Liberals Who Are Bad At Using Canva
v.
The Federalist Society at UVA Law
76 U.Va 4 (2023)
Brown, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
Practitioners familiar with the Court of Petty Appeals probably think they’ve seen this case before. Someone suing the Law School’s most prolific—dare I say, notorious—ideological organization? Hardly an hour goes by without someone complaining about something FedSoc does, either loudly in ScoCo or in a public GroupMe chat,[1] so surely, this Court must have some precedent to work with.
Admittedly, this Court has weighed in on suits involving FedSoc before. Oftentimes, these cases are less than flattering. And in these cases, these opinions are frequently written by yours truly. See, e.g., Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va 12 (2022) (Brown, J.) (“I didn’t want to name names, but I’m looking at you, FedSoc.”)
So, setting aside the facts of the present case, followers of the Court would be forgiven for assuming that the die has already been cast with respect to our decision today. A suit against FedSoc? In an opinion written by the Court’s snarkiest[2] and tied-for-gayest[3] justice, who also happens to be such a Hillary Clinton stan that he has a framed print of her in his apartment? Their defeat seems certain.
But, my dear colleagues—this is not that case. The Court, for reasons set forth below, finds for FedSoc.
I. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED
Petitioners are students who care deeply about something most would find easily forgettable: a well-designed event flier.[4] As anyone in a student organization knows, advertising events around the Law School is hell.[5] The worst part of all is having to design the flier itself. There’s a reason people go to law school, and it’s because they lack the requisite creative talent to accomplish such tasks. Or at least, most do.
Inexplicably, one student group in particular—respondent FedSoc—seems to have no problem producing the most immaculately beautiful designs for every single event they host, ones that would positively goop and gag the creators of Canva. These stunning posters infuriate me. Who at this law school has the wherewithal to make such splendors?[6] And why am I not blessed with the same gifts whenever I am forced to feebly make advertisements for my own student organizations, stumbling on Adobe and Canva like a goddamn fool? It just isn’t fair.
And so, petitioners[7]—hoping to deny FedSoc the opportunity to keep producing superior graphic design content—sought injunctive relief in the District Court of Petty Complaints. The District Court granted petitioners’ request, relying heavily on precedent against FedSoc, both in popular Law School lore and in this Court. See Hungry People; National Lawyers Guild v. FedSoc (NLG VII), 61 U.Va 5 (2009). The Circuit Court of Petty Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to resolve the underlying issue at hand: Is there ever a petty and/or gossip-scenario in which FedSoc may come out on top?
II. ANALYSIS
The Court reckons with two competing canons in answering the issue presented.
First, there is the oft-repeated refrain that “1Ls always lose.” This is a core value of our jurisprudence. See 2Ls v. 1Ls, 74 U.Va 2 (2021) (Tonseth, C.J., dissenting) (“[T]he implication that 1Ls always lose continues to be the bedrock of this esteemed Court.”) And it is fair to assume that 2Ls and 3Ls, on average, are far less likely to give a sh*t about their involvement in FedSoc than their 1L peers do. See 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019) (noting that 2Ls and 3Ls are more inclined to “lounge around” than do anything remotely related to school). So, taken to its logical conclusion: If those who care most about FedSoc are 1Ls, then the organization must lose too.
But undergirding the Court’s approach towards 1Ls—that they always lose–is the absolute hilarity of doing so. 1Ls’ sisyphean attempts to win in the Court of Petty Appeals are so incredibly entertaining. And that’s why, time and time again, we deny them victory. But this analysis of the “1Ls always lose” doctrine is illustrative for the instant case. If the true purpose of denying 1Ls victory is entertainment, then this Court must ask: What would be the funniestoutcome of the instant case?
