecuting for the sake of prosecuting or doing it for the sake of improving someone’s life,” Swanson remarked. And though prosecution has better hours than big law, there are still long days, but no make-work to fill time-entry sheets. “Someone has to be there in a vertical prosecution office. There are weeks and sometimes months where I am working as much as my firm friends, but there’s always a reason I care about,” commented Mers.

When asked by Faulconer to tell the story of their paths to prosecution, and if they had any advice for interested students, the panelists agreed that there was no single path to prosecution, and that a resume that reflected an interest in public service and criminal law was the most important thing. “Don’t think you have to know right now that you want to be a prosecutor, or it’s over,” said Ray, who was an associate at Covington & Burling in D.C. after graduating. “Go see Jennifer Hulvey [in the Office of Financial Aid, Education and Planning],” continued Ray. “I knew I didn’t want the golden handcuffs, and so we created a plan where I could pay back these loans . . . we had a plan, we stuck to it, and once my loans got down to a certain point, we made the jump.”

UVA can help you land the gig, too. “I came to this panel,” admitted Ward. “Rachel Kincaid was working [at DOJ Civil Rights] and I think I literally took her desk . . . [I am] totally unashamed to say it was UVA and the folks here that got me this job.” Swanson quoted a talk Merrick Garland gave at the Eastern District of Virginia—good advice for all prosecutors and people who spend their days running around— “wear rubber-soled shoes.” Tights not included.


---
jqr9gh@virginia.edu 

Armacost, Institute of Justice Attorney Talk 4th Amendment

Ashanti Jones '26 
Features Editor 


“When it comes to private trespassers, the law is pretty straightforward,” Robert Frommer said. “Somebody trespasses you can call the police and say ‘Hey, I’m having a problem here,’ and they’ll come. But what about when it’s not a private person that wants to trespass on your land, but a government official themselves? That’s a completely different story.”

On Thursday, September 12, the Federalist Society at the University of Virginia School of Law hosted UVA Law’s own Professor Barbara Armacost ’76, J.D. ’89 and senior attorney for the Institute of Justice, Robert Frommer for their event titled “Reforming the Fourth Amendment.” The event focused on the Fourth Amendment open fields doctrine—a doctrine that allows law enforcement officials to search and seize on open land, including public and private property, without a warrant.

The Federalist Society’s Vice President for Speakers, Andrew Odell ’26, opened the discussion by welcoming attendees and introducing the day’s speakers. Professor Armacost specializes in criminal procedure and policing and the law. She has written several articles on both topics. Frommer serves as the Director for the Institute of Justice’s Fourth Amendment Project and has litigated several search and seizure cases, including the ongoing 9th Circuit case Snitko v. FBI.

Frommer began by describing the open fields doctrine and framing its effect on American society. Despite its name, the open fields doctrine does not just apply to what the average person would consider an open field. In simple terms, the doctrine allows law enforcement officials to inspect, search, and seize without a warrant any outside area except curtilage, or the area “immediately surrounding the home,” reasoning there is no expectation of privacy in these areas.[1]

Historically, courts have interpreted curtilage very narrowly with fenced-in areas and areas marked with “no trespass” signs considered open fields, which Frommer found particularly troubling. Frommer shared with the audience, that according to a study conducted by the Institute for Justice, an estimated 96 percent of private property in the United States would be considered open fields under the existing doctrine.[2]

“In many places, officers can enter private property without it even being considered a search,” Frommer said. “[With open field searches,] you’re not in the Fourth Amendment bucket at all, it is completely unregulated. The open fields doctrine . . . privileges officials over private citizens . . . and the property owner themselves.”

Frommer believes the open fields doctrine is directly opposed to the origins of the Fourth Amendment and the Framers’ intentions for the scope of its protection. He described the Fourth Amendment as a continuation of the British common law ideal of “a man’s home is his castle” in the colonies, and a rejection of the use of British general warrant searches leading up to the American Revolutionary War.

“[General warrant searches were] a blank check given to these officials to allow them to go where they want, to search, and to root through things without judicial authorization and without any evidence of a crime being committed,” Frommer said.

Frommer argued that the Fourth Amendment was created to combat these types of searches and should be construed more broadly to respect the Framers’ intent. Frommer stated judicial constitutional interpretation should not boil down to a game of semantics but should consider the text in light of traditional American values.

“We’re supposed to put in our general principles and values, and then work out the details through legislation,” Frommer said.

Frommer shared some previous and current litigation the Institute of Justice’s Fourth Amendment Project has taken on regarding the open field doctrine. Frommer emphasized that these cases rest on individual state constitutions instead of the federal Constitution, which he credits as the source of their success in a recent Tennessee case, Rainwaters, et al. v. TN Wildlife Resources Agency. 

In Rainwaters, game wardens from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency would regularly enter the plaintiff’s private land to search for possible hunting violations and also installed cameras for twenty-four-hour surveillance. Frommer and his team argued since the Tennessee Constitution gives citizens the right to be secure in “possessions,” the Tennessee Constitution covers beyond just the curtilage. The Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed that “possessions should be interpreted as covering real and personal property and confined the authority of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to search without a warrant to ‘wilds and wastelands,’” i.e. unowned or unkept/unenclosed land.

Following Frommer’s presentation, Professor Armacost asked Frommer follow-up questions about his opinions on public policy surrounding the Fourth Amendment and possible movement of the open field doctrine at the federal level.

Professor Armacost opened her questioning by remarking on the delicate balance with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence between giving law enforcement officials the ability to do their job and protecting citizen’s right to privacy.

“We’re all on both sides of any debate on the reach of the Fourth Amendment,” Armacost said. “On the one hand, we want the level of protection from surveillance by law enforcement that guarantees a robust level of privacy for the activities we want to do in private. On the other hand, we want law enforcement to secure some level of safety so we can live without high risk of crime that would make our lives less secure.”

Professor Armacost asked Frommer if he has any suggestions on balancing both of these needs, especially in the context of investigating hunting violations since a majority of land used for hunting is private land and it is substantially harder to obtain evidence to create probable cause for a warrant for hunting violations due to the nature of the crime.

Frommer responded that he believes the need to balance is a false dichotomy—several states with big hunting populations such as Montana, Washington, New York, Vermont, and Mississippi, have rejected the open-field doctrine. Frommer also feels like the balance is already instilled into the Fourth Amendment.

“The Framers when they created the Fourth Amendment, they already struck that balance,” Frommer said. “When they said that searches and seizures can’t be unreasonable as violating the spirit of the common law. You can use your powers under the common law to investigate . . . regular police work, you can talk to people, you can drive down the street.”

Next, Professor Armacost asked Frommer his level of optimism on changes to the federal open field doctrine under Jones and Carpenter in light of law enforcement using twenty-four-hour video surveillance without obtaining warrants. Frommer shared he was not that optimistic.

“Possibly, but unlikely,” Frommer said. “[The] key thing for Carpenter and the Fourth Circuit . . . was able to create a comprehensive picture of your movements—follow you from one place to another—but a static camera here would [only] catch you when you were going by. Maybe if [the static camera] was at an entryway where it captures every time you come or leave.”

---
alj3emz@virginia.edu

[1] “Amdt 4.3.5 Open Fields Doctrine” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/open-fields-doctrine>

[2] “Good Fences? Good Luck” Windham, Joshua and David Warren, Ph.D. Institute for Justice, March 13, 2024. <https://ij.org/report/good-fences-good-luck/>

U.S. Solicitor General Speaks at Overflowing Caplin Pavilion

Mayan Lawent '25 & Kelly Wu '27 
Staff Editors 


This past Friday, September 6, the Virginia Law Review and Virginia Law Women welcomed the United States Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, to Caplin Pavilion. The venue was packed as hundreds of students were eager to hear General Prelogar’s thoughts on appellate advocacy, building a successful legal career, and the current state of the Supreme Court. The discussion was led by Professor Cate Stetson ’94 and introduced by Leah Schwartz ’25. After hearing General Prelogar’s voice on Strict Scrutiny countless times, she did not disappoint in person.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (left) and Professor Cate Stetson ’94 (right). 
Source: Jennifer Song ’27

The discussion with General Prelogar introduced some interesting new classifications for lawyers: Are you a “heater,” a “cooler,” or maybe even an “icy hot?” Joking aside, this opened up a conversation about the different ways to influence a courtroom and an audience, and the role each type of advocacy plays. One of the key pieces of advice she had for litigators: “Be true to yourself.” Preparation is critical, but in the end, judges are listening to the person in front of them. Another important preparation tip General Prelogar shared was to look at each case and prepare ten key questions that define the fault lines. Write them down, think through potential answers, and be ready to discuss them. You don’t need to memorize everything, but practicing your points out loud helps develop fluency. The more experience you get, the better you'll be at narrowing down prep time and focusing on what matters. As General Prelogar put it, “Experience is key.” So, hear that everyone? Time to try out for Moot Court.

