Mindy St. Claire v. SBA
323 U.Va 126 (2019)
Luk, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Shmazzle, C.J., Ranzini, and Schmid, JJ. join.
Justice Luk delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Mindy St. Claire filed suit in the lower court to enjoin SBA from hosting Bar Review on Friday nights and to return the event to Thursday nights as was the custom two semesters ago in Fall of 2018. Petitioner Claire asserts that her “weekend starts on a Wednesday” and she “shouldn’t have to wait until Friday to get lit.” Furthermore, Petitioner Claire points out that “Darden’s party nights are on Thursdays and we should totally be on that wavelength to network and stuff.”
The trial court disagreed and we affirm. Bar Review remains a Friday event.
Under the Petty Constitution, Student Bar Association may delegate executive powers to its subcommittees. And the Programming Committee, pursuant to 21 Code of Petty Regulations § 420(a)(1), was created by SBA to “vouchsafe the mental well-being of law students through programming or whatever,” and, under such directive, the committee has historically held broad agency powers especially when planning events featuring drinks of the “fun” variety. See, Participants with Hangovers v. “The Punch” 430 U.Va 707 (2012) (“The Programming Committee has a very specific role to fill. We have plenty of organizations dedicated to ‘well-being’ and ‘getting jobs.’ We need something dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of drink specials.”). As such, the standard of review upon appeal is not only arbitrary and capricious but, pursuant to our decision in the Punch case, plaintiffs must also prove that the committee decision was “uncool.”
The Court recognizes that our standard of “uncool” has not been further expanded since the seminal Punch case and we take this opportunity now to clear up the confusion that has ensued in our lower courts. “Uncool,” according to Google’s browser dictionary, denotes that which is “not fashionable or impressive.” This definition does not apply, however, where SBA has never held itself out to be either “fashionable or impressive.” The “uncool” standard is better articulated as “not cool,” whereby “not cool” should be interpreted according to its common usage among students. (“You were assigned a paper over Fall Break? Not cool.”) We amend our petty common law now to reflect this meaningful change and we trust that this clearer standard will confuse no one.
With that in mind, the Court considers whether the Programming Committee’s decision to hold Bar Reviews on Friday as opposed to Thursday meets the standard of arbitrary, capricious, and uncool sufficient for the Court to intervene. The SBA’s response brief on behalf of the Programming Committee defends the decision to move the event to Friday evenings as “a valid exercise of committee power, backed by some research, which is better than no research.” The record shows that the Programming Committee did indeed solicit feedback from the student body. Although Petitioner Claire argues that Snapchat is neither a legitimate nor rigorous polling mechanism, the legitimacy of a committee’s research method is not a question we consider today.
SBA’s response brief concludes with a gif of former president Barrack Obama’s face with a pair of technicolored shades sliding repeatedly over his eyes. The Court admires this brief and baller response, which reminds the Court of that most important offshoot to the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1: "We do what we want." (See, e.g., GOOGLLE v. Dugas, 9 U.Va 1 (2017) ("Certainly, the defendants cannot mean we do not have the power to create such rules. As Petty Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1 points out, 'We do what we want.' Implicit in this statement is the power to do whatever we want.") (opinion of HADEN, C.J.). The important offshoot to the rule, “We do what we want,” is of course: “Deal with it.”
In support of SBA’s position, Gunners for 1Ls has filed an amicus brief. The group astutely whines that “1Ls have classes on Friday” and that it would be the height of “uncool” to chill the 1L right to party by returning Bar Review to a “quote-unquote school-night.” The Court abhors the use of scare quotes and would ordinarily write only to censure Gunners for 1Ls for using them. However, despite the Court’s long settled stance that 1L concerns are “mere ephemera,” “shorter lived than a mayfly,” and “generally unimportant,” the Court recognizes that in this particular instance, involving mental well-being and budding alcoholism, 1Ls do have a compelling interest in fostering their own coping mechanisms early on in their careers 1Ls v. Those Who Don’t Care, 14 U.Va. 159 (1986) (“We all know what the legal profession entails. We gotta do our part to get those 1Ls prepped for the hours involved in their future careers and how they deal with the sadness.”).
In light of the Programming Committee’s historically broad agency power and the legitimate health interests the committee promotes by having the event on Friday, coupled with our distaste for meddling in SBA affairs, we hold that the trial court correctly found that the committee exercised its discretion within the lawful bounds of 21 C.P.R. § 420. As such, we affirm.
Elicegui, J., dissenting.
While my honorable colleague Justice Luk does an admirable job at an attempt to do justice, she fails to correctly apply the “uncool” standard articulated in her opinion. You know what’s not cool? Having Bar Review take up a typical night of the weekend, instead of having Bar Review be an extra night to the weekend. That would definitely be cool and further the Programming Committee’s mission—to help students chillax. See Punch, 430 U.Va at 707. Programming Committee already furthers their mission on every other Thursday with weekly socials, but sometimes they run out of chicken nuggets. The way I see it, they have two choices. Either buy enough chicken nuggies and have socials every Thursday or make every Thursday chill by moving Bar Review. I would so order if I could. *le sigh*
——
cl3eh@virginia.edu
tke3ge@virginia.edu