The answer is simple: FedSoc winning is clearly funnier. To reward the organization that already has “won” at the Law School in much duller metrics—e.g., clerkship success rates; clout among faculty; being able to bring lawyers from SPLC-designated hate groups to Grounds and getting away with it—is absolutely hysterical. It is the exact sort of perceived “unfairness” among the Law School’s ideological organizations that motivated petitioners’ Complaint to begin with. And denying them relief at the last stage of litigation is, sadly, truly amusing.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court reverses the lower court and remands this case for further proceedings. (AKA–FedSoc, you have to keep producing your beautiful posters, because they are positively entrancing).
Flanagan, J., dissenting.
The majority’s decision today has been poisoned by a misunderstanding at the very root of the case. Petitioners sought the wrong form of injunctive relief when they petitioned the District Court to ban the one-of-a-kind craftsmanship of FedSoc’s Pamphleteer of Unusual Skill (hereafter, the PUS). Thankfully, we have broad authority to craft remedies, even if they surpass the wildest dreams of all parties. See, e..g. Aggrieved 2Ls v. Roots Bowl Thieves, 74 U.Va 11 (2022) (requiring the Roots Bowl thief conglomerate to hand-deliver lunch to their victims, even though plaintiffs only sought financial remuneration). So, it would be within our remit to instead compel the PUS to prepare equally splendorous posters for all student groups who require their creative services.
It is obvious that the PUS has a monopoly power when it comes to an eye for design in the Law School. Petitioners have proffered ample evidence of the Liberals’ inability to choose an appropriately sized font, awkwardly sized graphic art, and low-definition photographs. Introducing such evidence to the record is, perhaps, superfluous: The ubiquity of athleisure, Ruth Bader Ginsburg-themed decor, Madewell jeans, and baseball caps in the Law School stand on their own for the creative leanings of the pre-law community.[8] For PUS to restrict the use of their artistic talents only to FedSoc’s purpose is a vertical alliance which is causing clear anticompetitive harm to the Law School community.
This type of anticompetitive exclusive dealing by the PUS is subject to Rule of Reason analysis. Are there any procompetitive benefits from allowing FedSoc to impair the ability of its rival organizations to draw crowds at their events? None has been introduced into the record, which is probably because no one expected this to become an antitrust case. Ignoring that, however, is consumer welfare maximized by allowing the PUS to churn out merely one piece of craftsmanship a week? Obviously not: it is a well-established principle that “the hallways of the Law School could use more eye candy.” Students v. Dean Blazer, 56 U.Va 21 (2004).
The majority’s point that FedSoc winning is “clearly funnier” is well-taken. But, wouldn’t it be a bit funnier for this Court to run ramshod over recent (disturbing) First Amendment jurisprudence and just force some skilled Republican pamphleteer to prepare dozens of simply perfect posters a day, all in the name of competition?
---
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
cf3tf@virginia.edu
[1] Guilty!
[2] Self-appointed title.
[3] Another self-appointed title I gleefully share with Justice Allard.
[4] You know the ones I’m talking about—the ones that surreptitiously take up space on the little pegboards, in between the 10,000 VLR and VJIL mastheads plastered around the school like war propaganda.
[5] I am 24 years old, and I genuinely do not trust myself to use thumbtacks without injuring myself.
[6] I am informed by Chief Justice Morse that this person actually does exist, and that he’s a 3L. But that kind of defeats the purpose of the article, so the Court will engage in willful blindness here. Hasn’t stopped us before!
[7] Yes, it’s probably clear at this point that “petitioners” really means “me.” But the Court may exercise jurisdiction over cases that include its justices as quasi-parties. See Virginia Journal of International Law v. Virginia Law Review, 76 U.Va 3 (2023) (Sandu, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“Furthermore, this Court’s jurisdiction is over the conflicts and concerns of law students, and what are we if not law students? Must we recuse ourselves entirely from every dispute which reaches our bench?”).
[8] Indeed, one study shows that 67 percent of law students “listening to music” in the library on a given day are actually just listening to white noise. Likewise, when the average law student is asked if they see themselves as “creative,” eight out of ten will begin to describe the “well-crafted brief,” and the other two will mention “stress baking.”