2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn
v.
Everyone Else
75 U.Va 2 (2022)
MORSE, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
This time of year, the Law School is alive: The hallways are aflutter with the pitter-patter of 1Ls scurrying between classes and club orientations, Courts & Commerce is slinging textbooks like a ticket scalper at a Billy Joel concert, and 3Ls are leaning hard into BigLaw life by spending inadvisable amounts exclusively eating out or ordering UberEats. But all these activities pale in comparison to the frenetic pace of daily LinkedIn posts from 2Ls by the dozen announcing their newly secured 2023 summer associate positions and loudly proclaiming for all the world that they are, officially, future lawyers.[1]
Seeking refuge from this career-centric social media cacophony, the remaining 1,000-plus members of the UVA Law community who are not 2Ls[2] brought suit in the District Court of Petty Complaints, seeking an injunction. The District Court, agreeing wholeheartedly that “this stuff is awful” and commenting that “Covington rejected me, but they gave Alfred[3] an offer?!,” ruled in favor of the non-2Ls and granted the injunction.
Respondents won a reversal on appeal to the Circuit. Agreeing with the LinkedIn Stars’ impassioned free-speech arguments,[4] the Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s decision and lifted the injunction.
The non-LinkedIn 2Ls appealed to this Court, and we granted certiorari, both in recognizing how deeply petty this case is,[5] and to address the question of whether an injunction on overeager LinkedIn posts is a violation of the LinkedIn Stars’ First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee.
II. Discussion
We will address the question in two parts. First, we will resolve the primary question raised by Petitioners’ appeal regarding the LinkedIn Stars’ so-called freedom of speech. Second, we will consider an argument made by Amici (a.k.a. students whose curiosity outweighs their annoyance at the flashy posts).
A.
Is there anything wrong with being proud of a significant accomplishment? Absolutely not. But if there is one thing that I learned from the truly voluminous critical feedback I received on my final 1L LRW brief,[6] it is that you should choose your words carefully. Having just completed OGI, many members of the 2L class are eager to share their successes, and given our well-documented social media addiction, 2Ls feel the need to share on LinkedIn. As Respondents point out, it is the tone, rather than the message, that is the issue. In what some have called Academy Award Speech Job Posts, 2Ls will excitedly announce where they will be spending their next summer and then will either thank a surprisingly long list of “mentors and colleagues” or frame it within a broader, historic personal narrative.[7]
The Court is, like most law students, deeply in debt. It is completely understandable that given the crushing financial burden we have entered into—some amount of loan forgiveness notwithstanding (thanks, Biden)[8]—we are eager to celebrate our shared success and, most importantly, the increased likelihood that we will actually one day be able to pay off our student loans.
However, our broke-ass sympathy notwithstanding, free speech is not the issue here. The speech at issue is clearly annoying Gunner behavior, and therefore is not protected by this Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. Similar to 1Ls, which, as we have noted many times, have no rights and thus always lose,[9]today we announce a new, complementary rule: Gunners have no rights and thus always lose.
Having resolved the first question, we now briefly turn to the arguments raised by Amici.
B.
Amici for the respondents argue persuasively that Petitioners doth protest too loudly. They note that, despite being aware of these purportedly frustrating LinkedIn posts, Petitioners continue to return to LinkedIn (often daily!) in order to scroll for any juicy updates. Amici argue that Petitioners’ own wealth of highly-detailed complaints belie the contention that they are trying to avoid these LinkedIn posts. Amici contend that at the very least, these LinkedIn posts satisfy their idle curiosity and need to procrastinate on the reading for the first two weeks.
While we agree with Petitioners that the tone and length of these posts can sometimes get a bit long, we agree with the argument raised by Amici that the benefit of satisfying our mildly neurotic curiosity outweighs all of these complaints. Accordingly, we affirm the Petty Circuit Court’s decision to strike down the District Court’s injunction and to allow these 2Ls’[10] effusive, yet earnest, LinkedIn posts.
It is so ordered.
---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
saw8rc@virginia.edu
[1] So long as you don’t do something crazy during your summer, like use firm resources to attempt to file a frivolous lawsuit against your lifelong nemesis. I’ll find another way to get you, Stephen Colbert.
[2] As well as the 2Ls too shy or, like yours truly, too confused by technology to actually figure out how to post on LinkedIn.
[3] So far as the Court’s researchers can tell, there is no student at UVA Law called Alfred. But if there is, congrats on the offer!
[4] In what was surely the worst free-speech brief ever, LinkedIn Stars made numerous odd references to “the Jabberwock” and non-otic piercings. What a truly terrible Law Review prompt brief.
[5] Because our single, determinative factor for this Court is pettiness.
[6] A brief, which was described by various judges as “confusing” and “unrelated to any of the questions raised in the case” and “arguably the most self-aggrandizing and unhinged student brief I have seen in my thirty years of judging first-years.” To my LRW fellow, if you are reading this, I am sorry.
[7] These can actually be pretty touching, and also intimidating. They really burst my notion of having overcome adversity because I have (extremely mild, some might say non-existent) asthma.
[8] No seriously, THANK YOU. Last week, I inexplicably committed to buying a motorcycle on Craigslist, so the loan forgiveness is hugely appreciated. #ridefree #bikersforBrandon #zeropercentAPRfor24months
[9] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019). See also Snowman v. Student Admin., 73 U.Va. 15 (2021) (Tonseth, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021).
[10] In all seriousness, congratulations to all the 2Ls who are done with recruiting. And best of luck to those who are still in the process, and please do post on LinkedIn when you know where you’re going. Just keep it classy.