Commonwealth
v.
Allard
77 U.Va 11 (2024)
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Jones & Demitry, JJ., join.
Allen, J., concurs in the judgment.
Allard, C.J.?, joined by Coco, J., dissents.
Coco, J., dissents.
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
Our Editor-in-Chief is once again imperiled by criminal litigation. During his campaign for high office last year, he routinely falsified business records, with the aid of the then-Managing Editor and author of this opinion, in furtherance of campaign violations.[1] The conspirators would falsify Law Weekly printing receipts and distribute the ill-gotten proceeds among voting members of the paper. He was even delivering our extra Domino’s pizzas to administrative officials who helped him cook the books in the Law School Foundation accounts. For these crimes, he was convicted in a Virginia court. Somehow, he has kept this under wraps for several months. But his sentencing took place last week, and he is to spend the next twenty years behind bars.
The Law Weekly has no extradition treaty with the Commonwealth of Virginia. So, the question now arises: Will we respect this foreign criminal conviction of our EIC? Yes, we will. Chief Justice Allard will be turned over to Virginia authorities, stripped of all Law Weekly titles, and Justice Coleman will be elevated to Chief Justice and Editor-in-Chief.
I
This decision may seem at odds with our existing case law. See Law Weekly Editors v. Allard, 76 U. Va. 16 (2024) (“We now hold that the Editor-in-Chief, as sovereign of the Law Weekly, enjoys editorial immunity from suit.”). In particular, other Justices imagined a sweeping immunity. See id. (Coleman, J., concurring) (“This Court comes to the appropriate conclusion that their war crimes should never result in crushing civil liability.”); see also id. (Allard, C.J., concurring) (“[S]ome may interpret today’s decision as an effort by the Chief Justice to immunize himself from future litigation and entrench his position as the paper’s Editor-in-Chief. This is essentially correct. But who is going to stop me?”).
But those cases involved suits initiated after the EIC had taken office. The sweeping editorial immunity we envisioned only comes into existence when the office is assumed. Today, we are asked not to render a judgment de novo, but to respect a foreign judgment.
II
Independent of his ultimate criminal liability, Allard (sans C.J.) argues that enforcement should wait until his term of office ends. Without his unhindered leadership, the paper will surely fall into disarray. And in the lesser office of President of the United States, criminal lawsuits would have to wait until he leaves office.
But the Law Weekly has many editors who are willing and able to assume his duties upon this Court’s order. The regular functions of the Managing Board—assigning articles, reviewing for errors, securing Law School funding—can easily be fulfilled with our existing editor pool. So, there is no need to extend EIC immunity to criminal prosecutions secured before his tenure in office.
III
Yet another concern implicit in this case is the respect we will accord foreign judgments. Since no jurisdictions are our peers, we are not bound by any type of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Foreign judgments are valid insofar as we choose to make them valid.
But since this Court’s verdicts are rarely enforced in other jurisdictions, it is in our interest to show them some respect. Perhaps there is a day not so far in the future in which state and federal officials enforce our judgments against members of the public. That seems like a better result than our appointing a Law Weekly sheriff with dubious extra-territorial jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the Court ORDERS the following:
That former Chief Justice Allard be turned over to Commonwealth authorities.
That Justice Coleman assume his responsibilities immediately.
Allen, J., concurring in the judgment
While I hesitate to join the majority’s treatment of law and precedent (or throw my support behind Comrade Coleman), I ultimately agree that JUSTICE ALLARD does not enjoy immunity flowing from his position as EIC. I reach this decision on the basis of the structure of the Virginia Law Weekly Managing Board and write to inform the public about the political machinery and considerations at play. Contrary to many other political systems and organizations, and perhaps the assumptions of our readership, this paper is decidedly not democratic. Our managing board ‘electoral’ process consists largely of current leadership selecting and grooming their successors. This culminates in a ‘vote’ in which unanimous acclamation sees each elevated to their new post. The paper is modeled after the politburo, allowing us to avoid the inefficiencies and mistakes that democracy all too often allows. The upshot of this managed system is that the EIC, while wielding undoubted power during their tenure, is also a replaceable apparatchik, always fungible. As such, none of the justifications for allowing immunity through the term of office are persuasive, and JUSTICE ALLARD must face the full force of the Virginia legal system. I speak for all members of the Law Weekly in expressing the sincere hope that he hires a better lawyer for his appeal.
Allard, C.J.?, joined by Coco, J., dissenting.
“Et tu, Brute?” See Ex parte Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 16 (2024) (Morse, C.J., dissenting). Why must I quote this now? We’re not even through the second act???
