Section J Peer Advisor
v.
The Honorable Stephen Foss
76 U.Va 7 (2023)
Every year,[1] one brave Law Weekly writer ranks the 1L softball team names and subsequently receives massive backlash from the 1L community. Still, he or she persists. Like Bob Woodward, Ida B. Wells, Walter Cronkite, and Ronald Burgundy, journalists such as Respondent are the backbone of our society. Journalistic integrity is dying, and Petitioner would have this Court deal it a dying blow. We refuse to do so. This Court rules in favor of the omnipotent Respondent, Mr. Foss.[2]
I. Facts
The facts of this case are fairly straightforward and plenty petty.
On September 27, 2023, the Virginia Law Weekly published an article in which Respondent, Stephen Foss ’25, ranked the 1L section softball team names. Respondent ranked the names according to various arbitrary criteria, but mostly based on what he called “vibes.” Within these satirical rankings, Section J’s softball team name—“J’Accuse”—was ranked “somewhere in the middle.”
On October 1, 2023, Section J’s softball team (J’Accuse) won the prestigious and all important 1L softball tournament.[3] Following J’Accuse’s victory, a Section J peer advisor petitioned this Court for a review of the softball team name rankings in light of the team’s recent success on the softball diamond. Petitioner claims that respondent was:
“ . . . Insufficient in his analysis since he [Foss] did not factor in the fact that the team name serves slay on the jersey, (it’s a legal reference in FRENCH—what other team has done that??) [T]he team works extremely hard to support each other on the field and encourages each other to learn and try new things, and the fact that Section J always has fun on the field, no matter the opponent.”
II. Standing
First, Petitioner has no standing. Petitioner is a peer advisor, not a member of the J’Accuse softball team, or even a 1L for that matter. Therefore, the Petitioner has suffered no injury and has no standing. Although this Court appreciates pettiness in all its forms, quasi-helicopter-parenting of this sort will be dismissed swiftly and absolutely. This case could be dismissed on the issue of standing alone, but because it’s dumber than rocks and contains a plethora of other issues, I will address some of those issues below.
III. Analysis
Petitioner’s complaint is included in its entirety above. As well-educated Law Weekly readers will see, even if all of Petitioner's claims are taken at face value, they are still insufficient to establish a cause of action. Petitioner’s argument can be characterized as follows: “Section J won the softball tournament, therefore, Section J should get a better placement in the softball team name rankings.” The two things are completely unrelated. How hard a team works, and how much a team “encourages each other to try and learn new things,” has absolutely nothing to do with how good (or bad) their softball team name is. J’Accuse was a middling team name before the tournament, and is still the same middling name afterwards.
I applaud J’Accuse for winning the 1L softball tournament, but their victory is unrelated to the team name rankings. If Section J decided to change their name, that may be reason to reconsider the rankings (and if my aunt had wheels, maybe she'd be a bike). This case is not ripe for adjudication.
IV. Some Dicta
Though not implicated in this case, this Court questions the truthfulness of the facts alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that J’Accuse “works extremely hard to support each other on the field.” However, there is evidence that J’Accuse only let nine people (out of 30+ section mates) hit during the championship and only lets those who show up to practice to play in games. Perhaps the petitioner meant that J’Accuse supports each other on the field, but that support is limited to the section mates that can hit dingers.
To be clear, kudos to J’Accuse for winning by any means necessary. This Court in no way means to shame J’Accuse for stacking their lineup—do whatever it takes to win. You’re champions. History remembers those with t-shirts, not those who get along with their future colleagues. However, petitioner (a non-Section J member) watched J’Accuse exclude 20+ section mates and then try to characterize the team as if they are the poster-child for teamwork, sunshine, and rainbows. That is laughable, and this Court would laugh if it was not already choking on irony.
V. Conclusion
If petty appeals ceased then so would this Court and what a dark day that would be. In dismissing Petitioner’s prayers for relief, this Court in no way means to discourage further petty litigation. Instead, let this decision be a guide to future petty parties. 1) Standing is required, and therefore, Petitioner must have suffered an injury for which the Respondent was responsible. 2) The prayer for relief, the conduct, and the circumstances bringing about the litigation must all be causally relevant to one another. Performance on the softball field has no impact on a team name’s merit.