Another topic that came up was the role of oral argument. Is it a standalone moment, or part of an ongoing conversation with the judges? General Prelogar suggested that while not everyone may present in front of the Supreme Court, watching oral arguments with its unique format and continuous dialogue between the same nine justices can improve your own advocacy. She humorously noted that the justices see the Solicitor General less as the “tenth Justice” and more like the “thirty-seventh law clerk,” but oral argument is still a crucial opportunity to guide the justices’ focus toward the issues you believe are most important.

General Prelogar also emphasized the importance of being scrupulously honest and credible. Her role requires building long-term relationships with the justices, and unlike private practice, her client—the federal government—has broader, long-term institutional interests rather than short-term incentives. During this portion, she reflected on the need, unlike in private practice, to not always focus on individual victories but on what would be beneficial to the country as a whole moving forward.

Finally, Prelogar had two pieces of advice for 1Ls: “Be kind, be respectful,” and “don’t shy away from what makes you uncomfortable.” In oral argument, the tradition is to call opposing counsel “my friend,” and though it can feel awkward at times, the principle behind it—“showing respect to others enhances your own advocacy”—is a valuable one. She noted that her first year of law school and subsequent career were filled with moments of growth through discomfort. She reminisced that the mentors she had challenged her to work through tough times. A powerful story she shared involved clerking for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after her husband passed away. As Justice Ginsburg said, “Martin would have wanted me to be here.” So, “put yourselves out there!”

General Prelogar also shared her unique pre-argument routine. She is sure to leave the office by 7 p.m. so that she can get home and have dinner with her family, where she eats the same pregame meal every time—no one in the audience asked her what the meal was, unfortunately. And then she delivers the opening statement of her argument to her two young children for grades from one to ten. While we are sure this is a way to destress and shape her children into future legal juggernauts, we think it is also a good reminder to keep all arguments as simple as possible. General Prelogar seemed proud that her children usually give high scores, to which Professor Stetson replied, “Wait until they become teenagers and give nothing but indifferent twos.”

When asked about the current conservative bent of the Court, General Prelogar did not opine on any of the major proposals such as term limits. Instead, she expressed optimism on her ability to reach the newer justices going forward. She emphasized that while she is realistic in her goals, she never believes it is impossible to change the opinion of the Court to her side of an argument. Anyone expecting bold statements about the dire state of the federal judiciary was out of luck, which makes sense given how her office depends on a long-term relationship with the same nine people.

As authors, we all left this wonderful event feeling a bit more inspired to be the best advocates possible. We’re sure many of our fellow students felt the same.

---
zuc9mq@virginia.edu 
gcu2vn@virginia.edu

Virginia Innocence Project Kicks off Pro Bono Projects

Jamie Newton & Alicia Kaufmann '27 
Staff Editors 


On Tuesday, September 3, the Innocence Project Pro Bono Clinic hosted a kickoff meeting for interested students. Students heard from the Innocence Project Clinic Staff Attorney Payal Sampat ’23, Virginia Innocence Project Student Group (VIPS) leaders, and others about various opportunities to get involved in the program. To clarify, VIPS and the Pro Bono Clinic are functionally the same, and they offer pro bono hours to those who volunteer. They are distinct, however, from the year-long Innocence Project Clinic where students receive credit for participation. Do not fret if you were unable to attend! Here are the important topics that were discussed.

Sampat outlined seven different teams where students can get involved, all with varying levels of commitment. First, there are three ancillary teams: intake, policy, and reentry. The intake team reviews all of the applications that are submitted to the clinic and makes recommendations as to whether they should be assigned a case team. The VIPS co-leaders explained that intake team members are the first to see clients’ applications and are responsible for writing a memo that evaluates whether the client has a case for actual innocence. The student leaders emphasized that although this team is the lowest commitment, with most of the work performed asynchronously at your own pace, it is extremely important. Around 280 applications have been submitted that they have not yet been able to review, so your help could make a huge difference!

The policy team conducts advocacy work in an attempt to make the process of proving innocence or wrongful conviction easier. There are two major projects that the policy team is collaborating on this year: rectifying the issues caused by faulty Virginia forensic scientist Mary Jane Burton and investigating eyewitness lineup procedures and police eyewitness policies. Juliet Hatchett ’15, one of the directors of the clinic, described the day-to-day work on this team as a “mixture of research and advocacy,” with the second project being more research-heavy. Sampat estimated a commitment of thirty-to-fifty hours per semester, including weekly one-hour meetings.

The last ancillary team, reentry, is new to the program this year. The leader of the team specified that they will work on mental health counseling and housing assistance for clients after they have been exonerated. This team will also have hour-long weekly meetings and a semester commitment of roughly thirty-to-fifty hours.

Probably the most rewarding yet intense pro bono opportunity VIPS offers law students is its case teams. There are currently four case teams for students of all years to participate in. Although a lot of the details of each case are protected by confidentiality requirements, Sampat and student team leaders further explained the background of each case, often accompanied by a “trigger warning” due to the sensitive nature of the alleged crimes like assault and homicide. Notwithstanding the delicate topics many of these cases broach, Sampat emphasized the decided belief each team and the organization as a whole has in their clients’ innocence.

These teams provide students with insight into, and involvement with, the full exoneration process. VIPS has been working on some of these cases for a number of years, while others are “more preliminary” and involve a greater focus on investigatory work. Some cases are older, such as one from 1985, while others are much more recent. No matter the case, students will receive opportunities to draft briefs and petitions, hone their investigative skills, work directly with clients and witnesses, and meet attorneys from outside the law school assisting on certain cases. Given the possible necessity of travel out of Charlottesville to meet with clients or witnesses, one of the team leaders, Isabel Cook ’25, underlined that access to a car or inability to travel would not impede any student’s ability to work on a case team. Carpooling is always an option, and students can always find work to contribute to beyond these specific facets of casework.

Many of the team leaders found their current positions through work in the Innocence Project Clinic, which Sampat referred to  as VIPS’s “full-time classroom component” of their pro bono extension. Each participant in VIPS with prior experience with the organization, either through clinic work or other pro bono opportunities, emphasized just how important this work was to their law school experience—“a great way to do actual legal work that matters.”

While the ’24-’25 application deadline already passed at the end of last week, VIPS will always be around for law students. Keep this opportunity in mind in the coming semesters and years when looking for pro bono hours, ways to involve yourself in public service, or if you just have a hankering to help rectify one of our justice system’s greatest wrongs—the conviction and incarceration of the innocent.


---
jmn5jgk@virginia.edu 
hcr9bm@virginia.edu 

Virginia Law & Business Society Welcomes New Students

Jason Vanger '27 
Staff Editor 


Virginia Law & Business Society (VLBS) held its kickoff event on Thursday, September 5, over sandwiches in Caplin Pavilion. Founded in 1981, VLBS is a student-run organization devoted to corporate law and business. Emily Eason ’26, President of VLBS, introduced the organization and noted upcoming events, such as lunch-and-learns with law firms beginning in October, dinner with 1L Representatives, and a social with students at the Darden School of Business later in the year.

