1L Plus Ones
v.
Barrister's Planning Committee
75 U.Va 15 (2023)
Peterson, J. delivered the opinion of the court.
Background
Barrister’s Ball, recently deemed by this Court to be Law School Prom, is an event planned by the Barrister’s Planning Committee (“Committee”), an independent committee created by the Student Bar Association (“SBA”). The Ball involves a dance with open bars, food, and a DJ at a venue selected by the Committee. The dance takes place between 8:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. The dance is followed by an afterparty at a bar rented out by the Committee which runs from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Transportation to and between the events is provided for by the Committee. Tickets to the Ball are purchased through an online ticketing portal. A ticket which includes access to the open bars costs students $67.00. A ticket which does not include access to the open bars costs $52.00. Tickets are only necessary for access to the dance—not to the afterparty. Students may purchase one plus-one ticket per person, no questions asked. Tickets were sold in a staggered format: first 3Ls, then 2Ls, and finally, 1Ls.
After a smooth release on the 3L and 2L markets, tickets opened up to the final group of students: the Class of 2025. Quickly, all of the plus-one tickets were purchased, and many of the 1L students report feeling victimized by their inability to Ball with their long-distance boos, most of whom will no longer be in the picture come November of 2L. The 1L class sees this as a clear violation of their Equal Protection rights. However, because it is well-settled and established precedent in this Court that 1Ls do not have rights, the questions before us today are first whether the plus ones of the 1L class have rights that may be vindicated in this forum, if so, what those rights are, and finally, whether those alleged rights have been violated.
Analysis
The first question that must be addressed is whether 1L Plus Ones have any rights that may be vindicated in this forum. In order to answer this question, the Court must first show that it has jurisdiction over the issue. The Court does not. The Committee, and thus SBA, has already decided the question. This is thus a political decision which is, for various reasons, not a question suitable for adjudication by the Court.
First, this question is clearly one meant for nonjudicial discretion. Despite the Court’s willingness to involve many non-student parties in prior decisions, those entities were usually defendants, rather than plaintiffs. Were the Committee suing the 1L Plus Ones, we would have an unquestionable duty to adjudicate the dispute. However, it seems especially distasteful to extend this privilege to non-student entities that are so inextricably linked to a disfavored class of students that this Court has repeatedly stated has no rights.[1] So, because this Court wants nothing to do with the 1L Plus Ones, the Court happily concludes that this question is one for nonjudicial discretion.
Further, in this situation, there is clearly an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to the political decision already made by the Committee. This Court is made entirely of unelected 2L and 3Ls who directly benefited from this year’s process of ticket distribution. Not only is this true this year, but this will remain to be true each year into the future, indefinitely. Because of this unique feature of the Law School, it is unsurprising both that 1Ls do not have rights and that school-wide, student-run events have procedures designed to prioritize older students to ensure those students have one last chance to make memories in Law School that they will cherish forever. The current 1Ls and their Plus Ones—or those that make it past November of 2023—will be similarly benefited by the current process. Think of it like Social Security. Bad for you now, great for you later.
Finally, it is clear that multiple pronouncements on whether 1L Plus Ones have rights from various authoritative bodies, like this Court and SBA, could potentially embarrass the credibility and legitimacy of those authoritative bodies. The Committee’s actions have evinced an unmistakable belief, held by the Committee, that 1L Plus Ones do not have rights. This fact militates against the Court undercutting what is otherwise a clear pronouncement from the Committee, and thus SBA, that 1L Plus Ones do not have rights, just like their 1L counterparts. Because our student government has already represented that 1L Plus Ones do not have rights, it is no longer within this Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the issue.
By holding that it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Court to make binding decisions on the rights of 1L Plus Ones, the Court creates a legal fiction. The Court functionally ratifies the decision of another body of government, but the Court declines to do so openly. Instead, the Court may claim moral innocence in depriving the 1L Plus Ones of their rights, because the Court has not decided this issue. The Court has simply decided that this issue is not one for the Court to decide. We feign innocence as to our role in establishing the status quo while simultaneously ratifying the status quo. Because we love that status quo. And we know the 1Ls will too, in about four months.
Because the Court has dispensed with the jurisdictional question in this fashion, exploring any other issues presented at the outset of this opinion would clearly constitute simple advisory opinions.
Conclusion
The Court declines to answer the question of whether 1L Plus Ones have rights. This question is reserved for other branches of government. In so doing, we implicitly ratify the Executive’s clear statement that 1L Plus Ones, like 1Ls themselves, do not have rights. Functionally, this ruling may be read to state that neither 1Ls nor 1L Plus Ones have rights.
Further, it seems necessary, thanks to my good fellow Justice Kulkarni’s failure to comprehend the ramifications of this holding, to state that this opinion in no way disclaims jurisdiction over 1L Plus Ones. Instead, it disclaims jurisdiction over the question of whether those 1L Plus Ones have rights that may be vindicated in this forum. 1L Plus Ones may certainly be sued and be parties to a controversy in this Court—it is simply not within our jurisdiction to rule on whether the 1L Plus Ones do, or do not, have rights.
Kulkarni, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
It is hard to label what kind of majority opinion this is. The practical effects of the majority’s opinion are to affirm the decision of the Committee: 1L Plus Ones have no rights. I agree with such a result. What I dissent from is the move by the majority to disclaim jurisdiction over these individuals. At my core, I am a strong believer in justice. And there is no justice in ignoring the tough issues. I am not moved by the majority’s contention that our decision would undermine the Committee. Instead, I believe our decision would bolster theirs. Our precedent is clear. 1Ls have no rights. The only connection to the Law School that the Plus Ones have comes from their relation to the 1Ls. Ergo, 1L Plus Ones have no rights. With even a rudimentary understanding of the situation and the precedent involved, anyone would come to this conclusion, but I want to take my opinion a step further.
Three 3Ls put their efforts into organizing the event. And the 1Ls got to enjoy the fruits of their labor. It makes sense that in the same way that college football ticket sales (at any school that is actually good at football) work their way down classes, with upperclassmen having the highest priority, Barrister’s tickets sell the same way. The 1Ls know this and choose to complain anyways. They will have two more chances to have the Barrister’s of their dreams. At the end of the day, the 1Ls don’t know how easy they have it. Last year’s Barrister’s had many disputes over ticket sales, nepotism, and a lack of food. This year’s ran smoothly. Last year, some students had to miss Barrister’s despite having tickets due to the still-high prevalence of Covid-19. But above and beyond that, the fact that the 1Ls have the gall to complain that 3Ls have priority over them is frankly astounding to all of the members of this esteemed Court. There was no Barrister’s Ball during the 2020–21 academic year. There was no Dandelion, no Fall Break, no Thanksgiving Break, no Feb Club, no Spring Break, no PILA Auction, no Bar Review, and no hanging out with more than five people at a time.[2]
You all know this. The 1Ls know this. Although these measures were for the health and safety of the student body, there is no doubt that the lack of social interaction had a negative effect. The 3Ls are owed grace, understanding, and sympathy for losing the most formative social year at the Law School. With all of this in mind, if I were the majority, not only would I claim jurisdiction, I would dismiss any 1Ls’ complaints on the issue with prejudice. I would demand reparations in the form of another fully paid-for, similar party for 3Ls only.
Accordingly, I dissent.
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
[1] See generally 2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn v. Everyone Else 75 U.Va 2 (2022); 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019); 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).
[2] At times this number was limited to quite literally zero. The only people students were permitted to interact with were their roommates.