Antitrust and Big Tech, Part III: TikTok v. American Big Tech - Competition for Your Social (Media) Security

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Current Events Editor

Beyond our national boundaries, Big Tech companies are vying to acquire the greatest commodity of all: your data, which includes information about your preferences, likes, dislikes, behavioral attitudes, and much more. The greatest example of Big Tech at the intersection of personal and international security is illuminated by the US-China relationship, which further illustrates that both the private and public realm are greatly intertwined. The dominant economic and social influences in the new technological economy will affect our norms, values, and realities. Importantly, the nation that dominates the global marketplace of the technological 21st century will set new standards with regard to human rights, privacy, censorship, and liberty itself, much like the US did in the early 20th century.

The struggle for this 21st century tech dominance was on display at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on June 30, 2020, one day after the Big Tech CEOs appeared before the House where they emulated their lack of commitment to the US side of the global economic struggle. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed the tech companies for fudging on questions regarding the Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to steal American intellectual property and commit cyber-attacks the day prior. Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) asked Pompeo how Big Tech CEOs could say they had “no experience or knowledge” of instances where IP theft had occurred on their platforms. Senator Pompeo speculated it might be “because there’s continued threats made to their businesses operating not only in China” but also those working in other parts of Asia and South Asia.

Big Tech is a big business. As with most businesses, their allegiance lies in their pocketbooks. Critically in this industry, however, the stakes of Big Tech’s business are greater than their bottom-line. Security, privacy, social and political influence, and the power to potentially manipulate, disinform, and divide the fabric of any society is on the line. This tension between private interest and public effect has been at the core of the stand-off between tech companies and President Trump in the “TikTok” saga especially, but encompasses relationships between Tech Giants and their Chinese-based manufacturers broadly (such as with Huawei). How does a market economy compete safely and allow intimate access to citizens’ information from companies where allegiances are directly tied to an oppressive government?

President Trump responded in what is shaping up to be a new “playbook” for Big Tech in navigating this challenge. In early August, he issued a series of executive orders proposing a ban on Chinese apps TikTok and WeChat, citing security threats because of China’s ability to access swaths of personal data of Americans. Access may be especially threatening in the context of an upcoming election where such data might be targeted in disinformation campaigns to affect outcomes. The threat of the ban spurred action on the part of American tech companies and ByteDance (the China-owned parent company of TikTok) to salvage TikTok’s presence in the sphere of American media.

On September 19, TikTok’s survival in the US seemed promising. President Trump had approved “in concept” a deal between Oracle, Walmart, and Bytedance, which grants the US majority stock ownership. The proposed deal would have granted 53 percent ownership by US companies and investors, but still did not entail majority control or voter rights for the American-based partners.The US Department of Commerce subsequently pushed the threatened ban to the end of the day on September 27. On September 20, however, Chinese officials did not affirm those terms. Instead, ByteDance would own 80 percent of TikTok Global, as well as maintain full control of its algorithm granting access to Oracle for monitoring. Prior to the Chinese announcement, Secretary Pompeo characterized the role of the Chinese company as a “passive shareholder” who would have “no decision-making authority [and] no ability to peer into” the activities of theUS company. Now, the situation is again fluid, and the struggle over terms of control will be critical to watch.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Romney had cautioned against diminishing the dominance of American tech titans. He noted that China has successfully driven “a lot of Western companies out of business,” but not necessarily American ones. “The last thing we ought to do is try to knock down businesses in the US that are succeeding on the global stage. So we need to be careful . . . Alibaba would like to replace Amazon. TikTok would like to replace Instagram,” he said.

Big Tech’s influence on our social, psychological, and political spheres cannot be overstated. The algorithms used by Facebook (which hosts 1.98 billion monthly active users) and Google wield immense influence over our social networks and ultimately our sense of reality. Particularly, as we are physically limited in our interactions with people outside our immediate spheres, these constructs are more powerful than ever. Targeted ads, tracking, and sharing of personal information with other organizations, companies, and potentially foreign governments threaten our personal privacy and may threaten our notion of truth and reality itself.

What role should Congress, the Executive Branch, or an administrative agency play in defining who the ultimate influencer is in Big Tech? How does the US balance the tension between securing market dominance on the global stage in this information space, while upholding its own domestic liberties to ensure competition “at home” is robust?

As the infamous Party slogan in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 goes, “who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

Today, the competition over who will control our present is as intense as ever. We must be careful in choosing those who gain the power to control the narratives that shape and will continue to shape the course of our lives and society.

