In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds
75 U.Va 7 (2022)
Morse, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
I.
The case before this Court concerns one of the most critical and pervasive issues since our nation’s founding: the size and autonomy of our military. Petitioners allege that on several recent mornings, when they attempted to park in the North Grounds Park parking lot,[1] they were prevented from doing so by what they described as “hundreds, if not thousands” of individuals clad in black t-shirts reading “ARMY” who were engaged in various physical exercises. Specifically, these military exercises included running around the track at “inhuman” speeds, kettlebell workouts, and every manner of Olympic lift.[2] Petitioners argue that the presence and physically intimidating manner in which the military personnel occupied the parking lot amounts to constructive eviction of anyone wanting to park their cars without being made painfully aware that they are a skinny graduate student who struggles to carry more than two casebooks at once. Petitioners note that they were so intimidated, they awkwardly backed all the way up the hill they had just driven down and ended up not going to the gym themselves, out of lack of a parking spot they didn’t have to pay for. The petitioners filed an emergency petition with this Court to seek an action for ejectment and an injunction on all future military exercises (in every sense of the term) on Law School property.
We hold first that the parking lot and the adjoining Judge Advocate General School (henceforth, “JAG School”) are hereby annexed and incorporated as part of the Law School. We also hold that, as part of Law School grounds and as an exercise of civilian control over the military, the military personnel are enjoined from continuing their physical exercises indefinitely.
II.
The first issue we consider is our jurisdiction over this case and how it relates to ownership of the North Grounds Park. While it is unclear who “technically” owns the North Grounds Park and parking lot, we remind our readers that, per the third Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, this “Court has the power to review any and all decisions, conflicts, and disputes that arise involving, either directly, indirectly, or tangentially, the Law School or its students.” However, keeping in mind that though our jurisdiction is expansive and our powers limitless, we are nonetheless a judicial body and refuse to do more work than we have to. It falls to the Petty Executive (a.k.a. the Law School Administration) to enforce our rulings, and we recognize that if the Law School does not own the property at issue, it could present technical difficulties. As such, we will also read the petition here as one to quiet title, and accordingly, we rule that the North Grounds Park, parking lot, and (for good measure) the adjoining JAG School are henceforth owned by the Law School. This ruling is both necessary for the disposition of this case, and builds upon this Court’s precedents, which support any action which empowers the Law School.[3]
III.
Having asserted and expanded this Court’s benevolent dominion over another portion of the North Grounds, we turn now to the primary claim of this case. What do we make of these strange, early-morning parking lot exercises that the military is conducting? At a minimum, it is highly suspicious. Some might urge this Court not to engage in reckless speculation, but such judicial humility and discretion is irreconcilable with the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, “we do what we want,” and importantly, even asking us to consider being more thoughtful is “unbecoming of this Court to consider.”[4] So, let the fear mongering commence.
The first possibility of the military’s exercises is that they are plotting an overthrow of this Court. This is the most likely case, given that our own former Chief Justice, who had a notable penchant for Petty tyranny,[5] has joined our neighboring JAG School. Is it possible that Phil “Thunderdome” Tonseth has gained a position of authority within the military and now, drunk with power, seeks to overthrow this judiciary, which stands as a bulwark against all tyranny?[6] Yes. This is undoubtedly the most reasonable explanation for why, in the early morning hours on weekdays, before the sun has risen and when any honorable and innocent student is still fast asleep, packs of ARMY t-shirt-wearing individuals are training. Jealous of the immense power we wield and led by a man who likely wishes to raze this school and replace it with a softball stadium as a monument to himself, they are coming for us all.
But even if their aims are more modest and they only wish to practice healthy habits, this Court cannot let this suspicious behavior go unchecked. It is a principle fundamental to our republic that the military must be subordinate to the civilian government. The Founders expressed a deep wariness of standing armies, with George Washington himself calling them “under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and [they] are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” This Court recognizes and shares the Founders’ unease, and we believe that if we must have a military on our Grounds, let it be one made up of spindly-armed, tofu-eating fellows. They ought only to be able to exercise when the people’s duly-elected representatives, or this Court, say so.
