Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff
v.
Dana Lake, et.al.
75 U.Va 16 (2023)
Allard, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
Background
Andrew Allard and Ethan Brown are 1Ls in Section H. The two joined the Law Weekly as staff editors in 2022. They have attended probably most of the Law Weekly meetings and have contributed a combined sixteen articles, all of impeccable quality. And yet, the Law Weekly’s esteemed Editor-in-Chief, Dana Lake, recently confused Allard and Brown for the umpteenth time. This suit followed.
Plaintiffs request an emergency injunction to prevent Lake and all other Law School students and faculty from repeating the error of calling each by the other’s name. In considering Plaintiffs’ request, this Court must determine whether it is properly within our jurisdiction to enjoin the Law School community from making honest mistakes, and further, whether Defendant’s mistake was, in fact, reasonable.
I
Defendant objects that this action cannot properly be brought before this Court. Upon notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to file suit, Lake protested, “No, please! I’m, like, totally face blind! It was an honest mistake!” Defendant’s argument cannot stand. Even taking for granted that Defendant’s mistake was an honest one—a very generous assumption, indeed—this Court has a long history of exercising jurisdiction over “many petty complaints . . . between individual students.”[1] I mean, it’s in our name, for heaven’s sake. This Court has even gone so far as to annex entire federally-owned properties in order to complain about them in the auspicious pages of this paper.[2] So likely are we to assume jurisdiction over even the most trivial disputes that it appears nearly certain that a jurisdictional argument serves only to assist this Court in reaching its word count requirements.
It is next argued that even if this Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, Plaintiffs have no basis upon which to request a Law School-wide injunction. This, too, we must reject. Plaintiffs note that renowned contracts scholar, Professor Mitu Gulati has also made the mistake of calling one by the other’s name.[3] To require Plaintiffs to prospectively identify all other Law School students and faculty who may make this ridiculous error would be unduly burdensome. Also, while my colleagues may know enough about civil procedure to figure out how to join all of those other parties, I sure as hell don’t, and I’m the one writing this thing, dammit. Thus, a Law School-wide injunction is Plaintiffs’ only adequate remedy.
It is lastly objected that two of the Justices presiding in this case are the plaintiffs who brought it to begin with. It is argued that based on the fundamental legal principle, nemo iudex in sua causa,[4] those Justices should have recused themselves. We need only note that if Justices of this country’s Supreme Court are under no obligation to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, then, under the doctrine of whataboutism, neither are we.
II
Having clearly established our jurisdiction over this case, we turn to the merits. Plaintiffs argue that Lake’s apparent confusion of their identities is negligent, discriminatory, and unreasonable as a matter of law. On prior occasions wherein Lake confused their identities, Plaintiffs have objected to their treatment as “the fungible Section H gays.” Lake has persisted in confusing the two despite their utter lack of visual similarity. See Appendix A. Plaintiffs also note that they have contributed many articles to the pages of this paper and even in this very Court. Thus, in light of their distinctive appearances and their towering contributions to the Law Weekly, we agree with Plaintiffs that Lake’s mistake was unreasonable.
Conclusion
Because the issue in this case is exceedingly trivial, it is naturally within our jurisdiction. Further, because they could not look any less alike and are both very unique individuals, it is mere silliness to confuse Plaintiffs simply because they are dark-haired, gay 1Ls in Section H who both write for the Law Weekly. Okay, having put it that way, I kind of see the other side’s point now. But I digress.
***
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a Law School-wide injunction preventing the confusion of their names is GRANTED.
Appendix A
Mr. Allard (left) and Mr. Brown (right). Photo credit: Jared Tay ’25.
Brown, J., concurring as to Part I and dissenting as to Part II.
For the reasons stated by Justice Allard in Part I, I endorse this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The Court of Petty Appeals will remain today and forever more a venue for vocalizing petty claims, and there is nothing more petty than two catty homosexuals purposefully starting chaos in the waning days of Chief Justice Lake’s tenure as she begs tearfully to ride into the sunset. As masterfully illustrated by Justice Allard, the instances of incorrect naming are frequent and widespread enough for this Court to exercise general jurisdiction. And while I apologize to Chief Justice Lake that she bears partial responsibility for the sins of Professor Mitu Gulati, it is an insurmountable feat for me to open up my Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from last semester to check Rule 20’s policies on permissible joinder. So, she fights this battle alone.