Following Eason’s brief introduction, representatives introduced several student organizations related to corporate law and business. The Virginia Law Emerging Companies and Venture Capital Society (ECVC) provides opportunities for students interested in emerging companies and venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, and private equity. Speakers highlighted mentorship opportunities, speaker events and panels, and networking and social events. ECVC also runs the Transactional Law Competition each year, in which teams of students compete in a simulation of negotiations over a proposed merger agreement.

Law, Innovation, Security & Technology (LIST) focuses on technology law, including prominent issues such as artificial intelligence, privacy, cybersecurity, and financial technology. LIST aims to educate students about issues in the field, provide practical skills and experience, and connect students with mentors and resources. It also works closely with Virginia’s LawTech Center, which promotes research on policy and regulation of technology, the use of data to study legal texts, and the impact of technology on the legal profession. Speakers noted that LIST will hold its first General Body Meeting on Thursday, September 12 and that it is looking for 1L Representatives to spread awareness among the Class of 2027.

The Plaintiffs’ Law Association at the University of Virginia (PLAVA) informs the university community about firms that work on plaintiffs’ law and supports students looking to work in the field. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are those who regularly represent plaintiffs in litigation, often relying on contingency fees. Speakers pointed out that plaintiffs’ law can be a good opportunity for students interested in litigation, allowing them to gain experience quickly while promoting justice, adding that the field contains a variety of large, mid-sized, and small firms. They recognized that the area is not necessarily emphasized by the Office of Private Practice, but said that PLAVA helps to assist students interested in pursuing it. Upcoming events include a Kickoff Meeting, a Litigation Panel, a screening of the documentary No Accident which details  the prosecution of those involved in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and a joint panel with Virginia Law Women (VLW).

Virginia Law & Business Review (VLBR) is one of the nation’s leading journals in corporate law and business. VLBR publishes issues three times each year, with articles covering areas such as antitrust, bankruptcy, commercial law, corporation law, finance, and other regulatory issues. Aside from publishing scholarship, VLBR provides professional development opportunities for members, including attendance at an annual symposium exploring an emerging area of law and business. It also hosts social events, including, in the past, happy hours and dinners. Along with UVA’s other student-run journals, VLBR will take part in the Unified Journal Tryout in the Spring. It will also host interviews for Managing Board positions in April 2025.

Rivanna Investments is an investment management fund run by students at UVA Law, who manage a slice of the school’s endowment. Since its founding in 2010, Rivanna has grown its initial capital investment of $100,000 to over $350,000. In addition to managing its fund, Rivanna aims to give students an opportunity to learn about and practice financial concepts. 1Ls will be able to apply for an analyst position, where they will be trained in financial concepts and then evaluate current positions and new opportunities, or in roles focused on managing relationships with alumni and law and asset management firms. Applications for the analyst position will be open from September 9 to September 16. Representatives from Rivanna added that they look to include a mix of students with and without experience in finance. In addition to investment management, Rivanna provides networking opportunities, including trips to New York City and Washington, D.C.

VLBS and affiliated organizations in the law and business fields will continue to host events throughout the year. Interested students can reach out to contacts at the various organizations’ executive boards, join organization mailing lists, or follow through social media.


---
nnk2gn@virginia.edu 

Solum and Barzun Discuss Originalism’s History, Merits

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 


Last Thursday, September 5, the Federalist Society at UVA Law hosted a talk, dubbed “Originalism 101,” with Professors Lawrence Solum and Charles Barzun ’05. The pair discussed the origins of originalism, its variations, its merits and flaws, and its impact on judicial decision-making.

Professor Solum began by tracing the emergence of contemporary originalism to the rise of administrative agencies and the expansion of federal power during the New Deal era and under the Warren Court. “There were decisions that many judges, scholars, and lawyers felt were inconsistent with the text of the Constitution. That gave rise to a conservative backlash,” Solum explained.

As part of that backlash, conservative legal scholarship emerged criticizing living constitutionalism, including by Robert Bork and William Rehnquist. But, ironically, it was a critic at Stanford, Paul Brest, who coined the term “originalism” in his article The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding. “Brest, by naming the theory, created originalism as a movement . . . people reacted to Brest’s critique with defenses of originalism,” said Professor Solum.

But defenders of originalism did not always agree with each other. “Originalism is a family of theories. It’s not a single theory that all originalists agree on,” Solum explained. While nearly all originalists share two foundational ideas—that constitutional meaning is fixed when a provision is enacted and that fixed meanings should bind constitutional actors—there is no single view on how to conduct originalist legal analysis.

For example, original intent originalists argue that the Constitution means whatever the Framers intended for it to mean. Original public meaning originalists, on the other hand, argue that the Constitution was a public document and should be understood as it would have been understood by the public at the time of ratification.

The latter view gained momentum in the 1980s when then-Judge Antonin Scalia advanced the theory in discussions with President Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, which was developing a constitutional theory for the administration. “That caused a major shift in originalism and the emergence in the 1990s of what’s now called new originalism.” Around that same time, originalists such as Scalia and later Clarence Thomas were elevated to the Supreme Court.

“In the 20-teens, many more originalists were appointed to the federal bench . . . There are now dozens of judges on the United States Courts of Appeals and District Courts who identify as originalists, and some of the Supreme Court justices are originalists to some degree,” said Solum. The Court is not “consistently originalist,” Solum continued, citing the Dobbs majority opinion as “thoroughly non-originalist.” Nonetheless, Solum acknowledged that the Court is “dramatically more sympathetic to originalism than [it] was in the ’50s and ’60s.”

Professor Solum lastly touched on living constitutionalism, one of the principal rivals to originalism. Solum noted that there are several varieties of living constitutionalism, ranging from legislative supremacy—making Congress, rather than the judiciary, the primary authority on constitutional meaning—to common law constitutionalism, allowing the Supreme Court to amend constitutional law through the common law process.

In response, Professor Barzun explored some of the common criticisms of originalism. Firstly, critics often object that meaning cannot be fixed in the way the originalists claim. “These kinds of skeptical objects are oftentimes hard to respond to. It’s fairly easy if you’re philosophically sophisticated enough to show the difficulty with any coherent account of meaning.” While such arguments can be philosophically persuasive, Barzun said, it ultimately proves too much. “If you don’t think that we can fix meaning in any way . . . then what’s the point of being here?”

A stronger criticism, says Barzun, is that originalism doesn’t accurately reflect the views of the founding generation. “If you look at the founding, they weren’t originalists . . . The idea of a constitution itself was fundamentally different than what we think of today. When they talked about the Constitution, they weren’t talking about a document . . . It is the entire tradition, it’s a culture, it’s a set of practices that hold the country together . . . If our whole point is to do what was original, then that seems to be a big problem.”

Originalists have responded to this criticism on normative grounds—even if the Founders didn’t think of constitutions that way, we should now. For example, Justice Scalia argued this position on rule-of-law grounds—people need predictability to organize life and defend freedom. Others advance an argument based on democratic theory: The Constitution is an expression of popular will, so we should obey it.

But Barzun expressed skepticism toward both of these responses. He argued that the U.S. Constitution may not really provide predictability and structure. Instead, courts create constitutional structure through their decisions.

The democratic theory justification can also be criticized because the polity at the time of the founding was unrepresentative. Most of those voting on the ratification of the Constitution were white, propertied men. “It doesn’t seem all that democratic today, right? . . . That’s probably the most stock of stock objections to originalism. But one reason why it’s a stock objection is because it’s, in a sense, a powerful one.”


---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

SCHOLAR WARS: VLR Online Piece Sparks Twitter Mob

Garrett Coleman & Andrew Allard '25 
Executive Editor & Editor-in-Chief


It turns out that legal academics are on social media much more than we previously thought. So much so that the Virginia Law Review and UVA Law Professors Saikrishna Prakash and Aditya Bamzai made the virtual front page on Above the Law.[1] After their essay on the executive removal power was published in Virginia Law Review Online,[2] Professor Julian Davis Mortenson at the University of Michigan Law School took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to voice his concerns in a series of frustrated posts.[3]

Mortenson alleged that Prakash and Bamzai had repeatedly misrepresented his position on the powers inherent in the executive. In relevant part, Prakash and Bamzai’s essay contends:

Although Mortenson has never discussed removal in his articles, he has similarly argued, on the one hand, that the “executive power” was an “empty vessel” and, on the other, that it included “law execution”; might have included “appointments”; and embraced a set of “disaggregated” powers.

