Loser Law Schools v. North Grounds Softball League
74 U.Va 23 (2022)
SMITH, J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.
This case arises from UVA’s dominance of the 39th Annual UVA Law Softball Invitational. UVA won both the open and co-rec tournaments, and its co-rec winning team outscored opponents by a combined score of 209 to 15. The loser law schools (“losers”) sued, and the lower court dismissed their claims.
The losers argue the North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) engaged in unfair methods of competition in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Harvard’s complaint also raises a substantive due process claim, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment “clearly” establishes a right not to suffer humiliation in sporting events. That sort of thing only works at Harvard, however, so that claim is dismissed.
***
Turning to the legitimate arguments, plaintiff loser Columbia Law School claims that UVA enjoyed an unfair advantage by hosting the tournament “somewhere with breathable air.” This claim fails. NGSL is not to blame because some plaintiffs have chosen to live in New York City.
Other losers claim that NGSL bribed the umpires it hired. Some umpires allegedly received free Libel tickets and recent copies of the Virginia Law Review. However, such valueless items were, if anything, likely to motivate the umpires to disfavor the UVA softball teams, so they do not plausibly suggest unfairness.
The losers also accuse the NGSL teams of taking steroids. But all they offer are conclusory allegations. For example, Georgetown’s complaint expresses surprise that “UVA students were cooler, more talented, and better-looking than us.” However, the insecurity of Georgetown students is not, in itself, surprising or cause for suspicion.
Finally, some loser law schools argue that NGSL is an elite “secret society” that actually exists not to play softball but to perpetuate a rule of terror in the highest echelons of society. With origins in Celtic Druidry, and tentacles in every governing institution, the NGSL is allegedly to blame for the Roman Empire’s fall, the 2016 election, The Emoji Movie, Miley Cyrus, the price of gas, and colluding to make UVA a softball superpower.[1]
We cannot lightly disregard this claim. This Court recently admitted that Libel “ha[d] a point” in arguing there was no falsity in the 2022 Libel Show—and that show repeatedly described NGSL as a “secret society.”[2]Still, this is a close case, and deciding whether to dismiss requires considering institutional factors.
***
NGSL argues that the rule, “we do what we want” controls. However, that vacuous pronouncement is mere tautological dictum. Of course, in a literal sense, we do every act because we desire it, unless physically coerced.[3] But our desires or wants are associated with reasons, and in MOST of our opinions, those reasons are thought worth explaining.
For more substantive guidance, we turn to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is widely understood to stand for the proposition that courts should make themselves look good.[4] Given this Court’s membership, it would look bad to unreservedly favor NGSL, so we must find for plaintiffs on SOME ground.[5] Perhaps more importantly, I want to send a message to whoever has been leaving dead guinea pigs on my front lawn: Stop it. I’m not intimidated. I don’t even like guinea pigs.
REVERSED
TONSETH, C.J. emeritus, dissenting.
Everything alleged by the plaintiffs, “Loser Law Schools,” is correct. UVA Co-Rec Gold did win the tournament by a combined run differential of 209-15 over seven games. UVA Men’s Gold cakewalked through their bracket before beating Florida State on a walk-off home run by Trey Ratliff ’24. But to steal/modify a quote from A League of Their Own, “there’s no crying in softball.” This case should have been rejected quicker than my application to Harvard was, and I implore Justice Smith to see the error in his ways.
Before I address the substantive matter of the case, I need to disclaim any bias I may have.[6] Was I a player on Co-Rec Gold? Yes. Did I actively contribute to the massacres over seven other teams? Check my insta for picture proof. Does that connection mean I am unable to separate my legal analysis from my personal life? My answer is the same as Justice Thomas.
My biggest contention with the majority is Justice Smith’s offhand remark that a bedrock principle of this Court, the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, “we do what we want,”[7] is “mere tautological dictum.” Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which both this Court and NGSL enjoy. Far be it from Justice Smith to try to legislate from the bench and remove that well-earned right.
Now to the causes of action. The only claim with any merit is the violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. To that, I say woe to those who would stick their finger in a rattlesnake’s mouth and hope they don’t get bit. It is only logical that UVA Law would draft, hold practices, and field competitive teams for their own hosted national tournament. It is the fault of the Loser Law Schools that they put students before athletes in their prospective admits. Further, trusting that UVA would simply put average softballers out there was a mistake.
For these reasons, mainly the fact that UVA Law already won the tournament via trial by combat, I find the majority’s rationale pedantic and shortsighted.[8] Because winners win, I dissent.
PETERSON, J., dissenting.
Is this really what the law has become? Kowtowing to the whims of other schools, many of which are either not in the T-14 or, in the alternative, have been “reinstated” under suspicious circumstances, simply so this court may retain some semblance of institutional legitimacy? My brother in dissent, Chief Justice Emeritus Tonseth, touched on this question when assuring readers of his ability to separate his legal analysis from his personal life. But I believe he answered the question incorrectly. There is no separation; there never has been. The law is personal life, all the way down.
It is high time that this court embrace the true meaning of the phrase, “we do what we want,” as our compatriots on the United States Supreme Court have. It’s high time we abandon couching our decisions in rarified legal language and rules and accept our written opinions for what they truly are: mere opinions. And I believe that this court is, absent some odd desire to appease the lesser schools who attended our charity tournament, of the opinion that it is fun to win. As such, under the framework the majority uses, this should have been the basis of our opinion. It is fun to win. Therefore, we were right to win.
However, I believe the framework the majority employed in this case was wrong to begin with. This case is clearly one which should have been decided under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And, had that clause been appropriately applied, the court would have reached the same conclusion that I reached above. It is a privilege of being a student at the University of Virginia’s Law School to be absolutely immune to feeble attempts at victory from other school’s softball teams.
---
js3hp@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
[1] Why would a secret society care so much about UVA softball? Apparently Thomas Jefferson was a big secret society guy back in the day.
[2] Comedy v. Libel Show, 74 U.Va. 21 (2022).
[3] See Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will (1754).
[4] See 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
[5] See infra the dissents if you can stomach large quantities of bias.
[6] I can use footnotes too, Justice Smith, supra note 5.
[7] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va. 96 (2019).
[8] Even though their asides at each law school are apt and witty. Kudos.