Students of UVA Law
v.
God
76 U.Va 9 (2023)
Flanagan, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
I. Background
In a massive class action suit, the not-even-barred-students of UVA Law have decided they are, somehow, well-equipped to hold God Almighty[1] to account. The group asks for damages to the tune of $5 billion, due to damages and emotional injury arising from the recent rapid fluctuations in the weather. They also request injunctive relief, in the form of more consistent, and preferably temperate, weather.
The spookiest part of this October in Charlottesville may have been the climate. Over the course of a single day, the temperature would range from 40 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Students found themselves sweating while pumpkin picking one day, and nursing numbing fingers on their trek to find a parking spot the next. Dressing appropriately has become practically impossible.[2]
Compensatory damages were calculated by estimating the cost of providing each law student a lightweight but effective Canada Goose coat, private car services to-and-from the Law School, Kroger, and Bar Review, tinted moisturizer with SPF in it, and weekly spray tans, because they still haven’t been able to put their shorts in storage. Damages for emotional distress arise from far-ranging, and well-briefed, responses: Students have alleged fear that the planet will be uninhabitable for their children, concern for the fiscal wellbeing of the gas and oil companies for which they plan to work once climate change is taken more seriously, embarrassment from walking the hallways of WB carrying a parka on a day that ended up being 80 degrees, boredom from the constant small talk about the day’s weather, and distress from being forced to continue to see their classmates who choose to wear sandals to school’s toes late into October.
And who do the Students blame for this inconvenience? They point their fingers at the Creator, citing Psalm 148:8, Psalm 42:7, and Job 37:13 as clear evidence that He has explicitly claimed responsibility for the weather. God does not deny His ability to use storms as an instrument of righteous wrath when appropriate (and we agree with Him that it surely has, indeed, been appropriate here in the Law School). Rather, He argues that the Students are unreasonably rigid and should learn to “live a little.” This Court, you may be shocked to hear, is going to just go ahead and side with God.
II. Jurisdiction
We find that the lower court appropriately dismissed God’s argument that He is properly understood as a foreign defendant and is outside the reach of our jurisdiction. Regardless of His permanent residence in the Heavens, our jurisdiction extends over foreign defendants where the effects of extraterritorial behavior harm citizens within the U.S.[3]
The Court is also compelled by Appellees’ briefing regarding God’s own stated omnipresence. Students cite Jeremiah 23:23-24, where God has said, “Am I only a God nearby, and not a god far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? Do not I fill heaven and earth?” While UVA Law School is surely no Heaven, we hesitate to declare it the only godless place on Earth.
III. Analysis
The substantive question in this case is one of whether some unreliable temperatures are a real, cognizable injury.
God’s most compelling theory is that the “overly sensitive and, frankly, dramatic” Students of the Law School will “look for any opportunity to complain.” He has presented a compelling list of what seem to be, perhaps, outsized reactions: the Law Students “anticipate salaries more than four times the national median, yet complain about a lack of sufficient free food”; “rend their garments in despair each finals season, despite having had nearly three months with nothing to do but read their silly little books”; “bemoan hangovers each Saturday morning that are the obvious outgrowth of having consumed nothing the day prior but five vodka sodas and half a Roots bowl”; “cry over cite checks after they cried for weeks about the mere idea of not getting on Law Review,” and, perhaps most atrociously, “complain about the quality of the free Nobu they received for lunch as summer associates.”
God goes further, to highlight the manifold gifts that this season’s weather has bestowed upon the students. His arguments fall in three main buckets: (1) it is rare that you can frolic in the fall leaves without feeling chilly; (2) many law students prefer to wear summer-y or winter-y clothes, and extending this weird liminal phase appeases both parties; and (3) extending the summer a bit makes everyone act, to use His words, “a little bit more frisky and fun.” He presents photo evidence of Students dressed in cute sundresses and polo shirts, posing in front of matching autumnal leaves with captions like “fall-ing for Charlottesville all over again” and “I can’t be-leaf Law School could be so fun!” Indeed, He argues, the more appropriate Plaintiffs might be the professors of the Law School, who must have noticed that hot weather and cold calls don’t mix well.
For these reasons, the Court finds the students’ argument implausible, and encourages them to give thanks in all circumstances. We find for God, thank Him for His well-pleaded brief, and request that He make His face shine on this Court and be gracious to us.
Allen, J., concurring.
I join the opinion of my learned colleague in full. I write only to address, and dismiss, another challenge advanced to the jurisdiction of this Court. Appellant asserts that, as the ultimate judge of all creation,[4] He cannot in turn be subject to the judgment of a lesser court such as this tribunal. On His view, those seeking recourse, such as Appellee, must address their prayer for relief to Him rather than the legal system. Putting aside the novelty of Appellant’s theory and its implications on both our body of precedent and the legitimacy of the courts as a whole, the argument is unavailing because Appellant has failed to consider a force even more powerful than religion—the common law. Nemo iudex in causa sua,[5] the prescription that “no man shall be a judge in his own cause,”[6] is a bedrock principle of our legal order. To allow a party to defeat a claim against them by invocation of their position as judge flies in the face of all precedent and logic underlying our constitutional system, and accordingly must be rejected. The jurisdiction of this Court extends to all petty disputes, and challenges to its competency require an extraordinary showing. Many parties before us believe themselves to be gods (generally gunners or 1Ls)—the fact that the Appellant is God in no way allows Him to escape the reach of this Court’s authority.
---
cf3tf@virginia.edu
guj9fn@virginia.edu
[1] While this Court will use He/Him pronouns to describe the God Almighty, following the choice made by His pro bono counsel, the Federalist Society, we acknowledge the controversy surrounding the gender identification of the Almighty Creator and take notice of the (scarcely relevant but absolutely splendidly done) amicus brief filed by Ms. Grande.
[2] However, dressing appropriately is not necessarily a new issue in this jurisdiction, regardless of the weather.
[3] See also 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021) (holding that 1Ls may sue God for an injunction but still must always lose).
[4] See, e.g., James 4:12.
[5] Presented in Latin for convenience of the Appellant.
[6] Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 197 (1974) (quoting Bonham’s Case 8 Co. 114a, 118a, 77 Eng.Rep. 646, 652 (1610)).