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Kolleen and Christian

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

Although it’s been nearly six months, many aspects of our “new normal” continue to present challenges that can be strange and frustrating to face. From sitting next to someone in class to hitting Bar Review, things that once seemed a given feel far away, or at least vastly different behind a mask and six feet apart. We’ve been forced to connect more creatively in our professional, personal, and—we’ll say it, you smokeshows, you—romantic lives. Indeed, like a professor explaining the holding five minutes past the bell, love continues on, so we at the Law Weekly thought it would be intriguing, pleasantly distracting, and (dare we say it) heartwarming to hear how couples and singles alike are handling romance in light of all these changes. You've heard of Love in the Time of Cholera, but get ready for Love in the Time of Corona.

This week's guests are Law Weekly’s own Kolleen Gladden ’21 and her boyfriend, Christian Sorensen ’21.

Hi Kolleen and Christian! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let’s start with some background—how did you two get together and what’s coming next as 3Ls?

Kolleen: Hi Ben! So, we started dating earlier this year, literally right before school went remote in the spring. We met earlier though. My roommate, Grace Tang ’21, was in Christian’s 1L section and I offered to drive them both to a section sunset hike. I was pretty bold—I asked Christian what type of woman he liked that very first meeting. I also got pulled over for speeding, so maybe a little too bold!

Christian: Bold, but also chaotic and quirky. We started talking more in the fall of 2L and bumped into each other in a parking lot late one night and literally stood there for an hour talking about everything under the sun, from her home life in Missouri to the time an escaped emu crashed into her car and dented the windshield.

[A brief digression wherein emus, their inexplicable location in Missouri, and their terrifying size were discussed.]

As for what’s next, we’re both going to end up in NYC! I’ll initially be clerking in Delaware before switching back to my firm in the city, and Kolleen will be looking for a fellowship up there.

Pictured: Cutest looking couple west of the Mississippi River! Photo Courtesy of Kolleen Gladden ‘21.

Emus, man. Let’s talk ’rona. What’s the situation been like for you two in the spring, summer, and now? You had just started dating before this all went down.

Kolleen: Exactly. Honestly, as devastating as this has all been on a macro level, it’s worked out well for us on a micro one. Even though we had just started dating, we just went for it and planned visits to each other and met each other’s families a few times over the summer.

Any challenges or silver linings?

Christian: Both a challenge and silver lining would be my study abroad in Australia being canceled this semester. I was excited to go, but am also grateful to have this time here to spend with Kolleen and friends.

Kolleen: I think there were some stresses this summer unrelated to our relationship that were challenging for me, but dating Christian made things way less stressful. Going through this with him has made things way better than if I was going through them alone.

Crikey, sorry to hear that mate but glad you can throw some shrimp on the barbie with your Sheila state-side. Speaking of exotic locations, if y’all could pick a “dream location” to be isolated in right now, where would it be and why?

Answer: Catalonia in Spain! Christian has been before, and you only ever hear great things about it.

Ah, Bartha-lona. Tell me, what do you admire most about each other?

Kolleen: His commitment to his friends and family. He gets together on Zoom once or twice a week with his high school friends and family to chat, which is something I like and similarly value. He’s also crazy considerate. I’ll mention an interview or event I have offhandedly, and he puts reminders in his phone about them. Sometimes he knows my schedule better than me!

Christian: I admire Kolleen’s willingness to help me try new things and grow. For instance, I’ve been thinking about reducing meat and dairy in my diet but haven’t known where to start. Kolleen has also been trying to do the same, and she’s been someone I can experiment and try this diet with. She’s always very supportive.

Let’s do a lightning round—best Charlottesville date spot?

Answer: It’s got to be Now and Zen. Iron Paffles is a close second and spiritual experience in its own right though.

What’s your song?

Christian: I think it would be “Dizzy on the Comedown” by Turnover. Kolleen is big into music, and when we were apart this summer she would send me a song each day. This was my favorite and also one of hers.

What’s the first activity you’ll do when things go back to normal?

Answer: We’re on a mission to bankrupt Sushi King. Christian’s record is 28 rolls between four people. We haven’t been as a couple though, so we need to make a triumphant return!

A worthy goal! Walk me through an ideal day together.

Answer: So, this is an actual planned trip that we are crossing our fingers that we can still go on in December: We’d be in Hawaii and sleep in late. We’d get up and go for a run along the coast, or maybe a mountain path. From there we’d spend time in the water and on the beach, between the palm trees and in hammocks with many fruity drinks in hand.

Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Kolleen: I’ve been in a few long-term relationships with some really great people, but Christian has shown me there is such a stark difference between dating a great person and dating a perfect fit. Even if the standards for men were where they generally should be, Christian would be so far above it—he breaks them all. It’s been night and day with him. He is the most empathetic person I know, and it’s really a joy and honor to date him.