But it does not take great brilliance to identify the deep tension in the twin claims that the “executive power” was an “empty vessel” and, at the same time, might have included “law execution,” the “power to appoint assistants,” or other “disaggregated” powers. One claim or the other must give way.[4]

This “empty vessel” was explained by Mortenson in his article, The Executive Power Clause.[5] Not wanting to provoke his ire on X, we think this paragraph provides sufficient context for what Mortenson meant when using that phrase:

When Article II vested “the executive power,” it conveyed the authority to execute the laws. This power was an empty vessel that authorized only those actions previously specified by the laws of the land. . . . Either way, the conceptual gist of executive action was implementation of instruction and authority that came from elsewhere. Make no mistake: the presidency thus created was a massively powerful institution. Just not one with a free-floating foreign affairs power, a residual national security authority, or indeed any other power not specifically listed in the Constitution.[6]

While this reads like common academic parlance to us, the conversation on X was anything but. Before we begin, we would like to note that this article could not include every post or every bit of context. We welcome any challenge on X @LawWeekly. With that said, the first salvo came from Mortenson on Saturday evening:

Mortenson’s thread continued, with increasing zeal:

A Boston University School of Law professor, Jed Shugerman, joined the conversation to side with Mortenson:

The rest of Shugerman’s thread detailed an alleged slight from Prakash and Bamzai. As Shugerman puts it, he organized a conference on executive power in 2022, invited Prakash and Bamzai, but was stood up by Prakash and caught off guard by an unannounced forthcoming article from the two professors in the Harvard Law Review. Shugerman criticized Prakash and Bamzai’s “anti-collegial” decision not to share their drafts in advance of the panel, as other participants had. Shugerman subsequently issued an apology, saying that he was “stepping back” from the discussion on X.

There were also defenders of Prakash and Bamzai. Professor William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and our very own Professor Richard M. Re joined the battlefield:

Off of X, Baude wrote a more detailed piece about the academic debate, available in The Volokh Conspiracy.[7]

Wound up in this “tweetstorm” was an implicit critique of the law review system, juxtaposed against the peer-review process more common in other academic fields. Professor Milan Markovic of Texas A&M School of Law chimed into the debate to opine on the structural weaknesses of student-run journals:

Professor Jacob Charles, a Second Amendment scholar at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, seconded Markovic’s criticism of student-run journals, citing District of Columbia v. Heller as a product of gaps in the law review process.

In response, Professor Robert Leider of the Antonin Scalia Law School jumped in to defend student-run journals:

But Professor Jack Rakove of Stanford University’s political science department would not take this lying down:

As authors, we are split on the actual merits of Mortenson’s critique. But we are united in a morbid curiosity about this Saturday-night tweetstorm and a sense that X may be a less-than-ideal forum for academic debate. Whatever the resolution to this debacle, we hope that it will be reached in a gentler exchange.


---
jxu6ad@virgina.edu; tya2us@virginia.edu 

[1] Joe Patrice, Law Professors Call Out Colleagues Over Persistent Misrepresentations, Above the Law (Aug. 27, 2024). https://abovethelaw.com/2024/08/law-professors-call-out-colleagues-over-persistent-misrepresentations/.

[2] Aditya Bamzai & Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, How to Think About the Removal Power, 110 Va. L. Rev. Online 159 (2024).

[3] See Patrice, supra note 1. For the rest of this article, we took screenshots of the relevant X accounts, the handles of which are all visible. To the best of our knowledge, all these Xs (tweets?) remain published.

[4] Bamzai & Prakash, supra note 2, at 168 (footnotes and citations omitted).

[5] Julian Davis Mortenson, The Executive Power Clause, 168 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1269 (2020).

[6] Id. at 1367.

[7] Will Baude, Executive Power Scholarship: A Three Level Problem, The Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 28, 2024), https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/28/executive-power-scholarship-a-three-level-problem/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter.













 











Stop asking if it's my first rodeo. It's not.

Nicky Demitry '26 
Production Editor


To the new 1Ls who are not from here, welcome to Virginia! We are entering the best time of the year for pretty much anything outdoors. And while the vineyards, breweries, and scenic hiking trails are excellent places to spend time as the weather cools down, autumn also happens to be the tail end of rodeo season in Virginia. And if you haven’t been to a rodeo, it might be a good time to do so. You never know if someone is going to ask if this is your first rodeo, to which you must be able to confidently reply, “Actually, no, I have been to exactly one (1) rodeo, thank you very much.”

The 2024 Rockfish River Rodeo kicked off at Blue Toad Hard Cider this past Saturday, which is about forty-five minutes outside of Charlottesville in the heart of local vineyard and distillery territory. Blue Toad itself is nestled in Rockfish Gap, which is a wind gap set in the Blue Ridge Mountains, also called Afton Mountain. And if you’re wondering what a wind gap is, it’s a gap where there used to be a river (or some other form of waterway) but that is now dry due to stream capture. Another notable local wind gap is the OG Virginia and Tennessee Railroad crossing out in Bedford County. It is absolutely not worth visiting unless you want to buy meth. Look at us learning! 

Rockfish River Rodeo is on the smaller side, which is a relief for me and makes it an ideal first-timer rodeo, as the upcoming Max Meadows Pro Rodeo and the Orange County Rodeo[1] put on in part by the Bureau of Land Management are massive events and can be overwhelming. I have also personally found that smaller rodeos center the well-being of the animals involved appropriately, which is something that can often be missing at bigger commercial rodeos. My favorite part of this year’s rodeo was the absolute unbothered nature of the bulls tasked with bucking off their various cowboys and cowgirls. Immediately upon unseating their rider, every single bull immediately stopped bucking, did the cow equivalent of yawning, and then walked itself back into the chute with quite literally no urging from the folks tasked with bull guidance/rider safety.

The two cowboys on horseback waiting with lassos eventually ended up lasso-ing a bull already headed back inside, just because it was near the end of the event and they seemed to be like, “We should do this, right? Kinda feels weird if we don’t.”

The bull who got lasso’d truly seemed mystified as he paused his walk back to the chute, looked at the rope, looked at the cowboy, and then continued to walk off. And for the mini bull riding portion, where kids try their hand at bull riding, at least two of the bulls just stood there nonplussed as rodeo staff performed an energetic interpretive dance in an effort to induce bucking. There is something delightful about a tiny figure in boots and a cowboy hat sitting firmly atop an equally small cow, both stock-still, while everyone around them hoots and hollers before throwing up their hands and giving up. 

This may not be what the rodeo planners necessarily wanted out of the bull riding portion of the event, but it does mean that the bulls were not being induced to buck with any of the coercive or cruel tactics employed at other types of animal shows. If there’s one thing farm people can agree on, it’s that horses, cows, and all other forms of livestock are going to do what they’re going to do, and that frequently means doing the opposite of what you might be asking them to do. While I don’t miss the endless manual labor of living on a farm, I do miss ornery, opinionated animals and the unhinged ways in which we form co-existent relationships (“Go change, you can’t wear those coveralls around Tug, he hates the yellow and he’ll bite.”) that are based on mutual symbiosis and loving irritation rather than subservience. And hey, if we wanted mindless servitude, we’d just go into a profession that wholeheartedly endorses working 80-hour (or more) weeks as peons for enormous faceless multinational corporations!

This particular rodeo is put on by Ashton Beebe, owner of Indian Summer Guide Service,[2] who I met during a particularly fun day spent gallivanting around local vineyards on horseback, which is another off-the-beaten-path activity here in Virginia I highly recommend. You don’t need horse experience, and it’s such a fun and unique way to learn about Virginia's history, wine, and also some of the more relevant environmental and agricultural conversations currently happening in Virginia. It is my firm belief that we as law students really need to touch grass every once in a while, and there’s no better way to touch grass than in the company of grass’s number one aficionados (horses, it’s a horse joke, idk). 