IV.
Whether it be the result of “machinations, hollowness, treachery and ruinous disorders”[7] or good intentions that are nonetheless an impermissible show of independence by the military, this Court must intervene. We hold that the North Grounds Park, its adjoining parking lots, and the JAG School are now the property of the Law School. We also hold that, until such a time as the democratic representatives of the Law School[8] or this Court hold otherwise, the military is enjoined from conducting these early morning exercises on any of the Law School’s North Grounds property. And to those who question the wisdom of enjoining a fighting force from physical exercise or worry about the consequences of our decision’s wholesale annexation of the majority of North Grounds: “Our name is the Court of Petty Appeals, Court of Courts; Look on our Opinions, ye Mighty, and despair!”[9]
Tonseth, C.J. Emeritus, dissenting.
Blasphemous. Borderline Socialist. Bad.
Justice Morse’s legal analysis, or lack thereof, may explain all of the B’s I presume dot his transcript. It nevertheless falls upon my esteemed Esquire-self[10] to do an educate to y’all. I am gravely concerned that since I closed the door to the Thunderdome,[11] Justice Morse has distorted the Court of Petty Appeal’s Constitution into tests as incomprehensible as those stemming from a Justice Breyer opinion. If Justice Morse would have done a scintilla of research, he would know he is clearly violating established doctrine from this Court.
Exhibit 1
In my humble opinion, the Court’s greatest COVID case was NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports.[12] Here, IM-Rec was enjoined for violating NGSL’s free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Yet, Justice Morse attempts to stifle any sort of early-morning exercise, while also attempting to quarter troops in the UVA Law campus, in direct violation of the Third Amendment. “As my boi Antonin would say, paraphrasing slightly, ‘[Justice Morse’s] opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity’[13] when you look at their rules and how they were applied to [the JAG School].”[14]
If the legal argument holds no sway, let me ask you this, dear reader: Would you prefer your military to be brains over brawn, to be mightier with a quill than a barbell? Additionally, shouldn’t you be more concerned for your classmates who are attempting to get to school at 6 a.m., instead of what Army weirdos are playing with kettlebells at the same time?
For patriotism, the Bill of Rights, and my love of pumping iron, I dissent with every muscle fiber I possess.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
@ptonseth4 on Instagram
[1] This is, of course, the large parking lot adjacent to the turf soccer fields and softball fields, famous for being the location of the Law School’s annual Dandelion performance by 1Ls. It is also well-known for rarely being checked by the parking ticket commissars.
[2] Petitioners’ brief is replete with references to how “hardcore” and “scary” it was to see dozens of military personnel performing power cleans, overhead presses, and deadlifts on the parking lot asphalt. We share their concerns and express a strong preference for mild bowflex and elliptical workouts.
[3] See 2L v. COVID Protocols, 74 U.Va. 16 (2022) (Morse, J., concurring) (“I . . . encourage the Law School . . . to EMBRACE and EXPAND its power, at all costs.”) (emphasis added).
[4] Readers of the Virginia Law Weekly v. Virginia Law Weekly, 75 U.Va. 4 (2022) (Peterson, J., concurring).
[5] See generally Phil Tonseth, Welcome to the Thunderdome: Chief Justice Phil Tonseth Takes the Gavel, Va. L. Wkly. Mar. 3, 2021; see also Tonseth v. The Haters II, 74 U.Va. 24 (2022) (“As I wrote in my dissent and will repeat now, if you come at the King, you best not miss. Look who has the last laugh now!”) We do.
[6] Except for its own, of course.
[7] William Shakespeare, King Lear act 1, sc. 2.
[8] We suppose that this is the SBA, but we would like information on voter participation before lending our already-tenuous legitimacy to them.
[9] United States v. Law Weekly, 109 U.Va. 926, 928 (1948).
[10] S/O Missouri—only needed a 260 on the MBE to pass!
[11] Supra, or something.
[12] 73 U.Va. 9 (2020). A true legal genius wrote this case, don’t worry.
[13] Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014).
[14] NGSL, 73 U.Va.