Christian: Kolleen is the strongest person I know. She’s accomplished so much but remained so humble in spite of having overcome so many personal things. For instance, she’s one of four recipients for the public service award in our class, but I didn’t even learn that from her and had to read about it in the Docket. She graduated college with two degrees—not majors—DEGREES! She won a ton of awards at school too. You would never hear any of this from her though. She’s so brilliant, smart, empathetic, and kind. Her drive, intelligence, and humility push me to be better.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty speechless by these answers, folks. Many thanks to Kolleen and Christian for joining us on Love in the Time of Corona and sharing their coronavirus experience. Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Club Spotlights: Immigration Law Society and Virginia Employment & Labor Law Association

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Jen Kelso ‘21
Guest Writer

Immigration Law Society

If you’re interested in working in immigration law, or want to learn more about this important field, then join us in the Immigration Law Society!

The Immigration Law Society (ILS) is a new student organization this year, and we’re excited to get up and running. The ILS is open to all students, whether you want to pursue an immigration law career, engage in immigration pro bono, or just want to learn more about it. We wanted to form ILS to help raise the profile of immigration law and related opportunities here at UVA. We want ILS to provide a way to bring together students who are interested in immigration law and to provide educational programming, as well as share opportunities for volunteering, internships, and jobs.

Immigration law is critically important and affects millions of lives. In addition to the vast amounts of people it affects directly, it also intersects with several other important areas of the law, such as criminal law, family law, and labor law. Immigration law has also been shifting rapidly over the last few years. Since assuming office, the Trump administration has made every effort to change the law, twist it, and use it against immigrant communities. More than ever, it is crucial for lawyers to stay up to date with the most recent developments in immigration law to ensure they provide the best representation possible for their clients.

But even though immigration law has been changing so drastically, the Law School unfortunately does not currently have a dedicated immigration faculty member, and immigration law class offerings over the past few years have been unpredictable. Though a student organization cannot substitute for expert faculty, we want the ILS to begin to fill in some of those gaps. By planning educational programming–especially focusing on recent, cutting-edge topics–we want to help UVA Law students interested in immigration become lawyers who are well-prepared to advocate for their clients and who are aware of the latest important issues.

Even though this is an abnormal year, we still want to plan immigration law events to start the ILS off on the right foot. Among other things, we would like to plan speaker events over Zoom, including a Supreme Court case roundup to discuss the past term’s immigration cases; a legal Spanish bootcamp for people looking to expand their legal vocabulary and practice conversational Spanish; and an internship panel to hear about students’ past immigration law work experiences. We’d also love to hear what ideas you have for ILS events and activities!

——————

Hannah Morris ‘22
Guest Writer

Nicole Payne ‘21
Guest Writer

Virginia Labor and Employment Law Association

The Virginia Labor and Employment Law Association (VELLA) is a student-run organization at the Law School that seeks to educate the student body on all aspects of labor and employment law. Labor and employment law covers the rights, obligations, and responsibilities within the employer-employee relationship. Employment lawyers work on various complex issues ranging from wages to workplace safety to Title VII discrimination. They might represent employers, employees, and labor unions. As an organization, VELLA’s primary goals are to provide career and networking opportunities with alumni in the field and to educate members on new developments and issues in employment law. For example, last year, VELLA co-hosted a panel discussion with Professors George Rutherglen and Kim Forde-Mazrui on Title VII discrimination when the Supreme Court was hearing arguments regarding whether sexual orientation should be prohibited under federal law in the now landmark case Bostock v. Clayton County. VELLA also hosted a joint social event with Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Society to watch a UVA men’s basketball game.

Additionally, VELLA has worked diligently to revamp its pro bono project, allowing students to gain firsthand experience working with clients. Students have the opportunity to represent employees who are facing termination, discipline, or other adverse employment outcomes in an administrative hearing. Students can learn to interview clients and witnesses, practice opening and closing statements, and learn from an experienced supervising attorney specializing in employment law.

VELLA’s general body meeting for the fall semester will be held virtually in October, date TBD. This fall, VELLA is planning speaker events and is currently accepting applications for 1L representatives and other positions on the board. If students are interested in joining VELLA (no dues this year!) then please email Nicole Payne at nap4kq@virginia.edu. We hope you join us!

---

jlk8uc@virginia.edu
hdm8cs@virginia.edu
nap4kq@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. City Folk

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Students v. City Folk
73 U.Va 5 (2020)

Justice Graebner delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court is called upon here to adjudicate a most delicate and complex issue: What, if any, jurisdiction does this Court of Petty Appeals have over actions and transactions occurring off the premises of the Law School?

