2Ls v. 1Ls
74 U.Va 2 (2021)
J. Peterson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Today, the court is faced with a question of both fairness and justice. Specifically, the court is asked to assess whether a class of individuals, the 2Ls, are owed anything by another class, the current 1Ls, as penance for the joyous orientation activities that were torn away from the class of 2023 by the cold and ruthless hands of a global pandemic.
It is abundantly clear to the Court that the current 1Ls, a hearty and youthful bunch, are not at fault in this matter. They had no hand in the pandemic; nor are any current members of the class a part of the Law School’s faculty.[1] However, this does not mean that nothing is owed to the victims of these tragic circumstances, who only ask to be made whole. It is a simple equitable request these 2Ls bring: respect, adoration, and recognition. And while the Court is prepared to grant that request today, it seems appropriate to make additions.
The 2Ls cite history itself as their argument. They received no luncheons. They received no guided tours. They received only bleary eyes and heavy hearts at the hands of hours of Zoom-conducted info sessions and speakers. Hell, to be honest, the 2Ls don’t even remember orientation: most spent the day folding laundry or sleeping.[2] Yet now they must watch, their FOMO rising, as their less-experienced compatriots receive the one thing that truly pulled us all to this school: free stuff. While they acknowledge that the 1Ls are not responsible for this injustice, they allege that this does nothing to remedy the pain they feel.
The 1Ls, buoyed by a compelling amicus brief from the 3Ls, claim they had no part in this. They claim that all of us, students and faculty alike, have suffered, and continue to suffer, since March of 2020. And while they are not wrong, this argument misses the mark. It does so for one very simple reason; I am a member of the 2L class, and I want mine. And we 2Ls are nothing if not vengeful and drama-filled future mentors.
The 3Ls argument has some merit however, if only because I know them and have an interest in being invited to their homes.[3] They point to their own situation as abundantly worse than either class, having gotten a taste of the heavenly setting that UVA Law truly is, only to experience a fall from grace proportional to Adam and Eve being torn from the Garden of Eden. They claim that ignorance is bliss, and there is no class more ignorant than the 2Ls, and yes, they are right. However, again, this argument ultimately does not serve them. I too am an ignorant 2L, and I too refuse to sympathize, let alone empathize, with those above and below me. Unfortunately for the lot of you, you’ve encountered the wrong judge.
As such, it is an easy ruling for the Court today. The 2Ls prevail; history is apparent.[4] And history demands compensation. The faculty, protected by sovereign immunity, is unreachable as a party, despite being considerably more solvent than most others here. The 3Ls are scary[5] and I want invites. The 1Ls, however, have yet to build any clout. And while I love them, like a 23-year-old father loves his much older and more experienced daughters and sons, sometimes fathers must come down on their children with the swift and righteous hand of the law.
The Court unequivocally orders that the 1L class appreciate what they have been given this year. The gift is invaluable: the opportunity to have three beautiful and (hopefully) untainted years of Law School that will be some of the best years of their lives. As such, the 1Ls must play softball. They must not sit in the gunner pit. They must drink and be merry. And most of all, they must be chill. This, truly, is what the 2L class requests: the chance to be the 2Ls we all want to be for the bright new faces at our school. Any test brings the same conclusion, be it balancing or bright line: the 2Ls ask for little and hope for much, and if all goes well, all will be well.
And, finally, the Court recommends that all understand that the situation the 3Ls and 2Ls were forced to face has not yet concluded. Have fun but be safe. If you’re feeling sick, don’t mess around. Make use of testing. The last thing any of us want is to return to last year.
Tonseth, C.J., vehemently dissents.
“I do not join the Court’s opinion because I am not sure what it means.”[6] In assigning Justice Peterson to write this opinion, I hoped he would properly administer justice in accordance with the Court of Petty Appeal’s Constitution. Mirroring the all too familiar feeling of looking at my credit card statement after a good Bar Review, I have been bamboozled and will not stand for this.
Before I begin my diatribe, Justice Peterson deserves some credit. Although he did not outright say it, the implication that 1Ls always lose continues to be the bedrock of this esteemed Court.[7] Where the Majority errs is both in relying on substantive due process to grant 2L rights which they do not inherently possess, all the while undermining the amicus brief and respect that 3Ls deserve. This travesty of justice and “bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery”[8] must not extend beyond this opinion.
From my perch in my ivory tower, I sleep easy at night knowing that I administer justice in the only proper way, strict textualism.[9] The majority, through an analysis that rivals the confusion and complication of a Justice Breyer opinion, attempts to both cede rights to 1Ls and 2Ls without pointing to their origin. The majority opinion should’ve been issued per curiam, as “emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending school.”[10] Thus, neither party should win and the case should’ve been dismissed for a lack of standing. However, my colleagues in the majority countered with the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, “we do what we want,”[11] and thus I must further denigrate their actual argument.
It seems as though my reign of terror from atop my ivory tower has failed in inspiring my colleagues to reach the correct conclusion in this case. Justice Peterson, in attempting to give his own classmates rights which they do not deserve and benefits they do not need, fails to forget how easy and relaxed his own 1L year was. The class of 2023 “... already got an easier journal tryout, the ability to attend class from the comfort of their bedrooms, and to avoid all of the embarrassing stories that would result from one bad night at Bar Review.”[12] I cannot see any reason why additional rights or privileges should be laid at the class of 2023’s feet, especially in violation of stare decisis.
Justice Peterson tried to assuage his utter grafting of our Constitution by attempting to befriend the 3Ls with offers of friendship and party favors. This is laughable. I’m not one to spill the tea, but the recent social gathering hosted by 2Ls, which was an attempt to have 2Ls and 3Ls make up for lost time in meeting each other, was only advertised to a tiny cohort of 3Ls. Justice Peterson may disclaim responsibility for this oversight, but actions speak louder than words.
Due to the fact that I pushed off writing my dissent until the moment it was due, in true 3LOL fashion, I will cede the floor to the principal from Billy Madison in describing my thoughts on the majority's opinion... “(Justice Peterson), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this (school) is now dumber for having (read this opinion). I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
pjt4hm@virginia.edu
[1] If any of you are and had a hand in this, best to keep that quiet. You will find you have many enemies at the law school quite quickly.
[2] I sincerely do not remember orientation.
[3] And firms.
[4] Let’s not get into a philosophical debate about this one.
[5] They aren’t, and I love them. You decide whether I’m brown-nosing for invites or being sincere for yourself.
[6] Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (Powell, J. concurring).
[7] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019).
[8] King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 506 (2015) (Scalia, J. dissenting).
[9] Students v. Labor, Generally, 73 U.Va 4 (2020) (Tonseth, J., dissenting); see also John Does v. Open Bathroom Doors 73 U.Va 2 (2020) (Tonseth, J. dissenting).
[10] See., 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else at 24 (2019).
[11] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va 96 (2019).
[12] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va 16 (2021)