This Court rules in favor of the charitable respondent, Mr. Foss.[4]
Coleman, J., concurring in the judgment.
I don't have a problem with a post hoc adjustment to the name rankings. But I would let this paper be run by 1Ls before I afford that privilege to Section J. You played nine people in the tournament. Your softball team is as devoid of collegiality as the Columbia or U. Chicago law schools. For that reason alone, I concur in the judgment.
Coco, J., concurring in the judgment.
While I concur in the judgment of the majority, I cannot accept the analysis employed to reach its conclusion. Any analytical framework that relegates Section C to “Dead Last” in any ranking certainly has its deficiencies. It is nonetheless the case, however, that the application of any other reasonable methodology by this Court will affirm Section J’s mediocrity in the 1L softball name rankings.
Where the Petitioner’s claim indisputably falls short is its clear failure to satisfy the vibes standard of due process.1[5] This Court has articulated a three-factor vibes test when evaluating any request for reconsideration of a published listicle. A party must establish: 1) a clear and definite breach of vibes through the conduct of the Virginia Law Weekly; 2) a positive vibe check as assessed by a reasonably prudent person; and 3) a compelling public interest in remedying the alleged vibefeasance.[6]
The vibes demonstrated by the honorable Justice Foss were unimpeachable and thus, not subject to re-evaluation.
When considering the second factor, the majority has already alluded to the fact that Section J’s conduct on the field is not exemplary of vibes that warrant a reconsideration of the 1L team name rankings. Moreover, evidence has been adduced that following Section J’s championship win, its members felt compelled to interrupt Professor Thomas Frampton’s Criminal Law class to announce their victory to the public at-large. This Court does not welcome such grandstanding and its attendant breach of the vibes check. As such, a reasonably prudent person could not conclude that Section J would pass any such vibes check.
The weight of the first two factors, alone, is sufficient to demonstrate that Section J does not satisfy the vibes standard of due process, and no consideration of the public interest is necessary. Nonetheless, I think it appropriate to note that Section J’s aforementioned conduct fails this third factor as well. A law degree is worth only as much as the vibes that it connotes, and approval of Section J’s questionable vibes would tarnish the value of this venerable asset.
For all of these reasons, Section J’s request for reevaluation of their softball team name ranking must unequivocally be rejected.
Sandu, J., joined by Allard, J., dissenting.
“J’accuse” has almost everything you need for a perfect name—a legal pun and the prominent feature of the section’s letter. The only thing it is missing is some sort of softball pun. Frankly, we have no idea what softball has to do with French literature. Nevertheless, speaking for the French majors on this Court, we cannot find against the petitioner. It is a core part of our very identity, along with talking about that time we studied abroad, to insert our knowledge of French in every possible situation. Our linguistic laurels ought to be rewarded, not condemned. In the words of Émile Zola, we say that “la vérité et la justice sont souveraines, car elles seules assurent la grandeur des nations.”[7]
More fundamentally, however, this case does not fall within the premise that “1Ls always lose,” as petitioner is not, in fact, a 1L. Even if the true petitioners are 1Ls, given that the suit is brought on their behalf, the facts of this case fall under the exception that “1Ls may win if it is funnier.” And what could be funnier than finding in favor of 1Ls against a justice on this very Court? For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.
---
css7aj@virginia.edu
[1] Just the last two years, actually.
[2] Me.
[3] Let it be emphasized that Section J class of 2026 did not bring this complaint, nor any complaint. This claim is brought by one of their peer advisors. Section J took care of business on the diamond and nothing else. Any ricochet shots inflicted on Section J are not intended, though, perhaps they are inevitable.
[4] Still me.
[5] Holmes, Vibes and the Common Law.
[6] 2L v. COVID Protocols, 74 U.Va 16 (2022).
[7] Émile Zola, La Verité en Marche.