The gravamen of the complaint is as follows: Petitioners have observed students and probable students congregating in large numbers, especially at close proximity, without a mask and sued, seeking declaratory injunctions to enforce social behavior concerning gatherings. These complaints have been both on-and-off Grounds. With respect to the gatherings on Law School premises, we decline to review this issue, as the failure of people to not be idiotic[1] does not present any interesting questions of appellate review. However, we take up the issue of gatherings off-premises to clarify the question of whether or not we have jurisdiction. Petitioners argue that all gatherings observed are subject to our jurisdiction as by potential contact with law students, persons who work at the school, persons who may come into contact with law students, and so on. Respondents contend that the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to persons on the grounds of the Law School. For the reasons we will discuss, we hold that our jurisdiction is not limited to persons on the Grounds of the Law School but decline to extend it as far as to the Respondents.

At the outset, we recognize Rule 1 of Petty Civil Procedure.[2] Nonetheless, it is clear that this Court is not one in which any grievance may be aired.[3] Doing so would violate our understanding of the due process rights of all persons and give us way too much work. Without restraint on jurisdiction, virtually anyone could be haled in for a roasting without notice, ability to respond, or even knowledge of the forum’s existence.[4] As articulated in Mitchell v. Mitchell and Webb, our jurisdiction must be especially limited when the defendant is impossibly distant and could not possibly know of this forum or respond in person to this court’s roasting. To hale a defendant who cannot respond is most improper.

Further, practical considerations dictate some limits to jurisdiction. To allow unlimited grievances would be to convert this Court into a forum for an unworkably wide range of grievances and send us astray from our mission of adjudicating the petty[5] disputes which pertain to the Law School and are unworthy of any other tribunal. We, therefore, decline to follow the rule proposed by Petitioners in full. Such a rule would go well beyond any statutory grant of jurisdiction, increase the potential for judicial confusion, and as above increase our workload. Finally, this Court takes judicial notice of the numerous other fora available to petitioners for complaint, relief, and mockery. Excessive jurisdictional claims can only risk depriving these fora of potential claims, harming their dignity, and encourage students to forum-shop here. While Petitioners claim that all other fora available are insufficiently procedurally rigorous, we follow the counsel of Hylton v. Guyot,that mere procedural differences or habits of practice do not amount to a forum that deprives Petitioners of essential rights.[6] Just because one forum has a drier sense of humor than another or a higher standard for applying the “law school sucks, deal with it” common-law principle, that does not make it an inappropriate forum to resolve disputes or at least raise them. However, we need not examine if fora are procedurally insufficient for the reasons outlined below.

At the same time, we hesitate to endorse the Respondent’s restrictive jurisdictional theories. The claim that our jurisdiction is restricted territorially to the Law School itself is so absurd as not to require comment. We do not endorse such a cramped formalistic and territorial understanding of jurisdiction. The due process concerns highlighted above do not blind us to the fact that our paper is widely read off-grounds via the internet.[7] Even off-Grounds, there are at least some circumstances where active or constructive notice can be determined. The problems that arise for this school may come from many quarters, and it is the highest foolishness to claim that nothing matters outside of this School as much as some of us may like to pretend this. Nor do transactions at this school limit their effects to our Grounds, as much as we pretend to. An ill-advised frat party on Friday night may sicken a 1L at a critical juncture a week later; an ill-advised meeting in the Law School may do likewise for a librarian in Crozet two weeks hence. Certainly, even basic day-to-day matters in town are part of a stream of activity with the Law School, and the excessively formalist jurisprudence advocated by Respondents denies this. With this in mind, it is clear that this Court should exercise at least some jurisdiction over off-Grounds activity. However, the extent of that jurisdiction must still be determined.

We note that these due process concerns are weakest with respect to current and former students of the Law School. By affiliating with UVA and UVA Law in particular, they can be presumed to consent to our jurisdiction. Notice concerns are also far more limited with respect to current, or former students who are notorious enough to be sued in this forum—they should be reasonably aware of the possibility. Likewise, the practical concerns that we have addressed earlier are far more limited. Jurisdiction over current and former students presents a discrete set of potential cases unlikely to burden us, and we do not seriously entertain the possibility of a flood of non-students seeking to litigate in our courts.[8]

More vexing is the problem of jurisdiction over non-students. Here there is a more difficult danger to due process and a weaker connection to the Law School, as well as a greater danger of vexatious litigation and a greater risk of overloading our docket. At the same time, we do not wish to shut our doors to legitimate claims that are connected to the Law School. An exact test is nearly impossible,[9] but some degree of connection to the Law School is needed. The greater the proximity of the activity to transactions directly involving the Law School, the greater the probability the Court finds jurisdiction. Conversely, the more remote or attenuated the connection, the less likely. The exact analysis, of course, will vary from case to case and plaintiff to plaintiff. But as a rule, while claims against a person within our jurisdiction already will be heard as a rule, claims not against a person within our jurisdiction should clearly have some substantial effect within our jurisdiction.

