Students for Early Spring
v.
Punxsutawny Phil
75 U.Va. 19 (2023)
Allard, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
Background
This action was brought by law students in response to recent inclement weather. Plaintiffs appeal from a ruling by the infamous Court of Public Opinion, holding inter alia “Aw, don’t sue the groundhog, he’s so cute” and “Hey wait, didn’t he die?” Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Punxsutawney Phil, along with numerous other marmot meteorologists, have conspired to delay the arrival of spring. Members of the so-called “Inner Circle”—the secretive organization that communicates on behalf of Mr. Phil—intervened to contest Mr. Phil’s capacity to be sued.
The material facts of the case are not in dispute. Mr. Phil is a groundhog residing in Young Township, Pennsylvania. Mr. Phil is a meteorologist by profession who forecasts using the ancient art of sciomancy. Each year, on February 2, Mr. Phil emerges at Gobbler’s Knob, where he is charged with searching for his shadow and communicating his findings to the Inner Circle. The result of Mr. Phil’s inspection determines whether spring will come early or winter weather will persist for an additional six weeks. This year, Mr. Phil, having seen his shadow, predicted a long winter. Several other groundhog meteorologists who forecasted a long winter are joined in Plaintiffs’ complaint.[1]
Plaintiffs argue that because Mr. Phil claims 100% accuracy, his predictions are in effect proclamations of future weather for which Mr. Phil is liable. Plaintiffs thus seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief for a recent Sunday snowfall. Because Plaintiffs are desperate to dawn their spring outfits and the snow was not “not even . . . the fun kind that you can play in,” Plaintiffs seek damages for serious emotional harm. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin Mr. Phil from engaging in future forecasting that is likely to cause them “irreparable inconvenience.”
Apparently in protest, Defendant gnawed on the Court’s benches and squeaked at the Justices.[2] Due to Mr. Phil’s apparent inability to communicate with the Court, the Inner Circle was allowed to intervene in the case. They then insisted that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, we are asked to answer two questions: Can Mr. Phil be brought before this Court as a defendant in a civil suit? And, if so, can Mr. Phil be held liable for inclement weather in light of his persistent claim of 100% meteorological accuracy? We hold that although Plaintiffs may sue Mr. Phil, the sugere id doctrine requires Plaintiffs to accept the hardship of an extended winter.
I
The Inner Circle, as Intervenor, argues that Mr. Phil cannot be haled into this Court. Intervenor, noting that Mr. Phil speaks only Groundhogese, argues that it would violate his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights to conduct a civil proceeding against him which he is incapable of comprehending. In response, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Phil communicates through the president of the Inner Circle, Tom Dunkel. During cross examination, Mr. Dunkel admitted that he acts as an interpreter for Mr. Phil. But Mr. Dunkel insisted that Mr. Phil’s language is exceedingly complex and that they only discuss “simpler topics.” Mr. Dunkel thus concluded that he could not effectively communicate the court proceedings in Groundhogese.
While we are sympathetic to Intervenor’s arguments, we are skeptical of their truthfulness. The Inner Circle indicates on their website that, in his spare time, Mr. Phil enjoys “reading the daily newspaper.”[3] We are aware of no daily publication in Groundhogese. It thus appears that Mr. Phil is capable of reading English and can comprehend this Court’s proceedings—to the extent that they are comprehensible.
Intervenor next argues that suits against animals are a long-abandoned and inhumane practice of ancient law. But this Court has recently expressed its commitment to originalism.[4] We thus find that it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to exercise our jurisdiction here. If anything, our decision shows comparative restraint. Prosecutors in other jurisdictions have thought it lawful to seek the death penalty in criminal charges against Mr. Phil.[5] Such extravagant barbarism is, of course, beneath the Court of Petty Appeals. But here, Plaintiffs seek only to coerce funds from Mr. Phil’s vast riches and to dictate his professional conduct. It is well within our authority to order such relief.