So if you ever wanted to drink a Coors Banquet whilst watching events such as Mutton Busting (children riding/wrestling/engaging in tactical warfare with sheep), bull riding, and cattle roping, it may be time to put a rodeo on your schedule before we head into the dark times of winter and finals.


---
ncd8kt@virginia.edu 

[1] https://visitorangevirginia.com/blm-bull-rodeo/.

[2] https://www.indiansummerguideservice.com/about/.

A Welcome from Dean Kendrick

Leslie Kendrick
Dean of the Law School

Welcome to the new school year! You are the very first students I get to have as Dean, and I am honored to take on this role with you.  As I have been thinking about what good wishes to send you for your year, I have found myself recalling the things that remain constant, from my time as a student to yours.

Every fall, when I have lunch with my Torts students, I ask what drew them to UVA. A few days ago, I asked some new 1Ls the same thing. What I hear every year is exactly what my classmates and I would have said more than 20 years ago.

Dean Leslie Kendrick
Source: UVAToday

They say that this seemed like a place they could live as well as learn. That an alum had raved about it. That current students—you—were genuinely kind and welcoming.

What’s uncanny is that every year, new students accurately describe this place when they have just arrived, even before they have taken their first class.

How can this be? It is an ongoing marvel to me. The only explanation I have is that our students and alumni authentically convey what UVA is about, through act and deed. Admitted students are not dumb (obviously). If a law school tried to manufacture a culture, they would not buy it. They pay attention to what you are saying and doing. And what they see in you cannot be faked.

What we have here is special, but it has its challenges. I’ll mention one, which I talked about with our 1Ls at orientation.

At some point in your life, you have probably had neighbors. With neighbors, you might tread carefully: you might steer clear of hot-button topics and stick to the weather. Because these are folks you have to live with, possibly for a long time.

Now imagine you had lots of neighbors. About 1,000. And not only did you live in close proximity, but you also worked at the same place. Also, you socialized together constantly. Also, you were in the same book club, meeting for hours each week and covering the most sensitive topics of the day. Also, there were often visitors to the neighborhood—high-profile and polarizing visitors—whom some neighbors loved and some hated. Also, even if you moved, you would still see these neighbors for the rest of your life, professionally and socially.

Who in the real world lives like that? Nobody! That’s a lot of pressure to put on one set of relationships! But that is you and your classmates in law school. You are each other’s residential, intellectual, social, extracurricular, and professional compatriots, all at the same time.

Never again are you likely to do so many things with the same people with the same openness. Later, you will exercise more control over whom you live and socialize with. You will choose how much to mix your social and professional lives. Your workplace will be mission-focused and unlikely to involve watercooler discussions of everyone’s most strongly held beliefs. In other words, your life will have more boundaries. And as Robert Frost said, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

So go easy on yourselves—and on each other. Consider all the relationships you have with your classmates, and remember that they are your neighbors, for now and for life. When a tree falls in your yard, it’s nice to have a neighbor with a chainsaw. When the neighbor’s party is loud, it’s nice to cut them some slack, knowing they will do the same one day. We can all be that kind of neighbor—or we can be the kind that wind up in property casebooks, litigating over boundary lines and spite walls. Whoever wins, everybody loses.

This leads me to two further thoughts, one about the Law School and one about you.

We who work at the Law School are all here, in one way or another, to support you in becoming legal professionals and colleagues. All of us are in this process together, and your success is our success. Every time you meet a deadline, write a sharp brief, congratulate a peer on a triumph, or help a classmate in need, you are living out the habits and values that will make you a great lawyer. And that, ultimately, is what we are all here to help you become.

Similarly, broadly speaking, policies and norms at the Law School exist for two main reasons: (1) to reflect the standards you will be held to as legal professionals and (2) to enable you all to live and work together, accomplishing the primary thing you are here to do: your legal education and professional development.

My own responsibility is to help with exactly that. As a sentient human being on this earth for forty-mumble years, I have lots of opinions. I would guarantee that every one of you disagrees with me about at least one deeply held, core belief. That does not in any way affect my regard for you, and I hope it will not affect yours for me. My job is not about my personal opinions. My job is to serve you as professionals and the Law School as an institution. I will work hard to do that.

More importantly, here’s the point about you: although law school is challenging, if you invest in this community, you can have one of the best experiences of your life. Being connected to your classmates in so many ways can be hard, but it can also be incredible. It can mean relationships deeper than any others. It can mean finding your life partner, or your best friend.

The constant refrain I hear from our alumni—and it echoes what I hear from new 1Ls—is how much they loved law school. Even though their later lives are marked by more maturity, more stability, and more boundaries, they say law school had a magic that later stages of life do not. This is the upside of the unique environment you find yourselves in, the alchemy that all of you, together, produce.

Welcome to the school year. It is full of possibilities, for you as an individual and us as a community. Let us be the best that we can be: neighbors whose differences are an essential source of their strength. In a world riven by so many divisions, our challenge is greater than ever. I often say that the Law School does not have magic dust to make all the world’s problems disappear when you enter the door. Sometimes I wish it did. But the truth is, the Law School’s magic dust is how much you, like your predecessors, commit to being good neighbors to each other. As challenging as it sometimes is, that is the real magic of this place. I, for one, would not trade it.

A Letter from Two Refugees in Legal Limbo

Nur Kabir & Khair Ullah
Guest Writers
Introduction by Andrew Allard
Editor-in-Chief


Editor’s note: Thank you to Nur Kabir and Khair Ullah for submitting this guest piece and Ann Bayliss for coordinating its publication. Mr. Kabir and Mr. Ullah’s letter does not reflect the views of the Virginia Law Weekly or its editors.

 

In the spring of last year, the Law Weekly received an unexpected guest piece from across the globe. Ann Bayliss, a member of the Charlottesville community with ties to the Law School, contacted us with an intriguing story. For three years, she has corresponded with two Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh, Nur Kabir and Khair Ullah. Bayliss suggested publishing their story to increase awareness among future Virginia lawyers of the human rights abuses faced by the Rohingya.

Many readers have likely read about the ongoing persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar, particularly after news broke of renewed attacks on Rohingya fleeing Myanmar this summer. But students may be unfamiliar—as we were—with the complexities of international law that contribute to the Rohingyas’ uncertain legal status.

We shared the letter with Professor Camilo Sanchéz, the director of the Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, who noted UVA students’ “rich history” of applying their legal skills to human rights issues. “I would recommend students check out the work of the Burmese Democratic Futures Working Group. This group brings together UVA faculty, Burmese democratic advocates, and leadership from various non-profits to explore the history and current state of non-violent democratic movements in Myanmar.”

 

The letter from Mr. Kabir and Mr. Ullah follows:

 

Law students of the University of Virginia, we are two Myanmar nationals from the Rohingya community writing to you from Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.

We were just setting out on our careers after passing the final exam necessary to matriculate into higher education when a genocide occurred on August 2017 in Myanmar, and we write because, although our lives were spared, we remain in legal limbo seven years later.

Thanks to the intervention of Bangladesh and the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, we are relatively well off compared to refugees within Myanmar and elsewhere. We have even survived uncertain legal situations before. To explain how we got here, it is necessary to know a little bit about how the problem facing the Burmese Rohingya began.

Kutupalong refugee camp in Bangladesh.

Kutupalong refugee camp in Bangladesh.
Source: Khair Ullah

Evidence from European explorers, missionaries, and trading companies from the 1600s to the early 1800s documents the presence of Muslims in Arakan, predating British colonization in 1824. One of our elders, Muhemmed Hussain, explains: “It is said in Arakan, the Rakhine and the Rohingya were brothers. Two races from the same place. One believes in Buddhism and one believes in Islam. We Rohingya were here since long before 1823. Our fathers, Grandfather [sic], great grandfathers, children, and grandchildren were all born here.”