But I dissent from Justice Allard’s assessment regarding the reasonableness of Chief Justice Lake’s mistakes in Part II. Reviewing the evidence de novo, I reiterate that Justice Allard and myself are flavors of the same person: gay, white, dark-haired, short-to-medium height men who worked in the Washington, D.C. area before graduation; enjoy David Bowie music; use too many emoticons in text conversations that do not require them; have first names starting with vowels; at least nominally identify as Unitarian Universalists; and, finally, write for the Virginia Law Weekly.
The similarities listed here are surely only a small fraction of the overlaps in personality, demeanor, and appearance that Justice Allard and myself share. And since there are at least five 1Ls on the paper—perhaps even six on a particularly dull Monday evening, when everyone cares enough to show up—who can blame Chief Justice Lake for mixing us up? If three’s a crowd, then six is a hellish mix of skin and bones. Requiring Chief Justice Lake to have the ability to tell us fungible gays apart is an intrusive standard for this Court to set, one that exceeds the wisdom of this Court’s jurisprudence and erodes the federalist principles this nation was built on.[5] Thus, it can be rationally construed that Chief Justice Lake’s confusion was sufficiently reasonable.
Still, despite my disagreement with Justice Allard’s analysis in Part II, I concur in his final judgment issuing an injunction against Chief Justice Lake for her conduct. What would the Law Weekly be if not a place that rewards trivial drama at the expense of our beloved staff members? Thus, despite my deeply held reservations about Justice Allard’s comments regarding our non-fungibility, I sign onto his judgment.[6]
Dana, C.J., concurring.
While I may concur with this ruling under the long-established but almost never-used mea culpadoctrine,[7] I will go a step further. This case presents the Court with the chance to evaluate a truly existential question: Are there circumstances under which 1Ls may win?
We have long held that a class of persons with no rights (such as 1Ls) do not ever have standing to bring suit against upperclassmen, no matter how direct and targeted the petty slight they face may be.[8] That this Court frequently allows such cases to proceed to discovery instead of granting summary judgment says more about the amount of free time our Justices have than anything else.[9] There is certainly precedent for belligerent and underappreciated Justices suing the Chief Justice, as seen most recently in UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth.[10] While consisting almost entirely of straight dicta, this case raised several important issues: 1) whether this Court may exercise its authority over the Law Weekly Executive Board;[11]and 2) whether, and how, the precedent of “1Ls always lose” can be binding when we frequently find in favor of plaintiff groups which incidentally include 1Ls. Focusing only on this second question, we must find in favor of 1Ls for one simple reason: There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.
We find that—under an exceptionally narrow, tailored, case-by-case evaluation—1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win than it is for them to lose. We expect this rule to be rarely enforced, since there is almost nothing this Court finds funnier than ruling against the objectively correct party (multiply by 100 if the party is a 1L). Even now, I must fight the urge to tell Plaintiffs/Justices Allard and Brown to go kick rocks.
Am I wrong for misidentifying them? Perhaps.[12] Do I reject their attempts to hold me responsible for my actions? Almost implicitly. Will I stop mixing them up now that I have had to write 400 words in penance? No. I can’t change my nature.[13] The only option available to me to comply with the injunction[14] is to resign from the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. That my resignation coincides with the election of a new E-Board and my graduation is a total coincidence.
---
tya2us@virginia.edu
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu
[1] Students v. Parking Enforcement, 75 U.Va. 13 (2022).
[2] See In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds, 75 U.Va. 7 (2022).
[3] Professor Gulati has, in fact, confused Justice Allard with two of his Section H classmates. On multiple occasions. But no hard feelings.
[4] “No-one is judge in their own cause.”
[5] Is this how one does Con Law?
[6] Sorry, Dana.
[7] Andrew and Ethan have been active members of the paper, writing several wonderful and iconic pieces. Much, much, much more importantly, they always submit their articles early. It is this fact which has earned them my concurrence.
[8] See 1L Plus Ones v. Barrister’s Planning Committee, 75 U.Va. 15 (2023). But also I want to emphasize that this is NOT TARGETED. I love all the Law Weekly 1Ls equally, if not accurately.
[9] A suspicious amount of free time for a group of people who must be voluntold to write every week…
[10] UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth, 74. U.Va. 10 (2021).
[11] It may not, for the record.
[12] I SAID I WAS SORRY!!!
[13] As long as you dress in a distinctive way, do not change your haircut, and do not interact with me in a place where we have not spoken before, I can guarantee a 50 percent chance I will be able recognize your person and a 20 percent chance I will correctly use your name in conversation.
[14] Which I am doing voluntarily, not because the Court told me to.