Virginia Animal Law Society v. Pet-Less Law Students
74 U.Va 22 (2022)
PAZHWAK, J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.
Background
The Virginia Animal Law Society (VALS) has continued its annual Paw Review Contest (Paw Review), involving pet photos submitted by students at the University of Virginia School of Law which are featured to solicit donations.[1] This year, they plan to donate the proceeds to the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, a no-kill shelter that seeks to “advance the compassionate treatment of animals by providing shelter, medical care, and behavioral services for dogs and cats; promoting permanent, caring homes; and furthering education and outreach.”[2]
Sad, Pet-less Law Students United (Pet-less Law Students)[3] originally filed this class action suit in the Petty District Court. The plaintiff class, consisting of students who do not have pets with them in Charlottesville, brought the action under a tort theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress for the heart-wrenching pain (mingled with appreciation for adorableness) experienced by law students who must gaze wistfully at the pets of others, with no animal friend of their own to spend time with after another long day in the law school rat race. They seek no damages or injunction in recognition of Paw Review’s admirable goal, yet still call for the idiosyncratic remedy of clear cuteness warnings and other appropriate measures to prevent the inadvertent stumbling-upon of said pet images by the unwary law student. They want these measures strictly enforced against images of pets and costumes, which they find particularly distressing.
The lower court found for Pet-less Law Students, and now VALS seeks review on appeal.
Analysis
The instant case follows a line of cases that have dealt with various aspects of Paw Review.[4] Indeed, this Court notes, with great displeasure, Paw Review’s failure to comply with its order enjoining the blatant speciesism represented by use of an “Other” category to encompass all non-dog and non-cat pets.[5] While some progress has been made regarding this discrimination, with persistent prejudicial references to “furry friend[s]” largely absent from 2022 Paw Review advertising material, cat and dog supremacy remains disturbingly evident. Paw Review should take notice of the righteousness and inevitability of the rulings of this august Court and correct their behavior immediately.[6]
However, the instant issue is separable from the Court’s irritation regarding this other matter, and it will be considered on its own merits. In the instant case, the appellant, VALS, argues that it is not their fault that appellees are sad and lonely by reason of not having pets, and that they should not have to take costly actions on their behalf. In the alternative, they note that all law students are sad and lonely due to a multiplicity of factors and that blaming this condition on a lack of pets ignores the very structure of the legal profession. This Court agrees with this first argument. In Snap-back Wearing Law Student v. Student Affairs 78 U.Va. 28, 34 (2021), we held that a law student could not sue Student Affairs to enjoin their annual recognition of Valentine’s Day, premised on a tort theory of ongoing harms from a negligent infliction of emotional distress, stemming from their allegation that the holiday reminded them of their ongoing romantic ineptitude and subsequent loneliness. In this, we relied on the personal responsibility doctrine, which sometimes indicates that law students cannot enjoin the activities of others due to situations that are wholly of their own making. We adopt a similar analysis here, finding that Pet-less Law Students can help themselves by getting a pet instead of misdirecting their displeasure at VALS’s Paw Review. As a matter of law, we note the limitations of this holding and application of the personal responsibility doctrine and reserve the power of this Court to enjoin everything and anything that it sees fit.
We recognize that some law students, due to their housing arrangements or other commitments, may not be able to have a pet. Nevertheless, we do not find this to be an adequate reason to make Paw Review responsible for their position and any emotional harm they might experience by seeing the pets of others. Instead, we encourage them to look for ways to change their circumstances if their desire for a pet is so sincerely felt. We also encourage them to perhaps seek out an amenable classmate willing to share some time with their beloved pet, a feasible remedy requiring no action by this Court.
We reverse.
BNINSKI, J., concurring in the judgment.
I join in my esteemed colleague’s judgment on the merits of this case. I recognize that it is a hard, cruel world, but I firmly believe that individuals who do not have pets to lighten it lack standing to quell the expression of individuals with pets. Moreover, I cannot find against VALS for one simple reason: I have pets.[7]
But I take this opportunity to discuss what I see as a troubling aspect of the ostensibly benign phenomenon of Paw Review. Our democracy already faces pressure from corporate interests, which affect lawmakers to the detriment of the everyday person (or pet). Moreover, we live in an era beset with the menace of fake news.
In the quest to “raise money” for a “charity” like the “SPCA” by collecting “votes” for the “cutest” pets, Paw Review combines these two elements in a subversion of the democratic process. The most well-resourced or well-connected animals will garner the most votes and emerge victorious. This victory mocks meritocracy and invites disinformation about which pets are the best.[8] Our system of government, not pet-less law students, is the true victim in this case.
Mine. My pets are the best. But I forgot about the Paw Review submission deadline and failed to submit their information. Therefore, I have no choice but to state that the entire adorable process and worthy cause are an anti-democratic disaster.
MORSE, J., dissenting.