From 1824 to 1937, Burma was a “province” of British India. Burma formally obtained independence on January 4, 1948. The 1947 Burmese Constitution stated that people who resided in Burma on its independence day were citizens. So, to determine whether we are citizens or not, it is needed to start from 1947, not hundreds of years ago. That is the right way. As Elder Aman Ullah points out, “We need to understand that we all belonged to Burma since the day of independence.”

On March 2, 1962, General Ne Win seized power in a military coup. And in 1964, he excluded the Rohingya language from Burmese Broadcasting Service (BBC). Ten years later, Ne Win’s military government started to draft a new constitution. It legalized discriminatory policy against Rohingya but was not recognized by the international community and was known as “black law.” However, it was declared the national constitution in 1982. What the military government did to us with the pen harmed us more than their physical attacks.[1]

By 2014, we were obliged to say that we were Bengali instead of Rohingya in the national census. No Rohingya Muslim candidates could run for parliament. In 2017, our unclear legal status legitimized attacks against us as a group. Neighbors turned their backs as the military burned our homes and killed anyone who did not leave.

By the grace of God and the goodwill of the Bangladeshi government, we found shelter where we now live. International groups allied with the United Nations have helped us build temporary shelters, set up schools and houses of worship, and work, or rather, volunteer.

One of us volunteered not just for a month, a summer, or a year, but for two years–even longer than the international teams, who got paid. Once again, unclear legal status holds us back. Without the rights given to other refugees, we cannot even have bank accounts.

Although Bangladesh saved us, it is not a party to the 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and has not yet signed it. Convention-signing countries agree to “give sympathetic consideration to assimilating the rights of all refugees with regard to wage-earning employment.”[2]

Granting us refugee status would allow us to repay our host country for all that they have done. Of course, we also dream of reclaiming our Myanmar citizenship. You lawyers of the future can surely understand our plight. Would any of you one day help us win the opportunity to work and live as citizens again?

A proverb of ours is “Zou Háilé Háiyóm, Hímmót No Háráiyóm,” which means, “Even if we have to eat powdered rice, we will never lose our guts.” We will persevere through thick and thin.

Thank you for sending hope in our direction, as we wish you good luck with the fall semester! 


[1] For more details, please visit Ekkhaale.org.

[2] CPRSR Article 17.

Judge Roger Gregory Receives Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 


In a profound moment of humility and gratitude, Judge Roger L. Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law last Thursday. The medal—previous recipients of which include Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, as well as Robert Mueller ’73 and Loretta Lynch—recognizes Judge Gregory’s remarkable journey of public service, beginning here in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Pictured: Judge Gregory 
Photo Credit: UVA Law 

“When I received the letter saying that I would be the recipient of this incredible medal, I was glad that I was on level ground because I was about to faint,” said Judge Gregory. Judge Gregory noted that it was especially an honor to be at “Mr. Jefferson’s school.” Praising the Law School for its contributions to legal scholarship, Judge Gregory noted that he and Dean Goluboff first met at a panel on constitutional law. “She’s a working dean . . . She was waxing eloquently on constitutional law. I was taking notes.” Judge Gregory also noted that, thanks to his three daughters, “I didn’t go to the University of Virginia, but a lot of my money did.”

The story of Judge Gregory's ascent to the bench is etched with the indelible marks of history. He was raised in Petersburg, Virginia, where he attended a segregated public high school until the 11th grade. He later attended nearby Virginia State University as a first-generation college student, where he graduated summa cum laude. Judge Gregory then attended law school, receiving his J.D. in 1978 from the University of Michigan Law School, for which, said Dean Goluboff, “we forgive him.”

Judge Gregory went on to work in private practice and eventually established his own firm with Lawrence Douglas Wilder in 1982. He was then nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by two presidents—first by President Bill Clinton in a recess appointment, and later by President George W. Bush after the first appointment expired. Clearing the Senate with a near-unanimous vote, Judge Gregory became the first Black judge to serve on the Fourth Circuit, and he remains the only judge appointed to a federal appellate court by presidents from both major parties.

From 2016 to 2023, Judge Gregory served as Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit. During his tenure as Chief Judge, Gregory wrote the majority opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,[1] upholding an injunction against President Trump’s travel ban that restricted admission of refugees from seven majority Muslim countries. Judge Gregory also highlighted two death penalty cases that the Court reviewed, ultimately resulting in a reduced life sentence for one defendant and exoneration based on actual innocence for the other. “After seventeen years on death row, he was released . . . All cases are important, but those ones stand out,” Judge Gregory said.

Reflecting on the honor bestowed upon him, Judge Gregory evoked the intertwined threads of history and memory. Situated in the former capital of the Confederacy, Judge Gregory’s chambers in the Lewis F. Powell, Jr. U.S. Courthouse are a poignant symbol of change juxtaposed against the grim echoes of history. Judge Gregory noted that from his window, he can see Thomas Jefferson’s state house and a statue of Barbara Johns, a civil rights activist who, as a high school student, helped to initiate one of the consolidated cases in Brown v. Board of Education.

Judge Gregory thus sits at a complex intersection of our nation’s history—a history that has undoubtedly shaped his view of the Constitution. Judge Gregory noted that, since the beginning of the Republic, the question of who are “We the People” has perplexed legal thinkers. “People that looked like me would not be so if we were textualists or originalists,” Judge Gregory said. Noting the importance of  adhering to the Constitution, he continued, “The good thing about that is also the bad thing about that . . . Everybody has a different view of what that means.”

But for Judge Gregory, the struggle over constitutional meaning is itself important. “Text without context is pretext,”  Judge Gregory said. “The Constitution must be interpreted with contextual sensitivity to changing circumstances so that it imposes reasonable requirements in such circumstances,” he continued, citing Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court alongside Chief Justice Marshall.

“Constitutionalism is a blessing because we adhere to the Constitution, but it can be a curse if we engage in distorted constitutionalism,” Judge Gregory said, pointing to John C. Calhoun’s constitutional defense of slavery and Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott. “I love the Constitution . . . but there's nothing talismanic about these words unless they're in the heart.”

Asked how his life has affected his jurisprudence, Judge Gregory recalled a friend who spent much of his adult life in prison due to substance abuse. Now recovered and out of prison,  he helps guide others through prison and addiction. “From diabetes, he’s now almost blind . . . and he said ‘I’ve never seen clearer in my life than I see now today,’” Judge Gregory said, choking back tears. “That’s how we’ve got to see the Constitution.”


---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

[1] 883 F. 3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018).

Lambda Celebrates 40th Anniversary with a Gay-la for the Ages

Brent Rice '25 
Staff Editor 


This past Friday, Lambda Law Alliance proved that Feb Club isn’t the only time they know how to throw a good party. Over 210 students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends of the Law School’s second-largest affinity organization gathered at the Kimpton The Forum Hotel for a night of merriment and celebration as the club rang in its 40th year of existence and paid tribute to three persons who have had an outsized impact on the LGBTQ+ community both locally and nationwide.

The night began with a reflection on LAMBDA’s humble beginnings, founded in 1984 as the Gay and Lesbian Law Students Association and comprised just enough students to fill a dining room table. By spring 1997, GALLSA had grown to 15 members and changed its name to BGALLSA to include bisexual students. Later, somewhere around 2001, the organization changed its name to LAMBDA in an effort to avoid forcing its members into defining themselves with labels of their sexuality. Today, LAMBDA’s membership consists of more than 130 self-identifying queer students.

In her introductory remarks, Dean Risa Goluboff took the time to reflect on the aforementioned growth of the club and also to share a staggering statistic about the current 1L class—that is, nearly 20% of them self-identify as queer. Goluboff closed her remarks by extending to LAMBDA an official welcome to middle-age and wishes for many more successful years to come. 

Next, Jennifer Hulvey, the former director of financial aid at the Law School and current senior advisor to the same office, took the stage to share a few touching interactions she has had with students over the years alongside some additionally exciting statistics about the University’s Queer Alumni Network (QVA), which has provided over $350,000 in scholarships to LGBTQ+ students over the years. Hulvey, a past recipient of the Alvarez-Coughlin award which seeks to honor those who have made “extraordinary efforts on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community by creating an open, supportive, and welcoming environment for diversity at the Law School, the University as a whole and beyond,” helped transition the evening to the presentation of the award to three very worthy attendees in the audience.

