Students with Large Water Bottles v. Thirsty Students
72 V.L.W. 11 (2019)
On appeal from the Petty Court of Appeals for the W.B. Circuit
Re, Judge, sitting by designation, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Shmazzle, C.J., and Elicegui, Luk, Schmid, and Ranzini J.J., joined.
JUDGE RE, sitting by designation, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue before the Court today plays itself out multiple times a day, at predictable intervals, the four days a week[1] during which classes are held at the Law School: thirsty students, realizing their water bottles are empty five minutes before class starts, flock to the drinking fountains and/or new motion-sensing-electric water bottle fillers, only to encounter a line that will not move fast enough before class starts to get water. The cause of the delay is students with large water bottles who are definitely going to fill them all the way up, no matter how long it takes (and despite that fact that it is unlikely that even someone who had just run a half-marathon in D.C., in July, would actually be able to drink that much water during an 80-minute class period). The question specifically before the Court today is whether the class of Thirsty Students may enjoin the class of Students with Large Water Bottles from filling them up all the way. We hold that they cannot.
I.
Earlier in the semester, various students walked into class, took their seats in W.B. classrooms, and reached for a refreshing drink of water, only to find their water supplies depleted. Each student looked at their phones to see how much time there was before class started. Alarmingly, less than five minutes remained. But because of its natural geography, W.B. is blessed with many places to get water.[2] This was not, after all, a trip all the way to the W.B. coffee shop[3] for a hot beverage. The students arrived at the line and found three students ahead, waiting to fill up personal water storage tanks which they were euphemistically calling “water bottles.”[4] Faced with the bad options of embarrassingly walking into class late or being sort of thirsty for the next hour, the thirsty students sued. They seek to enjoin students with large water bottles from filling them all the way up in the five minutes before class, claiming a substantive due process right to have water in class.
The lower court ruled in favor of the Thirsty Students and enjoined the Students with Large Water Bottles from filling the bottles all the way up within five minutes of class. This created a circuit split with the Court of Petty Appeals for the Slaughter Circuit, which found that students are free to take as much time as they want filling their water bottles. Students Running Late v. Students with Nalgene Bottles, 343 U.Va. 321 (2015) (“Honestly, just stand there pouring water on your hand for all we care.”) We take this case to resolve the circuit split.
II.
It is unclear from Students with Large Water Bottle’s brief what errors the lower court allegedly committed,[5] but because “[w]e do what we want[],” we will be reviewing this case de novo. It’s usually fun to opine on the merits of something.
Thirsty Students claim that there is a substantive due process right to having water in class. Because Students with Large Water Bottles could still fill the bottles part way, the injunction, Thirsty Students argue, will not infringe on the Students with Large Water Bottles’ rights. In response, Students with Large Water Bottles probably[6] cited a Court of Petty Appeals case from last term: Class of 2021 v. Davies, 918 U.Va. 34, 71 V.L.W. 14, 4 (2019). In Class of 2021, the Court considered whether the Administration’s decision to remove the high-quality free cookies and coffee from W.B. on Friday morning[7] without a hearing violated the due process rights of the 1L class. After much expert analysis which the author of today’s opinion skimmed, it looks like the Court held that it was not a violation, writing, “If Dean Davies decides to bring back the coffee, we will, as always, salute her benevolent judgment. But we will not order it.” Id. at 4.
This (purely discretionary) restraint by the Court is admirable, and we impulsively choose to follow it today, though the Court commends Thirsty Students for their substantive due process claim. This theory was later codified as the Court of Petty Appeals’ first Rule of Procedure, and it is certainly welcome in briefs to this Court.
It is also worth noting that based on the course descriptions on the School’s website, Land Use Law might be the most applicable to a water-rights case. But as the author of today’s opinion has not taken Land Use (and given the notice concerns that would arise from actually applying principles from a class taken by so few people), we decline to consider any of these arguments.
Thirsty Students also had a number of pages about water bottle size. A holding which simply limited water bottle size might be sensible, but that would drag us into the realm of policy-making. That sounds like a lot of work, so we decline to do so here.
Absent legislation from SBA, or a royal pronouncement from Dean Goluboff, today’s Court is not inclined to step in with equitable remedies. Though it is worth noting, it would certainly be within the Court’s authority to do so. See Petty Rule of Procedure 1: We do what we want.
* * *
Because we do not want this opinion to drag on unnecessarily with neurotic distinctions and unhelpful legal analysis (see, e.g., no U.S. Supreme Court opinion ever), we will conclude the opinion here. While SBA, Dean Goluboff, or non-legal considerations like thoughtfulness are free to step in to address the issue of water-bottle line speed, we decline to do so here.
The judgment of the Petty Court of Appeals for the W.B. Circuit is
Vacated.
___
wdr3mq@virginia.edu
[1] The panel comprising today’s court does not include any 1Ls, from whom we have heard rumors of classes meeting on Fridays. As this has not been confirmed by the members of today’s court, who would not dare to darken the doorway of the school after 5 p.m. on Thursday, we only address the water dispute occurring before classes, necessarily meaning Monday through Thursday.
[2] Maybe connected to wells (?), or the natural underground aquifer where the snakes which sometimes visit W.B. live—we are not entirely clear on how plumbing works.
[3] Which the lower courts have erroneously been referring to as “the library.”
[4] In the interest of transparency, we only had time to read Thirsty Students’ brief, but it really did sound like the water bottles were too big, and in any event we are ruling against them, so it’s probably still fair.
[5] Because, again, we only read Thirsty Students’ brief.
[6] See footnotes 4 and 5, supra.
[7] Thus removing the sole reason one might come to school on a Friday.