The Law Weekly is famous at UVA Law for many things, chief among them its steadfast commitment to democracy. See id. (majority opinion) (“Many successful ‘campaigns’ result from backroom dealmaking, and some Editors-in-Chief have opted to hand-pick their successors.”). As part of our democratic traditions, this Court annually observes its “sacred duty to harass the Editor-in-Chief on their way out.” Id. But I still have another semester and a half left in me. What gives?
“Justice” Coleman, in his overzealous scheme to dethrone me from my highly undesirable job, purports to respect Virginia law. I have never before observed in him any deference to state power, so I can only interpret his reasoning here as a naked attempt at usurpation.
Well, it won’t work. Justice Coleman’s order installing himself as Editor-in-Chief is patently unconstitutional. The Law Weekly Constitution requires a formal process for the removal of any member of the Editorial Board. See Law Weekly Const. Art. III § 1. That process requires the Editor-in-Chief to “notify in writing the Editor whose removal is sought.” Id. You can bet your sorry asses I won’t be notifying myself of anything without a writ of mandamus.
Further, even if Coleman succeeds in convincing the Executive Board to launch a premature coup against me, their efforts shall be in vain. The Editorial Board is a constitutionally separate body from the Executive Board. See Law Weekly Const. Art. I § 2 (establishing the Executive Board, “comprised of an Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Production Editor, and Features Editor,” or the “Constitutional Editors”); id. § 3 (establishing an Editorial Board “comprised of the members of the Executive Board, in addition to as many additional Editors as needed”).
The Editorial Board’s duties are limited to creating Editorial Board positions, selecting its members, and, when necessary, overriding decisions of the Editor-in-Chief. See Law Weekly Const. Art. I § 3. But it is the Executive Board and its chief officer, the EIC, that are charged with “the efficient operation of the entire publication.” Law Weekly Const. Art. II § 1. Our Constitution’s removal clause only provides for removal from the Editorial Board, not the Executive Board. See Law Weekly Const. Art. III § 1. (“Any member of the Editorial Board may be removed from his or her position for good cause upon a two-thirds vote of the Executive Board.”) (emphasis added).
While this Court has not affirmatively adopted this stance, I believe the Constitution’s text unambiguously entrenches all Constitutional Editors as irremovable tyrants. This is consistent with our historical practice of cheerfully toppling Editors-in-Chief only after their term has expired. See UVA Law Student Body v. Tonseth, 74 U.Va 10 (2021) (ordering the Editor-in-Chief to “hard labor and cultural reeducation training, to be carried out in the Darden basement”); see also Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (dragging the outgoing Editor-in-Chief for confusing two admittedly similar editors).
Nothing in the majority’s erroneous and unconstitutional opinion can bind me, for I shall lie outside of their grasp during my imprisonment by the Commonwealth. Their premature putsch is amusing, but they shall have to wait until February to finalize my undoing. In the meantime, I shall govern from prison. If other heads of state follow suit, I shall only assume that it is because my cause is so noble as to become fashionable. Is this foreshadowing something? Probably not, but it would be really funny if it did.
Coco, J., dissenting.
I certainly agree with the Chief Justice’s conclusion that the Law Weekly’s Constitution “unambiguously entrenches all Constitutional Editors as irremovable tyrants,” although mindful of this institution’s evergreen commitment to democracy, I reject the Chief Justice’s rhetorical bluster. I write first, then, to disavow Justice Allen’s blunt assault against the democratic traditions and legitimacy of this institution. Any objective observer present on election day would witness no impropriety as the managing board is nominated and confirmed by vote with collegial unanimity. A peaceful transfer of power transpires, save the dutiful rhetorical harassment of the outgoing Editor-in-Chief. If it looks like democracy and smells like democracy, it certainly seems like it is in fact democracy.
But second, I also write to challenge the majority’s spurious conclusion that this jurisdiction’s immunity doctrine is limited to an Editor-in-Chief’s official term. On the contrary, expanding immunity seems vogue these days, and I see no reason why this Court should buck the trend. Specifically, I believe this Court’s immunity doctrine should expand to protect even inferior Managing Board officers acting in contemplation of further participation in the Law Weekly. Thus, Justice Allard’s then-status as Executive Manager of the Law Weekly at the time of the conduct in question protects him from this insurgent claim. This outcome should satisfy Justice Coleman, lest the power of the state he so sycophantically upholds should aim its sights on his own transgressions. This conclusion is also borne of the practical necessities of institutional survival, for who among us has not succumbed to the seductive allure of pettiness and chicanery?
---
[1] Noble Bar Examiners: You have likely discovered many distressing allegations against our EIC in this Court. Please take note of our petty jurisdiction.