Photo Credit: Lambda Law Alliance & Reilly Swennes ’25 


Scott Migliori ’12, the 2020-21 honoree whose acceptance of the award had been delayed due to Covid, was the first person of the evening to be presented the award. Migliori was the first openly transgender student at the Law School. Despite expressing great pride over the growth of the LGBTQ+ community at UVA Law, Migliori, who is currently considering leaving Florida over concerns for his family’s safety, reminded the room that there is still important work to be done.

Luis Alvarez, Jr. ’88, President and CEO of the Law School Foundation and one of the namesakes of the award, introduced the next recipient, Susan Baker-Manning ’98. Baker-Manning, who worked in Big Law after graduating from UVA, talked about finding ways to make an impact and serve your communities no matter your role. As a Partner at Morgan Lewis, she led large impact litigation matters, including representing some of the largest businesses in the country in an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Baker-Manning currently serves as the General Counsel of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Next, the award’s other namesake and long-time LAMBDA advisor, Professor Anne Coughlin, introduced the evening’s final recipient of the Alvarez-Coughlin award, Cordel Faulk ’01. Faulk served UVA Law from 2009 to 2020, first as Director of Admissions and later as Assistant Dean and Chief Admissions Officer. Many of the evening’s speakers took the time to address special thanks to Faulk and testified that the growth of LAMBDA that we had gathered to celebrate was the direct result of Faulk’s work to make UVA Law a more welcoming and inclusive place.

To close out the evening, world renowned drag queen Jackie Cox took the stage and serenaded the crowd before inviting the audience to join her on the dance floor.


---
wrf4bh@virginia.edu 

Perspectives on Stablecoins

Noah Coco '26 
Managing Editor


On Tuesday, April 9, Law, Information, Security, and Technology (LIST) hosted practitioners at the forefront of stablecoins for their event titled “Women in the Digital Assets Industry: Different Perspectives on Stablecoins.” The practitioners each discussed their experiences at the financial, legal, and regulatory frontier of this burgeoning technology and industry.

Professor Julia Mahoney, who is currently teaching a Monetary Constitution class, kicked off the discussion with a broad introduction and survey of stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies whose values are pegged to some external reference point. The most common of these external reference points are other fiat currencies – currencies backed by the government that issued them rather than a physical commodity like gold or silver[1]—but stablecoins may also be pegged to commodities, and others maintain their value through algorithmic formulae.

Pictured: Flavia Naves, Meagan Griffin ’13, Lisa Schroer, & Professor Mahoney 
Photo Credit: UVA Law 

According to Professor Mahoney, what sets stablecoins apart from other cryptocurrencies is their greater potential to serve as a medium of exchange. As the name suggests, many stablecoins are reliably pegged to their external reference points and effectively eliminate the wild price fluctuations that have so far been endemic to cryptocurrencies more broadly. Price stability is achieved by maintaining sufficient reserve assets backing the stablecoins, which are often overcollateralized to protect against fluctuations in the prices of the underlying reserve assets. As price-stable mediums of exchange, stablecoins can circumvent the “iron grip” of sovereigns by providing an alternative financial infrastructure beyond national financial regulators and private financial intermediaries.

On the other hand, stablecoins do not come without skeptics. Mahoney cited academics and regulators alike who have expressed concern over the adoption of this innovative yet still nascent technology. One common criticism is that stablecoins are recreating the Civil War-era phenomenon of widespread circulation of private bank notes. In this modern context, however, the “banks” issuing the stablecoins are so far unregulated and prone to destabilizing bank runs that could provoke government intervention. Federal regulators like Gary Gensler, Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, share similar sentiments and have so far taken aggressive stances against the industry.

The remaining practitioners proceeded by reflecting on their own roles amidst the financial innovation and accompanying regulatory uncertainty surrounding stablecoins.

Lisa Schroeer, Senior Director & Analytical Manager, Cross Analytic Practice Expertise Team at S&P Global Ratings, began by discussing these trends from a private ratings perspective. Lisa, a self-proclaimed “unlikely DeFi’er” who started her career at the Federal Reserve before transitioning to her current employer, says, as she sees it, the primary goal of rating agencies is providing transparency and minimizing asymmetric information for financial assets. With respect to stablecoins, she has been assessing the ability of stablecoins to maintain their pegs by examining the assets backing them. Quality of reserve assets, asset liquidity, and overcollateralization are key features she looks at in determining whether stablecoins can reliably keep their pegs. This analysis is difficult when stablecoin issuers keep relatively less transparent records,[2] or when stablecoins are backed by assets of less stable value, like other cryptocurrencies.

Flavia Naves, Commissioner of the Wyoming Stable Coin Commission and Of Counsel at Hathaway & Kunz, LLP, next spoke about stablecoins from the state regulatory perspective. Naves noted that stablecoins are still “wizardry” to regulators, who know very little about the technology and are equipped with an outdated toolset of old laws to regulate the industry. Throughout the history of banking, regulators have constructed banking guardrails and internet guardrails as more transactions and payments began to occur online, but she says that the industry still lacks appropriate “blockchain guardrails” to deal with the newest financial innovations in crypto and stablecoins. Although the correct regulatory response is still debated, she notes that states have been more active in regulating the industry to date than the federal government. Her own Wyoming Stable Coin Commission is a product of recent state legislation establishing the Commission and empowering it to create what would be the United States’ first government-issued stablecoin backed by US dollar reserves.[3]

Megan Griffin ’13, Of Counsel in the Global Fintech & Payments Group at Paul Hastings LLP, further elaborated on state stablecoin regulatory schemes that she has encountered in her practice. She noted that states are the primary regulators for non-banking, non-depository institutions, the category that stablecoin issuers fall into. That regulatory structure complicates the stablecoin industry because the “interlocking web of state banking departments” lacks uniformity in their approach to cryptocurrencies broadly, and stablecoins in particular.

For instance, most regulations of cryptocurrency at the state level derive from money transmitter statutes, which have traditionally applied to the issuance of payment instruments, instruments of prepaid value, and remits between two parties, but that are now being used to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges, even when they do not even touch fiat money. Some states have labeled stablecoins as cryptocurrencies, which under their respective state statutes excuses them from regulations governing underlying asset reserves (implicitly acknowledging that cryptocurrencies somehow hold intrinsic value). Other states label stablecoins as cryptocurrencies, but under their respective statutes they do regulate the underlying reserves. Still other states recognize stablecoins as a store of value, a category which also subjects them to regulations of the underlying reserves. The lack of uniformity makes compliance with state regulations difficult for stablecoin issuers, who often must engage counsel at earlier stages than other technology startups.


---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu 

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp.

[2] Like Tether, one of the most widely used stablecoins.

[3] Castelluccio et al., Wyoming Adopts Stable Token Legislation and Lays the Foundation for a Government-Issued Stable Coin, Mayer Brown (May 5, 2023) https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2023/05/wyoming-adopts-stable-token-legislation-and-lays-the-foundation-for-a-government-issued-stablecoin.

Strong Showing from UVA Law in 41st Softball Invitational

Garrett Coleman '25 
Executive Editor 


The 41st Annual North Grounds Softball League Invitational began last Friday evening, with the first pitches delivered by  guests of honor Dean Risa Goluboff and the family of Tessa Wiseman ’24. Teams from Georgetown Law and Florida State Law won the Co-Rec Championship and the Open Championship, respectively.

Pictured: UVA Law's CoRec Blue 
Photo Credit: Katie Barbella '25 

The weekend was not only about softball, but also incorporated a strong charitable component. On this point, Tournament Director Sally Levin ’24 said, “Besides bringing law students from across the country together for a fun weekend of softball and socializing, the great purpose of the Invitational is to raise money for our charitable partner, ReadyKids. ReadyKids is a local non-profit that provides counseling, family support, and early learning opportunities to children in Charlottesville. Our team visited ReadyKids in the fall, and it was clear how many important services they provide in their nurturing spaces. Our partnership with ReadyKids goes back many years, when Professor Schragger served as the president of the board, and is now stronger than ever. Presenting our donation check to ReadyKids is one of the highlights of the weekend.” This year’s donation came out to $40,000.

