Froz T. Snowman v. Student Administration
73 U.Va 15 (2021)
Pickett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Luk, C.J., Deskins, Calamaro, Luévano, Jones, JJ. Join.
I. Introduction
Growing up in the Midwest, I had the privilege of experiencing some of the best days known to humankind: Snow Days. When the news would arrive that we had the day off from school, I would rush to get dressed in my warmest clothes before venturing outside to frolic with my neighbors. There would be sledding and snowball fights, followed by hot chocolate by warm fires. But, snow days in 2020/2021 are different. As the world has been forced online, it seems that there is never an excuse not to be working. And as schools embrace online learning, the question becomes: Why give people a snow day when we can all just attend class from the comfort of our own homes? That question is what brings us here today.
II. Facts
On Sunday, January 30, 2021, snow fell upon Charlottesville, Virginia. In the lead up to that day, student Froz T. Snowman received an email that described the Law School’s inclement weather protocol. It indicated that classes could be canceled in the event of a snow day, or that they could all be moved online. Feeling as nostalgic for snow days of old as Conservatives are for Antonin Scalia dissents, Snowman sued UVA Law, hoping to enjoin them from moving classes online instead of giving students the snow day they deserve.
III. The Peter Pan Covenant
The Peter Pan Covenant, widely known as You’re Never Too Old to Have Fun, provides that a student at rest stays at rest unless acted on by an outside force. When it snows, students default to rest. They deserve to curl up inside with a good book or movie and hot cocoa, or to go outside and have fun. And so, a snow day makes perfect sense—let students stay at rest before pushing them back into the exhausting world of law school.
Respondents today (UVA Law) seek to overturn the Peter Pan Covenant, claiming that there is no right to rest or to have fun. They’ve already taken Spring Break and spread it out over the whole semester, but they aren’t done yet. They want all fun gone.
But the Peter Pan Covenant is as old as the Cold Call. For as long as there has been misery, there has been fun, and the Peter Pan Covenant has always been this Court’s way of enforcing ~some~ kind of work life balance. And so today we reiterate the legality and importance of the doctrine. If UVA Law finds the weather bad enough to cancel in-person classes, it must cancel classes of all kinds. Let the kids play.[1]
IV. Standing
Unfortunately for Snowman, however, I am taking Federal Courts this semester. So, I have standing on my mind. And in this case, I can’t find standing for Snowman. There are two major issues with Snowman’s case. First, UVA Law didn’t put all hybrid classes online on Monday. It only put hybrid classes online that started before 10:00 a.m. And people who take in-person classes before 10:00 a.m. don’t, to be frank, deserve standing in any case. This Justice is not an early riser and I object to any show of favor toward early risers. Plus, as the concurrence points out, it mostly affected 1Ls and 1Ls always losing is a staple underpinning of the Court of Petty Appeals. If we let 1Ls win, then we are opening the door to a slippery slope of giving 1Ls rights.
The second issue is that this case is based on a hypothetical. I don’t know a lot about standing, but I do know that courts generally shouldn’t decide hypothetical cases on hypothetical issues. Something about separation of powers and Article III. If I could decide hypothetical cases, though, I would absolutely #FreeBritney. So, until UVA Law actually moves all classes online because of the snow, I simply can’t make a ruling.
V. Conclusion
While I have sadly ruled against Snowman in this case, I would like to make my position perfectly clear. IF UVA Law cancels all in-person classes, but does not give us a snow day, then a law student would be able to sue and they would win in this case. But sadly, that hasn’t happened yet. And if it does, I look forward to seeing you all out in front of the Law School for a socially distant snowball fight.
J., Tonseth concurs in part, dissents in part.
“I do not join the Court’s opinion because I am not sure what it means.”[2] These hallowed words by my former colleague on the Supreme Court ring equally as true in this case. From my humble vantage point atop my ivory tower, I cannot stand for this attempted besmirchment of justice. Jurisprudentially, there are almost as many holes in Justice Pickett’s opinion as there are emails from Diddy Morris in my junkmail folder.[3] Justice Pickett “tells us, by a process of retrospective crystal-ball gazing posing as legal analysis,”[4] that Froz T. Snowman lacks standing. Standing shcmanding. However, Froz’s farcical pseudo-legal analysis is just plain bad. Therefore, I half-heartedly concur.
Since over one-third of every UVA Law’s graduating class works in New York City, how about we apply some New-York-specific law and see how the Petitioners like those apples?[5] Section 4528 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules states that “any record of the observations of the weather, taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated.” In the case at hand, however, petitioners fail to rely on the required weather data from a certified bureau to establish the prima facie case.[6] If Froz is attempting to use the weather data from the events of the snow day, which occurred on Sunday, and apply it to the following day of class, then the petitioners’ desired outcome would be a classic case of judicial overreach. Further, after a cursory look at LawWeb, there are only two Monday morning classes that were detrimentally affected prior to the School opening up at 10:00.[7] Because “1Ls always lose” is a founding doctrine of the Court of Petty Appeals, I find no merit in these petitioners being able to argue their case successfully.
As a sheer matter of principle, and dare I say laziness, Justice Pickett would attempt to implement a snow-day solely to avoid attending class, even though he only Zooms from home.[8] This inclination to cancel classes goes against prior precedent advocating for more snacks from the school, additional access to Seminar rooms, and decreased tuition due to the transition from in-person classes to Zoom. Rivaling Veruca Salt in sheer audacity, the majority demands all of these treats from the Law School, for a reduced price, while also apparently attending school even less than a normal second-semester 3L. If this makes sense to any lawyer beyond Rudy Giuliani, God help us and this profession. Time for Froz T. Snowman and his problems to melt away.
---
shp8dz@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1]The concurrence claims that I am attempting to attend school even less than a normal second semester 3L. He is correct.
[2] Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880 (1981) (J. Powell, concurring).
[3] Yes, I still filled these out, but Google auto-sorted them anyways.
[4] Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (J. Scalia, dissenting).
[5] While I personally love big apples, I will only eat granny smith apples. Sue me.
[6] Tbh I have no idea what “prima facie case” even means, still. Let’s hope I’m never a litigator.
[7] RIP to the 1Ls who have ConLaw at 8 a.m. on a Monday. Woof.
[8] Two points should be made here: a) Justice Pickett and I have an RBG/Scalia relationship off of the Court & 2) he’s a 3L, do you expect anything less?