Hangry Students v. UVA Law Hedgefund Managers
73 U.Va 13 (2020)
Justice CHENELLE delivered the majority opinion for the Court of Petty Appeals, 4th District
Amidst the present tribulations and tumult, there have been so many grievous losses and misfortunes that a profoundly problematic plight has been completely ignored—the damage to law students’ budgets wrought by a lack of free food available at the Law School. Plaintiff brought this matter, on behalf of all other students at the University of Virginia School of Law, to the attention of the court through his suit. That suit alleged, amongst other outrages visited upon the student body by the great plague, that students’ food expenditures had been forced sky-high by the lack of opportunities for free feasting. Plaintiff seeks either an injunction forcing the return of this practice or monetary damages in accord with the pecuniary problems produced hereby. Taking a view to historical precedents, as well as the rights and obligations outlined in the UVA Law Student Bill of Rights,[1] the Court grants Plaintiff’s demand, and orders timely performance or payment from the Law School in accordance with the stipulations of the North Grounds Rules of Civil Procedure.[2]
---
Since the great plague’s onset, a host of deprivations have been visited upon both the American people and the world. Over two million are dead, millions more have been left with long-term sequelae from the disease, countless jobs have been lost and businesses shuttered, and industries across the planet have suffered a blow from which they are still reeling and may never rebound. However, these issues are sadly beyond the scope of our Court’s jurisdiction, and thus we must turn our efforts instead to a dire situation closer to home—the plight of hundreds of hungry law students. They have been forced to passively Zoom into their courses from the comforts of their own homes. They have had to forsake opportunities to intern, extern, and study in exotic locales across the country and the world. And most seriously of all, the rates at which most students here pay for their education have been completely unaffected by the profound changes in their educational atmosphere. Setting aside, for now at least, what this situation should perhaps imply regarding the nature[3] of higher education and credentialism in this country, this phenomenon means students must be compensated in other ways.
We, therefore, must look for another aspect of the law school experience that students have continued to pay for but are no longer receiving. I am informed of a long tradition holding that in times of misty antiquity, such as February 2020, free food would be provided nearly as a matter of course on each day of the week, in such quantity and quality that an impoverished young scholar could go weeks without spending a dollar on their own food.[4] However, with the onset of the great plague, this delightful benefit was withdrawn from the Law School, with nary a fruit basket nor buffet table in sight. Given the lack of compensation to students for all of the other in-person opportunities they have missed, it seems clear that this would be a relatively cheap way for the School to ingratiate itself with the student body. Therefore, in light of the general principles of fairness outlined in several administrative documents too boring to expound upon here and a generous reading of the unconscionability doctrine, the Law School should either make free food available to students again, or, should this prove impossible given the conditions of aforementioned plague, provide monetary damages in the form of an inflation adjusted stipend dispensed to all class members.
I have reached this ruling on a basis not only grounded in Thomistic natural law, the founding documents of these Grounds, and the procedural rules that govern this institution, but also with a keen eye towards precedential considerations. In a 1919 case under very similar circumstances,[5] the Law School was enjoined against discontinuing dining services amidst another pandemic. Similarly, in 1974, amidst the tumultuous shift to the North Grounds, a temporary disruption in food services was found to require compensatory damages to the affected students, who had taken to bowhunting for deer along the Rivanna Trail to supplement their diets, as they were unable to feed themselves on the meager rations they could afford when unsupplemented by additional food from the Law School.[6] The relief requested by the class is further supported by an appeal to reliance, as students have relied on the school for free food for so long that students’ future right to free food is a property interest. Indeed, to deprive class members of their free food is an unfair taking, prohibited by the Bill of Rights.[7] It is thus clear to this Court that, given both the statutory and doctrinal background along with the overwhelming weight of the precedential cases, this class should be certified and the relief for which it prays granted.
----
Per order of the Court of Petty Appeals, applying the Make Grub Available Doctrine,[8] Defendant is hereby enjoined to either provide equal opportunities for gratuitous grub as existed prior to the great plague or recompense the class with a stipend commensurate to the value of the grub they would have otherwise received. Should the Defendant fail to comply with this injunction, class members will be given use of the Lawn to plant and grow their own food. The list of crops which may be grown on the Lawn pursuant to this order include legumes, plantains, and leeks. While this list is not necessarily exclusive, plaintiffs must return before this Court and request permission before planting any varieties not specifically enumerated above.
It is so ordered.
---
dnc9hu@virginia.edu
[1] Section XXXLVI, Sub-Section CDX, Article LXI, Codicil IX.
[2] Rule 15, 610 (a)(63)(B)(ꝝ).
[3] See Actually, Universities Are Really Just Giant Hedge Funds, Princeton Law Review, 2017 Vol. 39.
[4] In addition to extensive archival research, I reached this conclusion through conversations with those ancient-of-days, 2L’s and 3L’s, who, through their wrinkled lips, muttered reminiscences of Chick-Fil-A wafting through the halls.
[5] See Harry Hungry v. Dean Lile, 16 Pav. 36 (1919).
[6] Baccalieri v. Paulsen, 55 Rot.Unda 3 (1974).
[7] Section VIII, Sub-Section II, Article IX, Codicil I.
[8] See Gross Farm Share Beets v. Students Looking for Free Food, 132 Sco.Co. 15 (2020) for an erroneous application of this doctrine.