Ex Parte Undergrad
77 U.Va 4 (2024)
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Coco, Jones, Demitry, & Allard, JJ., join.
Allard, C.J., concurs.
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
This Court has been asked to grant a writ of habeas corpus to the undergraduate student who is currently imprisoned in the Law Weekly office. We decline to offer him any relief and accordingly uphold the constitutionality of his confinement. If there is an undergraduate student studying in our library, any law student, even a 1L, may imprison him within the Law School until an Honor tribunal is prepared to hear his case.
I
This case began on a calm Sunday evening. The library was packed with nervous 1Ls who were working furiously. But something seemed off at one of the tables in the gunner pit. Four younger-looking students were giggling, and they looked suspiciously happy. So, one member of the Law Weekly staff and current 1L, who shall remain nameless, approached the table to gather more information. But she was taken aback by the screens in front of her. They were all studying anatomy, a subject that no self-respecting law student would ever engage with. Shouting ensued. Weapons were drawn. And amid the chaos, the Law Weekly reporter was able to subdue and hog-tie one of the undergraduates. She then dragged him back and handcuffed him to the refrigerator in the Law Weekly office, where he has remained since.
Subsisting on nothing but leftover pizza and beer, this undergraduate student learned enough to file this habeas petition. He seeks immediate relief from his unlawful detention. He claims that he is not a flight risk, and has been so traumatized by his experience in the Law School that he will never again step foot on North Grounds.
II
This case forces us to deal with an issue of first impression in this Court. What rights does an undergrad have in relation to the lowly 1L? It goes without saying that 1Ls always lose. See, e.g., Virginia v. Harvard L. Rev. Ass’n, 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (“1Ls must always lose.”); see also Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win . . . .”). But as far as the clerks of this Court are aware, that principle is only promulgated in cases where 1Ls are pitted against 2Ls or 3Ls. Surely, the rights calculus must change when the adverse party has not even taken the LSAT.
This Court is of the opinion that our jurisprudence must give way to evolving circumstances. The law of the land is that 1Ls always lose when they assert rights against more advanced law students. We are not unaware of the arguments against this. At the beginning of their studies, 1Ls are little more than undergrads. They often exhibit the same personal foibles common to undergrads. But the key difference is that they have successfully taken the LSAT, thereby demonstrating some potential for the legal reasoning that differentiates us from the laity.
III
While this new articulation of the 1L rule establishes a massive presumption against granting this writ, there is still work to be done on the merits. It is still conceivable that it is funnier for the undergraduate to win.
The petitioner alleges that this confinement violates his rights to substantive and procedural due process. While The Constitution does not govern our petty jurisdiction, we are bound by substantive honor analysis. See Students for Fair Socialization v. Student Bar Association, 76 U.Va. 2 (2023) (“Our constitutional order was fundamentally changed when the Honor System was established in 1842. And with that, the Framers protected some inalienable rights by putting them outside of the Honor Code’s ambit.”). The petitioner contends that the basic right to liberty is protected by substantive honor because it is not addressed in the three pillars of the Honor Code. But this argument is unavailing.
The Honor Code expressly prohibits stealing. The use of space in our Law School by uninvited third parties is a form of stealing. Therefore, no right of the undergraduate captive was violated when he was taken to the Law Weekly office, in the same way that no right is violated when a murderer is arrested by the police.
There is a final question as to whether the 1L was the proper authority to arrest this undergrad. Based on this Court’s recent holding in ASSES, regular law students have the power to enforce criminal provisions. Aggrieved Students Seeking E-Mail Solutions v. Univ. of Virginia Information Technology Services, 77 U.Va. 3 (2024) (“[W]e believe [that allowing private criminal enforcement] is consistent with this Court’s commitment to vindicating the public’s petty disputes.”). Following this precedent, there is no question that a law student can take petty enforcement into her own hands.
The undergrads lose on the merits. The undergrads lose on humor. They have failed in every respect to rebut the presumption against them, even when facing a 1L captor. Law students may detain undergrads with impunity before their Honor trials when they trespass on North Grounds. However, the 1L must be transferred to the proper Honor authorities when it is time for a full adjudication, in the interest of comity with the larger institution.
This petition for the writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. Costs are awarded to the 1L respondent.
Allard, C.J., concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court because it correctly holds that law students—including 1Ls—may arrest undergraduates trespassing on North Grounds. As the majority ably explains, our decision in ASSES enables law students to enforce the Honor Code against undergrads. This result is also consistent with this Court’s commitment to the bit. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”). Pitting the 1Ls—no doubt chomping at the bit to try out this “law stuff” they’re learning about—against undergraduate interlopers is priceless.
But I would go further and hold that undergraduate students do not have standing to bring a habeas petition in the first place. “Oh, but Mr. Chief Justice Allard, that issue wasn’t briefed by either of the parties!!” God my clerks are annoying. Who hired you anyway?
The Court of Petty Appeals is not bound by such impotent philosophies as “judicial restraint.” Instead, the Court should answer the question we were all thinking: Do undergraduates possess any rights that law students are bound to respect? The answer is surely no. This Court has previously described undergraduates as “bad,” Class of 2021 v. Doe, 903 U.Va 12 (2018) (Schmalzl, J., concurring), “annoying,” Remote Students v. Student Records, 73 U.Va 11 (2020) (citing Annoyer), and disease-spreading, Law Students for Fall Break v. The Law School, 73 U.Va 7 (2020). Should this Court be an open forum to such individuals? You be the judge. Just kidding, I’m the judge. And I say no.
I would hold that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is permanently and inherently suspended as to undergraduate students. If someday, a case arises where it would be exceptionally funny to grant a victory to an undergrad, perhaps we will hear their arguments. But we need not do so here.
---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu