UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth
74 U.Va 10 (2021)
Morse, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is with a heavy heart that we consider the case before us today. This Court is charged with upholding justice, and today we are faced with a dire threat to this mission arising from the pinnacle of our Court: the Chief Justice himself. The Plaintiffs, every single student at the University of Virginia School of Law, have brought a class-action lawsuit against Chief Justice Phil Tonseth for fraudulent misrepresentation and are seeking i) mandatory hard labor and cultural reeducation training, to be carried out in the Darden basement;[1] ii) an injunction preventing any writing by Chief Justice Tonseth until such reeducation is complete; and iii) compensatory damages in the form of a ceremonial quilt made of all of Chief Justice Tonseth’s crop-tops, short-shorts, and ¼ sleeve hoodies. The District Court of Petty Appeals, calling this “a no-brainer,” granted a directed verdict for Plaintiffs. The Circuit Court of Petty Appeals reversed, in an opinion whose footnotes appear to be a code indicating that Chief Justice Tonseth was physically hovering over the judge while repeatedly whispering “MY Thunderdome.”[2] In response to this miscarriage of justice and the Circuit Judge’s desperate plea for help, we reverse the Circuit Court’s erroneous decision and order the defendant to report to the Darden basement immediately.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Chief Justice Tonseth “made multiple, aggressively confident representations that he possessed a sufficient amount of cultural knowledge such that he was qualified to write in and run the Virginia Law Weekly.” The evidence the Plaintiffs offered to support this claim is Chief Justice Tonseth’s recent misidentification of Dennis Villeneuve’s Dune, as “just another Marvel movie.” But what say you, astute and skeptical reader – couldn’t this have been a slip of the tongue? And even if it wasn’t a mistake, is it really indicative of the Chief Justice’s hilarious, woeful, and glaringly deficient grasp of the cultural zeitgeist? First, yes.[3] Second, as Watergate showed us, small mistakes can begin investigations which lead you down a path revealing hitherto unheard-of levels of corruption and vice.
While I could spend buckets of ink detailing all the unnerving similarities between President Nixon and Chief Justice Tonseth, that’s not why we’re here today. The sad, simple fact is that if Chief Justice Tonseth had only insulted Dune, Plaintiffs wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But the Chief Justice’s long history of cultural calumny, seemingly without end, can broadly be organized into three categories of offenses. The first category consists of all the movies that the Chief Justice has identified as a “superpeople, Marvel movie,” including Star Wars, The Titanic, Call Me by Your Name, Mad Max, and The Pianist. The second category is the Chief Justice’s refusal to read any news source that is not Barstool Sports or Buzzfeed.[4] The third and final category is what you could call, boomer-lite references. This category is where I admittedly find myself somewhat sympathetic to the Chief Justice’s position, as I am myself, like the Chief Justice, nearly 30 years old and have a penchant for references to terrible 80’s action movies and 90’s MTV series.[5]
We concur with the Trial Court’s determination that the preponderance of evidence standard was met by the above evidence, and now move to explore the broader motivations and implications of this decision. Leaving aside the difficulties of being a newspaper editor when you’re the young-body-old-mind Benjamin Button, adrift in a world you no longer recognize or relate to, there is the added weight of the responsibility that the Law Weekly and this Court have in upholding the law of UVA. The law is the expression and operationalization of society’s norms. A society’s norms are grounded in its culture. If the Chief Justice willfully does not inhabit the same culture, how can he possibly rule on matters of importance to the Law School? Indeed, how has he managed to do so to this point?[6]
This brings us to the first of two conclusions: that this Court does its best to bring the Chief Justice’s reign of terror to an end and admit our own complicity. To paraphrase Succession[7] how much those of us who executed the Chief Justice’s wishes is for another day, but I think this is the day his reign ends.
The second, and more important of the two impacts of today is that this Court finally, inexorably, and triumphantly overturns its long-standing precedent handed down in the Court’s decision in 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else 939 U. Va. 111 (2019) that 1L’s lose.[8] Given that 1/3 of the plaintiffs in this case are 1Ls we cannot possibly rule in their favor without abandoning this precedent. While the need to do justice in the immediate case provides overwhelming support for this decision, the truth is that my disdain for stare decisis outside of decisions which I signed onto and my own self-interest as a 1L, is the driving force here. Let the reign of the 1Ls commence![9]
It is so ordered.
Reyna, J., concurring.
I join my colleague, Justice Morse, in full on this important cultural matter. However, I must issue this concurrence to admonish most of the UVA Law public at large in addition to Chief Justice Tonseth specifically.
Mr. Chief Justice, I’m not disappointed, I’m just mad. Where should I even begin: should it be at your comically inadequate knowledge on what even is or isn’t a superhero movie, or at your general ambivalence towards putting in the effort to watch Star Wars? I consider both infractions to be categorically determinative of perpetual guilt from henceforth.
