Not All Friends are Lawyers (NAFAL)
v.
Student Bar Association
76 U.Va 15 (2024)
Coleman, J. delivers the opinion of the court.
We are here to review the constitutionality of a new piece of compromise legislation aimed at securing the Barrister’s Ball. After passing the divided chambers of the Student Bar Association, L.B. 01 was signed into law on the eve of the 2024 Ball. It was immediately challenged by the nonprofit group Not All Friends are Lawyers, or NAFAL, for violating their due process and equal protection rights. The lawsuit was joined by Lawyers with Friends, who added a claim that the law violates their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In the spirit of judicial restraint, for which I am widely admired, we reject these claims and affirm the constitutionality of L.B. 01 in full. We also choose to address complaints of students who purchased non-drinking tickets but still wanted access to the open bar.
I[1]
A crisis at the Ball has been steadily growing for years. In 2023, the ticket selection process resulted in much angst for the 1Ls, who were barely even guaranteed space for themselves. At a political rally following the ticket release, then-president Juhi Desai ’23 was met with thunderous applause after suggesting that we “shut down the Ball until we figure out what the hell is going on!” Other influential law students suggested that we restrict tickets to outsiders with J.D.s.
This discontent manifested itself in compromise legislation, which aimed to limit ticket sales to outsiders while still keeping the Ball somewhat open. L.B. 01 has three contested sections. The first orders that the Ball co-chairs immediately close ticket sales when the flow of non-law students reaches 300. § 2 narrows the definition of “eligible guest” to “husband, wife, spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other.” And § 3 allows the co-chairs to summarily eject any non-law student who fails to laugh at a law student’s legal joke.
II
NAFAL first posits that the new bill is violative of their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. With respect to the Fifth Amendment, they have a point here. Any guest, having failed to laugh at a law student’s joke, can summarily lose the rest of her night. The ticket would be worthless. Travel expenses would be wasted. However, these guests would be entitled to adequate process. First, they would be notified beforehand of the standard: laugh or be ejected. Second, the Barrister’s co-chairs would still serve as factfinders to determine whether the slight had actually happened. This Court is fine with limited adjudications taking place outside of petty courts, especially when efficiency demands it at events like the Ball.
With respect to the equal protection claim, we first need to note that non-law student guests are not a protected class. And rational basis review is a forgiving master. Counsel did point out that I am sometimes willing to apply a forceful rational basis review.[2] But counsel failed to observe that the designation in that case was harming me.
The argument under the Privileges and Immunities Clause is most interesting, but it also fails. It posits that a foundational privilege of being a law student is taking people to our fancy functions. The nerdy can show off, the status-obsessed can go on about how many resources big firms have to fund these events, and the average law student can share a good night with their significant other. While I am tempted by this argument, I think it ultimately misstates history because it presupposes that law students have always had many guests to choose from before a Ball.
III
This Court would also like to address complaints with respect to the drinking tickets. Some have complained that it was an invasion of privacy to mark the non-drinkers with permanent ink to prevent them from accessing the open bar. We find this restriction to be a reasonable means of implementing a valid fiscal goal. According to one of the event’s organizers, revenue increased by nearly 20 percent in response to the preliminary scare tactics. Barrister’s cannot operate if a critical mass of cheap law students buy discounted tickets and then commit honor code violations to get drinks. So, while physically marking non-drinkers was an aggressive choice, we understand the necessity.
IV
In response to widespread dissatisfaction, our legislative branch came to a compromise to secure the Ball. This Court is not prepared to let the rights of non-law students diminish the enjoyment of our future lawyers. The judgment of the appellate division is reversed and L.B. 01 is good law.
Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.
While I believe the Court’s decision to be sound, I write separately to propose a long-term solution to the recurring problem of limited Barrister’s tickets. Barrister’s is to former prom royalty what the Libel Show is to former theater kids. It is a cornerstone to the mental and social well-being of all law students. And yet, no law student is an island. While I understand the necessity of restricting ticket sales in the current state of events, I cannot help but be reminded of how every year, at least some in our community will be disappointed by what should be, in the words of High School Musical 3: Senior Year, “a night to remember.”
The root of the problem appears to be a space limitation—both the Forum Hotel and Boar’s Head Resort before it simply cannot accommodate every single law student and their entourage who wants to party. Our current building has housed the Law School since 1974.[3] During that time, Darden first moved out of Slaughter Hall into its current building in 1996, and now has the brand new Forum Hotel at its disposal. Why should the Law School content itself with what Darden has left behind? The most obvious solution, therefore, is to invest the proceeds of the ticket sales this year into the construction of a new Barrister’s Ball venue on North Grounds, one grand enough to accommodate even the most social of law students. Only then can we truly be free to party.
[1] Actual headings, while helpful, are for the lower petty courts.
[2] See Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va. 13 (2024) (Coleman, J., dissenting) (“Because excluding me from any event reeks of arbitrariness, I would hold that the ‘open to faculty’ exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause.”).
[3] https://www.law.virginia.edu/charlottesville/layout.