II
We now turn to the question of whether Mr. Phil can be held liable for inclement weather. Plaintiffs essentially argue that because Mr. Phil’s forecasts are 100% accurate, Mr. Phil functionally controls the weather. In response, Intervenor objects that: (1) Mr. Phil uses a sciomantic forecasting methodology, so his forecasts are not some arbitrary decision, but rather a matter-of-fact divination of future weather; and (2) Even if Mr. Phil’s forecasting could be correctly described as controlling the weather, the proper target of a suit for such conduct is the Inner Circle, as they bear ultimate responsibility for communicating Mr. Phil’s forecasts.
Counsel on both sides make compelling arguments. But we need not decide them here because Plaintiffs have done the unthinkable: They have made a complaint too petty even for the Court of Petty Appeals. We thus brush the dust off the all-but-forgotten sugere id doctrine and require Plaintiffs to endure the hardship of a long winter. The nearly imperceptible dusting of snow that touched Charlottesville last Sunday, though perhaps unusual, was of such little consequence that I sort of forgot that that’s why I was even writing this thing in the first place. This ruling should not be construed to prevent a judgment against Mr. Phil should a blizzard be visited upon Charlottesville in future years as a result of his forecasting. But, in the present case, we hold that Plaintiffs’ suit cannot proceed, because they must simply get over it.
Pazhwak, J., dissenting
There is much to object to in the majority opinion. Never before has this Court entertained the notion that there is a “complaint too petty even for the Court of Petty Appeals,” and the majority makes a mockery of its supposed “commitment to originalism” in even suggesting such a ludicrous idea. This Court must decide even the most petty and insignificant of matters, or else leave the billions who rely on our august jurisprudence adrift in a sea of uncertainty.[6] For those sleep deprived, indebted, huddled masses of law students longing for relief from their trivial concerns, do not pay too much heed to their errant, bizarre holding. The Court of Petty Appeals sees you, it hears you, and it will certainly deliver justice against a groundhog on your behalf.
Moreover, the majority evinces a great callousness in discussing this case without reference to the recent death of Fred la marmotte. At least a footnote would have in some measure paid tribute to the amazing life and untimely death of this faithful Québécois groundhog, who did not have the opportunity to carry out his duty this year like his counterpart Mr. Phil. While this omission admittedly does not play a great part in deciding the issues in this case, and was indeed never raised by the contending parties, the sole mention of Punxsutawney Phil nevertheless seems t0 indicate a preferencing of the Anglophonic world by Justice Allard and company. I can only caution my colleagues at the dangers of generating indignation in le monde francophone, and mutter a quiet “sacré bleu!” to myself at their oversight.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
---
tya2us@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
[1] On behalf of Mr. Phil, the Inner Circle insists that all other groundhogs are imposters and should thus be dismissed from this case. While we share Intervenor’s skepticism as to the veracity of other groundhogs’ predictions, that question need not be decided in the present case.
[2] Mr. Phil also insolently failed to rise when the Justices entered the courtroom. The Inner Circle explained that Mr. Phil understands only Groundhogese and could not understand the bailiff’s instruction. While we appreciate such reassurances, the prestige and authority of the Court of Petty Appeals is universally recognized. All living creatures know to rise for us. The bailiff’s instruction is a mere formality.
[3] Phil FAQ, The Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, https://www.groundhog.org/phil-faq.
[4] See 1L Students v. Virginia Law Review et al., 75 U.Va. 18 (2023) (Coleman, J., concurring) (“[O]riginalist methodology . . . is obviously correct.”).
[5] Jason Samenow, Ohio Prosecutor Seeks Death Penalty for Punxsutawney Phil After Bad Forecast, Wash. Post (Mar. 21, 2013).
[6] See ANG v. Scott (ANG III) 28 U.Va. 12 (1997) (discussing how the opinions issued by the COPA are closely followed and studied by a wide-ranging group consisting of prospective UVA Law students, current law students, alumni, law students at every other U.S. law school, certain non-human sentient beings residing within the boundaries of North Grounds, and other people across the globe likely numbering in the billions).