As the venerable Justice Holmes once noted, “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” The majority fails to recognize the distinction between negligence and intentional action, and therefore fails to grasp the crux of this case. What we have in this case is not an organization blissfully unaware of the impact its adorable pet photos will have on people; the Virginia Animal Law Society (“VALS”) fully intended that people’s emotions would be swayed, leading them to donate money. Since they knew of the emotive power these pet photos hold, VALS must have also surely known that these photos would inevitably cause significant emotional distress to those pet-less[9] law students in the plaintiff-class. In my view, this demonstrates an astonishingly reckless disregard for the well-being of others in the pursuit of profit.[10] This Court should have recognized that VALS is kicking the metaphorical dog of pet-less law students, rather than stumbling over it on their way to do noble charity work. Accordingly, I would have upheld the lower court’s ruling.
Furthermore, the majority’s handling of the Pet-less Law Students’ situational restrictions on having pets is staggeringly inconsistent. First, the majority notes that some students are incapable of having pets for reasons out of their control, such as restrictions in their lease (not to mention more serious restrictions, such as allergies). But then, in the very next sentence, the Court ignores this and says that these students should engage in self-help measures. While I wholeheartedly support telling parties to stick their petty prayers for relief where the sun don’t shine, the Court never takes this step. The only explanations we are left with for the Court’s logical gymnastics are that the Court is either 1) assuaging a deep pet-related guilt[11] or 2) under the malign influence of the pet mafia[12] Virginia Animal Law Society (“VALS”). Either way, this decision will tarnish this Court’s reputation and bodes ill for the fate of our democracy.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
---
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
amb6ag@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
[1] This historical tradition has evolved with technology and is now conducted online on a website. See Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society 912 U.Va. 16 (2019) (“Each year since the founding of the Law School, the Virginia Animal Law Society (VALS) has held a “Paw Review” contest, wherein pet owners submit photos of their animal companions, the photos are placed on jars in the Hunton Andrews Kurth hallway by ScoCo, and denizens of the Law School place money in the jars to signal their aesthetic approval of the pets. The pet with the most money in its jar at the end of the week receives the title of “the Law School’s most loved pet,” according to VALS. The money is donated to a no-kill shelter. It’s all very charming and cute and great for distracting us temporarily from our overwhelming existential dread.”).
[2] See Paw Review 2022, Paw Review, https://pawreview2022.squarespace.com// (last visited April 2, 2022).
[3] Sad, Pet-less Law Students United is a separate class from Gratuitously Mean-Spirited, Pet-less Law Students United. The former class loves pets and merely find themselves in the unenviable position of not having one of their own with them in Charlottesville. The latter group is of a comically villainous nature (they are known to cheer for Cruella de Vil during screenings of One Hundred and One Dalmatians) and seek to enjoin Paw Review in a separate suit on a theory that law students should have no small pleasures in life besides cite checks and optional mandatory supplemental class readings. This Court feels an unconcealed distaste for this latter class, strongly believing that all pets are to be treasured and that those adverse to them may have an improper temperament for Character and Fitness. See, e.g., 3L Roommate v. Lucy the Pupperoni 74 U.Va. 3, 4 (2021) (“Doggos are to be treasured, not sued.”).
[4] See Coughlin 912 U.Va. at 16; Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society, 90 U.Va. 403 (2017) (Coughlin I).
[5] Coughlin 912 U.Va. at 16 (“The sun sets in the west and rises in the east; the trees sprout new leaves in the spring and shed them in the fall; and the Virginia Animal Law Society discriminates against non-dog-and-cat animals. It’s a tale as old as time, folks, and it’s happening again.”).
[6] See United States v. Law Weekly 109 U.Va. 926, 928 (1948) (“Our name is the Court of Petty Appeals, Court of Courts; Look on our Opinions, ye Mighty, and despair!”).
[7] In the interest of candor, I will concede that a strict property rights advocate could mount a reasonable argument that I do not, in fact, have “pets” as the term is traditionally used—rather, I have “step-dogs.” This is because the dogs were separate property of my husband, acquired before our marriage. While I embrace the appellation of “step-dogs,” because it cracks me up, I also deem that I have acquired an emotional property right in these cuties. The tri-fold foundation for this property right can be found in 1) the amount of hair that I regularly lint-roll off of my person and effects; 2) the volume of poop I have picked up and disposed of in accordance with Charlottesville Municipal Code, Article III, Section 4-41; and 3) the time I have invested in waiting for reply to the inquiry, “Are you a good boy?”
[8] Mine. My pets are the best. But I forgot about the Paw Review submission deadline and failed to submit their information. Therefore, I have no choice but to state that the entire adorable process and worthy cause are an anti-democratic disaster.
[9] For the record, I think a more appropriate term would be “un-petted.” However, my clerks (over-eager pre-law undergrads) informed me that this term might come off as risqué. In any case, my sympathies lie with both the pet-less and un-petted, however you read those terms.
[10] While the proceeds supposedly go to the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, VALS would hardly be the first charity to take a healthy cut off the top.
[11] Perhaps related to a goldfish a certain Justice forgot to feed for two weeks when they were growing up, or the pet snake that escaped and ate their little brother’s pet hamster. You know who you are.
[12] You may be tempted to think I’m crazy and that there is no pet mafia. But let me ask you, what else do you call a group of people who exert disproportionate influence (whether via emotional manipulation by cute animals or pointed threats to “go on strike” and no longer clean up after walking their dogs on the lawn at the Law School’s entrance)? Despite the Court’s kowtowing and a greater-than-usual number of dogs growling and cats hissing at me lately, I will not be silenced!