Applying this rule to the instant case, we see first that all claims against law students for unsafe behavior are clearly availing. With respect to claims against non-law students, jurisdiction will be found to the degree that their unsafe activity was in proximity to law students or persons they knew or should have known would transmit to law students. This, we think, adequately answers issues of notice and availment raised by the due process concerns cited above. We, therefore, find for the petitioners with respect to claims against law students and persons in the above category, remanding all other claims to the district court to allow petitioners to remove residual claims to such other forums as are appropriate.

---

dg4mk@virginia.edu

[1] The Court understands that different people may have different risk thresholds, that some people may be cautious around things that are in fact perfectly safe, that one is unlikely to transmit while eating a picnic while masked with a friend a fishing rod’s distance away. Our concern is with people not doing these things, or the fools in crowds of dozens packed in tight spaces without masks. The court also does not wish to have its comments taken to excuse UVA’s foolishness in reopening, lack of transparency concerning outbreaks on grounds, poor coordination with business serving students, the lack of support to enable businesses to stay shut or reopen on a more limited basis and so on.

[2] “We do what we want.”

[3] See e.g. Jones v. One sandwich called “Reuben” (declining to adjudicate the quality of a sandwich purchased in Brandy Station for lack of nexus with any law student), Sentient Beings v. McConnell (holding that our jurisdiction did not extend to “admittedly truthful generalized complaints about a sitting senator, even one who closely resembles Palpatine).

[4] Yes, Virginia, there are people who do not know of this forum’s existence.

[5] We decline to address the question of whether or not a serious problem of public health is “petty” because, let’s face it, it’s not like anyone actually in charge of things is taking this seriously enough.

[6] See also In Re Aramark(outlining this court’s Forum non Conveniens doctrine).

[7] The court notes the widespread and high readership of our important journalism on whether cereal is or is not a soup. Your Justice sadly dissents on this issue, although this is hardly an important or courageous dissent.

[8] Although respondents included unsolicited materials on the standing of non-students in their brief, all petitioners are current students. We therefore need not address the question of when non-students have standing here in detail, and it is inadvisable to provide excessive dicta on this question. We also note that the question of whether uninfected plaintiffs have standing was adequately and properly resolved by the Court of Petty Claim.

[9] Mostly because we do not feel like working one out since that will take precious time away from yelling on Twitter, rewatching Tiger King because everything old is new again, and listening to emo music.

Hot Bench: Doug Mulliken '23

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Hi Doug, thanks for coming on Hot Bench! Where are you Zooming in from and what time is it?

Capetown, South Africa—I live in the Muizenberg neighborhood. It is 6:33 p.m., South African Standard Time.

That’s a six hour difference! What are you doing in South Africa?

The short version is I moved here two years ago because my wife is from here and I had a postdoctoral fellowship at a nearby university. And then, COVID meant the borders were closed when law school started, so I was unable to leave the country to come to the United States.

Do you have plans to come to Charlottesville?

Yeah, I am trying to when borders open. Probably after Christmas, we’ll get to Charlottesville and get settled in before classes start in January.

What’s your wife’s name? How did you meet?

Her name is Inge Jansen. We met when I first moved to South Africa in 2010. We were both at a friend’s going-away party; we met at a dingy bar called Gandalf’s, which is a goth-metal bar. My wife struggles with the fact that she met her husband at a bar like that.

Where are you from?

San Diego, California. I grew up down the street from where they filmed Top Gun.

When did you start thinking about law school?

For practical purposes, probably the day after Donald Trump was elected. My dad is a lawyer and my brother went to law school, but I didn’t think of it as something I could do myself until that election. I was working on my Ph.D. when it happened, and I wasn’t going to stop, so I finished it and then prepared to switch to a career that would allow me to have a practical impact and contribute to society in a different way.

What is your Ph.D. in?

Hispanic studies and film studies.

Do you speak any other languages?

Yes, Portuguese and Spanish. I lived in Spain for a year, and Argentina for about five months. My Portuguese is pretty rusty now.

How does law school compare with other forms of graduate schooling?

The big difference between a Ph.D. and law school is that with the Ph.D., you have to figure it out on your own. One positive thing about law school is that if I read something and I don't understand it, I’m not stressed about it—I know we’ll discuss it in class.

How is taking classes entirely online?

Generally, it’s been fine. It feels like night school, but in terms of learning the materials, it’s fine. I think the big difference is how much harder it is to meet other students. If people don’t talk in class, I don’t really know who they are. And because there are fewer interactions, it’s hard to know who’s who.