Now I must speak to the UVA Law general student body. While it is true most of you are incredibly busy with your heavy course load and light social lives, I know for a fact that all of you binged Squid Game in one night but still have yet to see iconic, generation-defining content. While I try to do my small part of dragging as many people as I can to watch films like Dune and, Shang-Chi, and forcing people to watch Revenge of the Sith until they admit it’s the best Star Wars film, I am but one person who can only do so much. If you’re looking for an escape from Law School, and I know you are, I am officially mandating that everyone, if they want to, voluntarily go appreciate the one-of-a-kind experience of watching a great movie for the first time.
Kulkarni, J., concurring.
I don’t need to see any of the other opinions to write my own. Is the Chief Justice missing key portions of cultural knowledge? Yes. Is it incredibly biased and inappropriate that he gets to write an opinion? Absolutely. Should he be sued for other reasons as well? No question. This Court exists to hold the school accountable and if we cannot hold our own to the same standard, then we are derelict in our duties. Do better, Mr. Chief Justice, because if given the chance, Justices Birch and Wunderli will join me for the most scathing majority opinion ever.
Tonseth, C.J., dissenting.
If you come at the king, you best not miss.[10] While this first and foremost will be my catchphrase once I’m cast to be on a Real Housewives show, it equally applies today. All of the Associate Justices who swung and missed today should’ve ensured that they had proper standing before they started, as they definitely got caught slipping.
I don’t even need to bother myself with reading their “opinions.” They’ll probably attempt to dismiss my trope about standing by quoting Professor Re’s “standing shcmanding” philosophy, or arguing that as the benevolent dictator of Big Brother, I allowed this case to proceed in the first place. To that, they are correct. You don’t simply refuse to play a game against a toddler, knowing you’ll ultimately win in the end. They need to have some hope, some belief that they have a chance.[11]
Even as I’ve let this case proceed, and even though there is no standing to sue an individual, let alone me, the benevolent overlord, the reason for this suit is as preposterous as thinking student leaders can change national level policies of their parent organizations.[12] Because I don’t dedicate my time to staring at a screen and watching people in tights perform magical acts, I’m in the wrong? Color me jaded, but I’d rather focus on, idk, being outside, sipping some red wine and catching a sunset, or watching Love Island while I cuddle with cats. For this purpose, I concur with the dissent of Justices Bninski and Lake, as there’s so many other good reasons to throw shade my way. Forewarning, I have made Pit Vipers a new part of my brand, so better make sure your shade is good enough to get through.
The final attempt by the pluralities here to discredit my untarnishable name is to claim I, as Chief Justice of this esteemed Court, should recuse myself from a case about myself. That’s absolute hogwash. The first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure is “We do what we want.”[13] As I convened this Court, was democratically elected to my post, and have nobody to stop me, this need to recuse myself falls short of anything that could be deemed coherent.
Do better, plurality, you got into UVA Law for a reason. The pedantic arguments you make today are soiling that decision by the Administration.
Bninski, J., and Lake, J., dissenting.
There are so many other reasons to sue the Chief Justice.[14] Have you met him? Lack of Marvel knowledge is the least of his crimes.
J. Wunderli, dissenting.
I’m not surprised Chief Justice Tonseth doesn’t know the difference between Marvel and Pixar; he is probably paying much more attention to the lady next to him on the couch than any movie. I would’ve sued him for calling full-grown adults “kiddos,” or wearing Pit Vipers and crop-tops to softball, and for that reason I respectfully dissent. Additionally, J. Morse insinuating that 1Ls have actual rights makes the Chief Justices of old roll in their graves. Back in my day, 1Ls were not allowed to even write COPAs, let alone unilaterally grant themselves rights. You will learn one day, young padawan.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
agr5ag@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
amb6ag@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu
nw7cz@virginia.edu
[1] AKA “The North Korea of North Grounds”
[2]https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2021/3/3/welcome-to-the-thunderdome-chief-justice-phil-tonseth-takes-the-gavel
[3] And if you don’t watch it, there is pleeeennttyy of room in the basement of Darden for you too.
[4] The Chief Justice’s most recent, timely article he shared: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamiejirak1/which-og-power-ranger-matches-your-personality-3dxnr. My Power Ranger is red.
[5] TRL, Yo! MTV Raps, and Headbangers Ball. Walk a mile in my shoes before passing judgement, my youthful readers.
[6] See Chief Justice Tonseth’s dissent in Students v. Labor, Generally 73 U.Va 4 (2020); the Chief Justice’s opinions in 3LOLs v. Gunners 73 U.Va. 10, 2020 and Entitled Millennials v. Student Affairs 73 U.Va 3 (2020).
[7] Chief Justice Tonseth, Google it. (Chief Justice Tonseth, Google is like an encyclopedia, but on the computer. You’ll love it.)
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse
[9] Chief Justice here. This entire paragraph is just dicta. 1Ls will always lose. Sorry kiddos.
[10] RIP in Power.
[11] Laughing in 3LOL.
[12] This will probably be the only time I openly, however begrudgingly, defend FedSoc. However, students can only do so much.
[13] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va 96 (2019).
[14] While conceding the existence of abundant reason to sue the Chief Justice, we question whether this Court can, in fact, legitimately exercise authority over the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. This of course has nothing to do with us cherishing the protection of executive privilege.