When the playoffs came around, this reporter was thrilled to follow the elite CoRec Blue team from UVA Law. Before the first game Sunday morning against the University of Connecticut Huskies, I found myself an excellent perch from which to listen to the players warm up. One Husky said of CoRec Blue, “This is their JV team . . . we have to win.” Unfortunately, the Huskies’ finest came up short, 15 to 7. The highlight of the game was an early grand slam from Sam Meyer ’24. The team’s other Sam, Quinan ’25, also had an excellent throw from deep left field to get out the Husky who was running home. This reporter thinks that play made up for his earlier at-bats.

Next team up to the slaughterhouse was Yale. During the game, one of my anonymous sources overheard this from a Yalie outfielder: “Dude, they’re trying too hard. It’s intramural softball, and they’ve got ten dudes who can hit .500.” While we were not sure what metric this student was using, it is fair to say that the Blues had over ten players who had a home run percentage of over .500. The Columbia students on the bench voiced similar concerns, accusing many UVA players of using performance enhancing drugs. Perhaps the Blues were trying too hard, as the final score came out to 24 to 1.

In the quarterfinals, the Blues faced off against Charleston Law, who put up the best fight so far. Daniel Dunn ’25 was a brick wall at third base, catching several low line drives. Andrew Becker ’24 continued his fantastic day with a grand slam, sailing far beyond the center fence. Quinan and Becker continued to secure the left and left-center outfield. And Midge Zuk ’24 dominated on the diamond with several line drives and a big catch in deep right field. I was able to see this one up close and personal as I picked up Becker’s home run ball, which the field monitor refused to authenticate.

Tragedy struck when the Blues met the Georgetown Aiders and Abattors, who had previously defeated UVA’s other team, CoRec Gold. The GULCers kept a one run lead through three innings, with both teams fielding beautifully. But the Blues answered in innings four and five, scoring seven runs. With massive homers from Dunn and Cooper Lewis ’24, steady line drives from Sadie Goering ’24, and effortless fielding from shortstop Matan Siskind ’25, the Blues looked unstoppable. Unfortunately, an eight-run rally in innings six and seven secured the win for Georgetown. Their steady line drives into the outfield kept runners moving consistently. While disappointed, the players of CoRec Blue and their many fans behind home plate kept their chins up and left the diamond with collegiality intact.

From sources who wished to remain anonymous, this reporter did learn of some hiccups in the event. There were multiple hospitalizations from injuries–nothing too serious, thankfully, but to be expected when law schools continue to spurn KJDs. A non-UVA player was ejected for yelling at an umpire. And a certain D.C. school even had an illegal bat confiscated from them. Our noble lawyers would do well to remember that there will be sharp practices once we leave these honor-bound Grounds.[1]

While the bleachers were replete with chirping, some of it migrated online. The Harvard Law School softball page on Instagram posted this message after their elimination: “And, thank god we’re not Yale, who lost 46-0 today.” After seeing Yale in the playoff round against the Blues, this reporter is confused as to where the Harvard students got that information and would be happy to consult on any future libel actions. The HLS Softball account also posted about their new accolade: Ivy League Champion at the UVA Law Softball Invitational. While this is also disputed, I would like to invent an even newer accolade in light of the most recent rankings: UVA Law wins the T4 Championship.

Congrats to the winning teams and thank you to all the event’s organizers for a well-run and enjoyable weekend in Charlottesville. Field Monitors were constantly running between games and putting in the necessary behind-the-scenes work, thanks to the guidance of our other Tournament Director, Grace Stevens ’24. It was an excellent showcase of our wonderful town, talented school body, and uniquely collegial spirit.


---
tq77zz@virginia.edu 

[1] This was before the final rounds, and I am unfortunately quite confident that the Aiders and Abettors corrected the honest mistake immediately.

Professor Cahn's New Book Tackles Growing Wage Gap

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 


In the United States today, more women hold bachelor's degrees than men, and that gap continues to widen.[1] Why, then, is the wage gap increasing for women with college degrees? In a new book, Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy, Professors Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, and Nancy Levit claim to have found the culprit: the winner-takes-all economy.

Last Tuesday, Professors Cahn and Carbone introduced their book to a crowd of students. As they explain, the “winner-takes-all” (WTA) economy allows corporate leadership to consolidate resources for their own benefit, often through illegal or unethical means. For everybody else, high-stakes bonuses are doled out based on short-term metrics that are “impossible to meet without cheating,” Professor Carbone explained.

This system, the professors argue, has allowed toxic leaders to thrive at the expense of workers’ health and quality of life. Such businesses, sometimes described as having “masculinity contest cultures,” are characterized by low trust, high stress, and zero-sum competition. “When you create that kind of environment, you drive women out,” said Carbone. “These high-stakes bonus environments are counterproductive [and] are associated with greater fraud, distrust, higher turnover, lower morale, and lesser productivity.”

The professors recalled an interview with a woman who had been fired from her job as an office manager at a dentist’s office at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The unnamed interviewee, whose teenage son was taking care of her newborn child, had to stay home when her son caught COVID-19.

“We went in thinking—oh, a dentist. Small office, the dentist needs his manager, can’t do without her—he was in a rock in a hard place. We found out: no. Private equity in New York made the decision to fire her,” said Professor Carbone. This story, Carbone explained, illustrates the spread of the WTA model. “It’s not about the dentist. It’s not about the needs of the dental office. It’s about their focus on quarterly earnings and the need to show a constant earning sheet . . . It’s violating arguably new regulations passed to protect workers during Covid, and they don’t care.”

Not only is the growing gender gap a potential problem for the legal equality of women, but also, as Professor Cahn explained, these same trends can be observed in the legal profession. “Although more than half of all law school grads are women, the number of women in senior leadership roles at U.S. law firms is far less than half. 22 percent of equity partners were female in 2020, 15 percent in 2012,” said Professor Cahn. And the percentage of women among the highest-paid attorneys in law firms has decreased from 8 percent in 2005 to just 2 percent in 2020.

Professor Carbone is nonetheless optimistic that the disadvantages of these systems are leading investors to switch to more open business models. “In corporate America, there’s actually greater recognition of the business case for diversity . . . . While diversity doesn’t guarantee good practices, the lack of diversity is almost always associated with bad practices.” This change in thinking has motivated changes in business practices, like the NASDAQ’s new disclosure requirement for diversity in corporate boards, added in 2020. “It’s not about being woke, and it’s not about DEI,” said Professor Carbone. “It’s about a tell.”

Professor Cahn similarly expressed optimism about the possibility of change. “There are already changes happening in corporate America . . . . Your generation is already emphasizing the importance of work-life-family balance.” Professor Cahn suggested that an increase in men taking family leave may also help, as maternity leave is a major contributor to the wage gap.

Stressing the availability of viable alternatives, the professors also noted that the mid-century predecessor to the modern winner-takes-all paradigm was characterized by values now seen as feminine. The so-called “Company Man,” emblematic of the era, had a collectivist approach to work. Whereas then, employees bragged “My company is better than yours,” today, instead we brag “My bonus is bigger than yours,” explained Professor Cahn. “There was a feeling of community . . . . The values associated with community and cooperation, today seen as feminine values, in earlier times were seen as male values.”

The trio of professors began working on the book in 2016 when they still believed then-candidate Hillary Clinton might soon be president. “One of the nice things about the eight-year process was that after we started, that’s when #MeToo happened. And so, there were some changes. There was more visibility to some of this that also occurred after we started,” said Professor Cahn. But one thing that didn’t change in those eight years: the fact that women at the top are falling behind.

 

Professor Cahn is the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Professor Carbone is the Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy will be available for purchase beginning in May.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

[1] Kim Parker, What’s behind the growing gap between men and women in college completion?, Pew Research Center (Nov. 8, 2021).