Have you been able to get involved with clubs?

Yep, I’m a 1L rep for LALO and we’re having our first meeting this week. They co-sponsor a volunteer program with farmworkers and I’m excited to get involved when I get to Charlottesville. I’m in a couple of other groups, but it’s hard via Zoom. My wife joined UVA Spouses and she was on a Zoom meet-up and enjoyed meeting with them.

Let’s do a lightning round!

Favorite food?

San Diego Mexican food.

Favorite place in Charlottesville? (If you have one?)

I do have one! I’m a fake double ’Hoo—I have a Master’s from UVA. My favorite place in C’ville is a restaurant called Maya.

Favorite place in Capetown?

The beach.

Anti-Stress Hobby?

Before the pandemic, I used to play rugby and cricket.

Pet peeve?

When technology doesn't work the way it’s supposed to.

Favorite word?

You can’t print it, but ****. Another word would be welp.

Fun fact about yourself?

I’m the oldest person in the 1L class. At least I think so . . . I haven't met another thirty-seven-year old yet. Also, I have a tiny dachshund named Max.

What’s one movie that left an impression on you?

The first movie that left a big impression on me is an Australian movie called The Year of Living Dangerously from the 1980s, starring Mel Gibson and Linda Hunt. After watching that film, I wanted to be a foreign correspondent, but by the time I got to college that was a dying profession.

If you could pick one song to play in the background of your life, what would it be?

“Vivo” by Gustavo Cerati.

What’s your spirit vegetable?

Onion, but not for the Shrek reasons.

Do you care to elaborate?

Onions are the greatest vegetable. They mix well with every kind of cuisine. We should all aspire to be as versatile and adaptable as onions.

Where’s a place you’ve never been, but would like to go?

Russia. I’d love to do the Trans-Siberian Railroad. I find Russia fascinating because I grew up in the tail end of the Cold War. The Russians were the bad guys, and then they were the good guys in the ’90s, and now they’re the bad guys again.

If you could make one rule that everyone had to follow, what would it be?

“Think about others more than we do.” I think we lack that these days— thinking about others. And everyone struggles with it.

Is cereal a soup?

No. And a hotdog is not a sandwich.

---

dgm8p@virginia.edu

Club Spotlight: National Lawyers Guild

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Michael Berdan ‘22
Staff Editor

When protests for racial justice broke out across the nation after the lynching of George Floyd, lawyers and law students played a critical supporting role in protecting the rights to protest and public action. Lawyers also assisted in organizing and educating. Now, going on five months later, as this uprising continues to surge and resurge in various parts of the United States, protestors and activists are too often restricted, targeted, and arrested, and the glaring need for support from the legal community has not waned.

National Lawyers Guild (NLG), established in 1937, is one of the longest-tenured groups that organizes law students to lend support in moments like these. We are best known for the neon-green hats worn by our Legal Observers, who are seemingly omnipresent at the front lines of protest actions. Legal Observers do exactly that: observe. They keep track of the actions of protestors and law enforcement agents, particularly who is arrested, when, where, and under what circumstances. That way, each individual can be connected with bail and defense resources as quickly as possible.

NLG at UVA provides Legal Observer training to prepare students to serve under NLG of Central Virginia. We also present events and discussions around issues of protest, social justice, racial justice, immigrant justice, housing justice, and education. During the pandemic, NLG at UVA has used its voice, resources, and student activism in support of movements to protect the housing of vulnerable populations and to release detainees from the Farmville ICE detention center.

Last year, NLG sponsored a panel at PILA’s Shaping Justice conference, called Technology and the Criminalization of Sex Work, which gathered academics and sex worker activists to discuss the intersection of technology, surveillance, freedom, and sex work, and the movement for decriminalization. NLG will also be sponsoring a panel this year, on a topic to be announced later in the year. Last November, NLG also presented—with the support of Women of Color, IRAP at UVA Law, and LALO—an event addressing the mobilization of ICE agents in Central Virginia and the impacts on the community. Activists representing several dimensions of the problem convened to share stories and ideas, and galvanize support for the immigrant community of our region.

The mission statement laid out in the Preamble of the NLG Constitution guides our work: “To use law for the people, uniting lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jailhouse lawyers to function as an effective force in the service of the people by valuing human rights and ecosystems over property interests.” We have seen the tension between human rights and property rights very clearly over the past few months. Some of you may be among those law students who jumped in to help, in one way or another. Some of you wanted to, and didn’t know how—we invite you to join us in the National Lawyers Guild.

