Production Editors of the Virginia Law Weekly
v.
The Patriarchy®
76 U.Va 18 (2024)
Sandu, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
The position of Production Editor of the Law Weekly is a noble one. It is also a post that has historically (four times in a row now) been held by a woman–a woman who is often one of, if not the only, woman on the Law Weekly Executive Board. The case presently before the Court arises within this all-important framework.
Petitioners Monica Sandu ’24 and Nicky Demitry ’26 are the Production Editor Emerita and Current Production Editor of the Law Weekly, respectively (hereinafter “Production Editors”). Respondent, The Patriarchy®, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy,” i.e., “control by men of a disproportionately large share of power.”[1] Petitioners brought suit in the District Court of Petty Claims alleging that The Patriarchy® has unduly corrupted the journalistic integrity of the Law Weekly, resulting in the discriminatory assignment of articles and a failure to adequately recognize their role within the paper. Respondent moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The District Court granted Respondent’s motion, reasoning that The Patriarchy® is not in fact a petty claim but rather a systemic problem, therefore placing it beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The District Court also reasoned that it would be funnier for The Patriarchy® to prevail against Petitioners during Women’s History Month. Because the District Court failed to appropriately consider the extremely petty context in which this case arose, and because one of the petitioners is also the Justice writing this opinion, we reverse.
Background
On Monday, March 11, as the Law Weekly Executive Board was brainstorming articles for the week of March 18, Editor-in-Chief and Chief Justice of this Court, Andrew Allard erroneously referred to Women’s History Month as “International Women’s Month.” An all-male group of Law Weekly board members then proceeded to discuss writing an article about it without initially asking either Petitioner – who were both in the room at the time and actively working on the paper – if they, as women, would want to write an article about the so-called “International Women’s Month.” The record reveals that when calling out the error, Petitioner Sandu jokingly offered to write a COPA about production editors versus patriarchy, to which Chief Justice Allard replied, “That’s a great idea!” and actually assigned her to write it. Thus arises this suit.
Though steps were taken immediately afterward to rectify these grievous oversights, Petitioners’ complaint claims that the initial error, which Chief Justice Allard attributed to a confusion between International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month, is evidence of a “persistent and pernicious pattern” which “dismiss[es], minimiz[es], or otherwise ignor[es]” celebrations of women. Petitioners attribute this pattern to The Patriarchy®’s influence over “the Chief Justice and his cronies.” In response, Allard said, “I thought The Patriarchy® was just about horses. Also, I’m not even a party to this suit. Why am I here, again?” before returning to his Mojo Dojo Casa Law Weekly Office.
Petitioners argue that the existence of The Patriarchy® is a violation of Equal Protection and that the severe emotional harm that The Patriarchy® has caused them, particularly during the aforementioned Women’s History Month, necessitates immediate and definitive action. Petitioners further rely upon the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen in asserting their right to be fully included in the article assignment process.
I.
Jurisdiction is proper in this case. Not allowing this Court to hear the suit would deny the Court of a potentially funny opinion, which violates the Court’s fundamental commitment to the Bit. In response, The Patriarchy® argues that the funniest thing that can happen to this suit is to dismiss it right away, and that granting the suit would only result in now-stale references to Barbie (2023). “Last week’s opinion was about sunflower seeds,” Respondent points out, claiming that this week’s suit cannot possibly live up to such a high pettiness standard. Thus, Respondent argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over what The Patriarchy® calls a “distinctly non-petty complaint. I mean, just look at me. I’m everywhere!”
We disagree. Where the context in which a case arises is petty, that pettiness may be construed to apply to the entire case, even if the underlying issue would not otherwise fall into this Court’s pettiness jurisdiction. This is precisely one such case of constructive pettiness. The whole issue arose because Chief Justice Allard misspoke. Furthermore, his mistake, by making the month “international” actually assumed that more countries beyond the United States celebrated women for the month of March. And Justice Sandu was ultimately assigned to write the article. But because she was assigned to write the article, she may wield that power with impunity. Our precedent permits justices to rule on cases in which they themselves are also parties.[2]
II.
The Patriarchy® violates Petitioner’s right to be included in the article assignment process. As Chief Justice Allard himself will attest, it can be difficult to get editors willing to write articles, whether that be due to scheduling conflicts, workload, or simply not showing up to meetings, thereby making it impossible for them to be…enthusiastically persuaded to write. However, The Patriarchy® caused the Law Weekly Executive Board to not consider its female members in assigning articles, even articles about Women’s History Month. This Court holds that the women of the Law Weekly deserve the same right as any other member to avoid eye contact and hope that they don’t get asked to write something that week, in line with the doctrine of nolo ire, sed invitari volo.[3] And while it might be funny for Production Editors to lose in a case on which they themselves rule, it would also be funny to win on a suit they were assigned to write which is based on the allegation that they are not assigned enough to write. In cases where both outcomes are equally funny, the most absurd outcome shall prevail.
Respondent argues that giving women preferential treatment for articles about Women's History Month and other women’s issues would in fact be a violation of due process and equal protection. However, this argument fails to comprehend Petitioners’ true complaint. The harm being alleged here is not that Petitioners were not given preferential treatment in the assignment of articles but rather that they were not initially considered at all. Classification on the basis of sex is “an invidious discrimination and invalid under due process principles” where “it is not one having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation . . . .”[4] Furthermore, “[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.”[5] Ignoring women’s abilities to contribute to the Law Weekly plainly contradicts equal protection.
Petitioners further cite Olympe De Gouges for the proposition that “ignorance, neglect, or contempt for the rights of woman are the sole causes of public misfortunes and governmental corruption.”[6] Because I am one of the petitioners, I must necessarily agree with Petitioners’ claim. Finding against The Patriarchy®, especially given that the current Editor-in-Chief and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus are men, is therefore necessary to ensure the integrity of the Law Weekly and its leadership. It is for their sake as well as ours that The Patriarchy® cannot be permitted to prevail.
The District Court’s order dismissing the case is thus reversed, and relief shall be granted, among other remedies within the Court’s discretion, in the form of a mandatory viewing of Legally Blonde (2001) and Barbie (2023).
Demitry, J., concurring.
Yeet.
Allard, J., concurring in the judgment.
I concur with the outcome of this case, as I am persuaded that it is the funniest possible disposition, and my clerks warn me that the optics of ruling against the Court’s women during International Women’s Month (or whatever it’s called) would be really bad. I may be ignorant, but I’m not Samuel Alito. So I’ll acquiesce.
But I write separately to defend my honor. The majority accuses me of horrible indignities and ludicrous misstatements. Most of these accusations are essentially correct. But did they not think of my feelings? I am a simple man with the brain function of an even simpler man. If I get two important celebrations dedicated to the mighty women of the world, must I be pilloried in this way? As the majority admits, my mistake if anything elevated the importance of women. And this is the thanks I get? Fine. If you need me I’ll be in my Mojo Dojo Casa House, respectfully dissenting. Even though this is a concurrence.
---
ms7mn@virginia.edu
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy.
[2] See Section H Gays v. Lake and [additional citation].
[3] “I don’t want to go, but I want to be invited.”
[4] Moritz v. Commissioner, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972).
[5] Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
[6] Olympe de Gouges, The Declaration of the Rights of Woman (September 1791), Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, accessed march 17, 2024, https://revolution.chnm.org/d/293.