In re Whatever Is Going On Right Now
77 U.Va 13 (2025)
Allard, C.J., delivers the unanimous opinion of the Court.
This order comes as the Law Weekly has moved to amend its amicus brief in an action against reality itself. In December, WTF (We The Flustered) and HUH (Humans Unsettled by History) brought suit in response to what they describe as “a tortious heap of historical events, crazed acts, and general weirdness.” WTF and HUH asked this Court to enjoin the universe, God, and reality from engaging in further cosmic tomfoolery.
The Law Weekly editors, angry that these events occurred during finals season and winter break when the paper was not in publication, joined WTF and HUH’s calls for an injunction, submitting an amicus brief in mid December. But the litigation has dragged on for long enough that the Law Weekly may finally publish Luigi Mangione-related ANG’s. The Law Weekly thus seeks to amend its brief to oppose plaintiffs, a procedural move that is both legally unprecedented and a blatant act of unprincipled opportunism.
Their motion to amend is GRANTED.
I
The facts of the case are neither disputed by the parties nor relevant to the Law Weekly’s motions. But they are rather entertaining, and discussing them is the primary purpose of this opinion. So the Court will list just some of the “crazy” events cited by WTF and HUH.
1. On December 3, South Korea’s right-wing president declared martial law, accusing his political opponents of being “communists” loyal to North Korea. The Korean National Assembly then unanimously voted to invalidate the president’s decree, Yoon was impeached, and he now faces criminal charges.
2. The next day, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was shot and killed in front of a New York City hotel. Rather than mourn the CEO’s death, many social media users delighted in the killing, which appeared to be motivated by anger toward private health insurers. When the suspect was caught, pretty much everyone agreed that he was really hot, prompting some to jokingly[1] call for his acquittal. Oddly, the event prompted a unified outpouring of anger toward private insurers from across the political spectrum, yet politicians and journalists decried the public’s frustrated response as “vile” and “horrifying.” Then the NYPD perp walked him or something. Like really I still can’t believe any of this happened as I’m writing this. Oh, also his name turned out to be Luigi. You can’t make this shit up.
3. Around the same time, litigation over the TikTok ban began filtering through the federal courts. The D.C. Circuit upheld the ban on December 7, which was swiftly appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the ban just days before it went into effect. But then Trump said he wouldn’t enforce the ban, and TikTok came back. Meanwhile, millions of Americans downloaded Xiaohongshu, an even more Chinese app that’s sort of like TikTok but with more propaganda.
4. Just before Christmas, a Congressional ethics report on Matt Gaetz was released, presenting evidence that Gaetz allegedly paid more than $90,000 to women for sex, bought illegal drugs, and had sex with a minor. Don’t worry about him though, he has a show on One America News Network now.
5. Oh yeah, and Trump started talking about making Canada a US state. And Greenland. And Panama. Then he said he was renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” Manifest Destiny is back, baby!
This is just a short sample of the events cited by WTF and HUH. They alleged that these strange, loosely related events portend “something scawy,” an observation that this Court has not yet certified but considers plausible. WTF and HUH asked the Court to expedite judgment, noting that Whatever Is Going On Right Now shows no signs of stopping.
II
In December, seeing all of the fun stories that it was unable to cover, the Law Weekly submitted a brief in support of WTF and HUH. Relying on Justice Coleman’s observation that the news is a “natural resource . . . owned by” the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Weekly, see Allard v. Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 12 (2023) (Coleman, J., concurring in the judgment), the Editorial Board argued that all satirizable global events must be impounded until the Law Weekly returned to circulation in January. Upon returning for the spring semester, the Law Weekly sought to amend its brief to oppose Plaintiffs, a move which WTF and HUH oppose.
WTF and HUH argue that allowing amici curiae to switch sides after submitting their briefs would delay litigation, create uncertainty, and make a mockery of the law by allowing opportunistic and unprincipled argumentation. WTF and HUH also note that the Law Weekly has missed its deadline to amend, as PRCP 13 requires amendments to be made “21 days after serving.”
But WTF and HUH’s arguments ignore the surrounding text of PRCP 13, which applies only to pleadings. Even if we accept WTF and HUH’s argument that PRCP 13 encompasses amicus briefs, a party may still amend after the deadline if they “beg[] on their hands and knees.” Indeed, WTF and HUH have themselves moved to amend their complaint three times to include new global developments.
More to the point, their concerns about uncertainty and opportunism evince a misunderstanding of petty jurisprudence. They appear to rely on an argument that we rejected in our stay order in LexisNexis v. Doe. 24-77-9CV (2024) (Allard, C.J., dissenting) (“[W]e must follow proper procedure and at least kinda adhere to our law.”). The curtains have been drawn; this Court and its opinion are merely a vehicle for the justices to launder their worst ideas into something called “the law.”[2] Do I need to spell it out for you? “We do what we want.” PRCP 1.
Accordingly, we reject WTF and HUH’s objections. We are persuaded by the Law Weekly’s argument that their ownership right over satirizable news is sufficient reason for the Court to grant leave to amend. We are so persuaded that we will even waive the requisite hands and knees begging in this instance.
III
Nevertheless, we shall DENY the Law Weekly’s motion to dismiss the case outright. This
opinion is thus a narrow one. Yes, we can do whatever we want, but we will not allow a non-party to dismiss a case that they once supported as amicus. That, my friends, is a little something called judicial restraint.
The Law Weekly’s motion to amend is thus GRANTED, and their motion to dismiss is DENIED.
---