In Solidarity,

The Executive Board of NLG at UVA

Ida Abhari - Michael Berdan - Kunchok Dolma - Dominique Fenton - Emily Hockett - Zach Kuster - Nooreen Reza - Eliza Schultz - Wes Williams

---

mwb4pk@virginia.edu

You Buy Cantaloupe? That’s a Trash Fruit! A Zoom Lunch with Professor Cathy Hwang

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Leah Deskins ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor

Last Tuesday, Marlyse Vieira ’22, Christina Luk ’21, and I logged onto Zoom for lunch with Professor Cathy Hwang. Professor Hwang is a new face around the (virtual) Law School, and she has a light-up picture of the Death Star in the room where she lectures for our Corporations class, so I figured she might be a good bet for our first professor interview of the 2020-2021 academic year. When she agreed to let the Law Weekly interview her on Zoom and consented to some eating on camera, I knew we were in for a treat.

Professor Hwang joined UVA Law all the way from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Prior to teaching in Utah, she was an academic fellow at Stanford, but she wasn’t always an academic. After completing her legal education at the University of Chicago, she worked at Skadden for several years before making the transition to academia. When asked what led her to teaching, Professor Hwang explained that, while at Skadden, she found that she really enjoyed mentoring her more junior colleagues and, at the same time, did not see herself staying to become a partner,[1] so she decided to head down the academic path. This semester, she’s teaching Corporations, and, next semester, she’ll be teaching Deals, as well as Mergers and Acquisitions.

Pictured: Professor Cathy Hwang has become an immediate hit with students. Photo Courtesy of Professor Hwang.

Marlyse, Christina, and my lunch conversation covered many of the usual academic and professional topics. We learned that Professor Hwang is working on an article about the collaborative process of establishing corporate intent and how contracts reflect numerous interests in a corporation, not just those of the two head honchos at the top making the deal. She explained how she prepares for class and reflected on how much she likes the freedom of being a professor, because she gets to structure her time as she pleases. As a new professor, Professor Hwang felt a great deal of kinship with students who are also starting their careers. She offered this advice:

“Right now, we’re each on the cusp of the rest of our career. It’s time to start thinking about what’s important to each of us in life, how we want our lives to look, and how we can maximize our happiness.”

Professor Hwang espoused the value of trying a personal values card sort if we’re having trouble figuring out what’s important to us.

We also ventured into other fruitful topics. Professor Hwang does not like grapes. She’s pro-watermelon, and anti-honeydew and cantaloupe. We learned that she played clarinet in her high school marching band and took flute lessons at 7:30 in the morning while she worked at Skadden. In her spare time, she enjoys hunting for Clorox wipes, skiing, watching the Tour de France, and playing Animal Crossing. She also enjoys shoveling snow. In response to a question about what she’d like to do in Charlottesville, when we’re not all cooped up at home hiding from COVID-19, she said that she hopes to visit the local wineries and breweries, see a polo match, and check out the Downtown Mall. The usual Charlottesville things.

It is very difficult to do Law Weekly’s lunch with Professor Hwang justice.[2] She’s a great conversationalist, very relatable, and quite funny. She offered customized career advice for one of us on the Zoom call and told us about how she came to think of cantaloupes as a “trash fruit.” I had been a little worried about how things would go, given that we couldn’t eat in the world-famous Stone Dining Room or one of the other outstanding restaurants in the immediate vicinity of the Law School (Sedona, anyone?), but our conversation exceeded all of my expectations. 10/10 would not give Professor Hwang a bad Yelp review. She is an excellent addition to the Law School community.

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu

[1] She would’ve made a great partner, though.

[2] For those readers in her corporations class this semester, her Law Weekly interview was a lot like a Zoom class with her, except that I didn’t constantly fear being cold called.

Love in the Time of Corona: Noah and Bryn

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

Although it’s been nearly six months, many aspects of our “new normal” continue to present challenges that can be strange and frustrating. From sitting next to someone in class to hitting Bar Review, things that once seemed like a given feel far away, or at least vastly different behind a mask and six feet apart. We’ve been forced to connect more creatively in our professional, personal, and—we’ll say it, you smokeshows, you—romantic lives. Indeed, like a professor explaining the holding five minutes past the bell, love continues on, so we at the Law Weekly thought it would be intriguing, pleasantly distracting, and (dare we say it) heartwarming to hear how couples and singles alike are handling romance in light of all these changes. You've heard of Love in the Time of Cholera, but get ready for Love in the Time of Corona.

This week's guests are Noah Mussmon ’22 and Bryn Maxson, a graduate student working toward her master’s degree in kinesiology at UVA.

Hi Noah and Bryn! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let’s start with some background—how did you two get together?

Bryn: Hi Ben! We met on Bumble in the spring of 2019 while both here at UVA for undergrad. We messaged each other, played two-truths-and-a-lie, and the rest is history.

What’s the coronavirus situation been like for you two?

Noah: We initially stayed here in Charlottesville when things went remote in the spring and were basically living together. I had a summer internship up in NOVA and Bryn also came with me up there. We’ve spent literally every day together for the past six months, which sounds like a lot on paper, but has been wonderful. It’s brought us much closer and showed us we can live with each other through the good and bad.

Growing closer together seems to be a common silver lining for a lot of couples I’ve interviewed. Any other specific silver linings?

Noah: We got a kitten named Pelapi!

Bryn: We also watched a TON of movies together, a disproportionate amount of which star Reese Witherspoon. If anyone out there is ever wondering whether to watch her 2010 rom-com How Do You Know, don’t.

You better hope for both our sakes that Elle Woods doesn’t read this column, Bryn. Let’s do a lightning round. Describe each other in a word or phrase.

Noah: Bryn is super energetic. Even when I’m exhausted from schoolwork, all it takes is seeing her to change my entire mood.

Bryn: Thoughtful. Noah is always doing little things for me that will never fail to make my day. For instance, two weeks after our first date I mentioned to him that I was bummed out that I wouldn’t be able to go home to my family’s house for Easter that year. He put together an Easter basket for me and left it outside my apartment for me to find that morning.

Pictured: The beautiful couple taking a quick break from hiking to pose for an adorable picture. Photo Courtesy of Noah Mussmon ‘22

Best Charlottesville date spot?

Noah: I’m partial to the Virginian on the Corner. We had our first date there, and it’s such a staple in Charlottesville. It’s got a lot of history and character, as well as great food and fun times.

Bryn: The rooftop bar at the Graduate on the Corner. There’s a beautiful view of Charlottesville from it, and they make one hell of a Moscow Mule.

Spirit vegetables? (Animals are overplayed, we at the Law Weekly are avant-garde interviewers.)

Noah: Are potatoes a vegetable? (Starts to Google.) Actually, I don’t care, Bryn’s a sweet potato. She eats them constantly, and she’s sweet.

Bryn: Two can play at that game. Noah’s a red onion because he eats them all the time. He also has many layers.

Noah: I’m pretty sure that’s a quote from Shrek, are we really going to put that in?

We’re really going to put that in. It’ll be all ogre the Law School, Noah. What do you admire most about each other?

Noah: I would say Bryn is very full of life. She brings out the best in people around her.

Bryn: I admire Noah’s dedication. He can put all his energy into what needs to be done, and I’m always amazed by his motivation.

First activity you’ll do or place you’ll go when things return to normal?

Noah: I want to go to a movie without worrying about that stray cough from two rows back.

Bryn: Travel! I want to go hiking in Utah, I think.

Lightning round over! Paint me a word picture of your favorite memory as a couple.

Answer: Early on in our relationship we went out to Gap View Ranch & Kennel in Harrisonburg, Virginia. It’s a golden retriever breeder with dozens of dogs and puppies that you can go and play with. That alone was magical, but afterward we explored Harrisonburg and ended up finding this empty arcade where we just played games with each other for the rest of the afternoon. It was such a pure and fun day and one of the first full days we had spent together as a couple.

That sounds…golden. Let’s pivot back to coronavirus. How did you keep things running smoothly with all the time spent together?

Noah: I actually worked in person at my internship, so during working hours we had a built-in period of time to do our own thing. Otherwise, we just fell into established roles after a while for our “new life” and things pretty much ran themselves. Bryn would make the popcorn, and I would clean the pot. We got pretty in sync.

Bryn: We also went for a lot of walks in the evening after Noah came home from work! He also occasionally needed time alone after work, which we got good communicating about. Once or twice, I caught him just lying on the bed in his suit staring at the ceiling.

Now That’s What I Call Law School, Noah. Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Bryn: It’s kind of cliché, but Noah has been my rock during this uncertain time. I’m particularly stressed about my own future and career, but Noah always brings me back and reminds me things will be ok. He’s the best teammate and partner I could ask for, and I’m always certain about that.

Noah: I just want to say thank you to Bryn. She’s stuck with me through the highs and lows of law school so far and is always so patient and supportive even when I’m not at my best or most fun. I love you, Bryn.

I swear I’m not crying; I’m just chopping onions! Many thanks to Noah and Bryn for joining us on Love in the Time of Corona and sharing their coronavirus experience. Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: COVID-19 Reporting Procedures

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Leah Deskins ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor
With contributions from Michael Berdan ‘22

In Defense of Non-Compliance Reporting

This summer, the University sent a survey to graduate-level students asking, among other things, whether we would be willing to encourage compliance with public health measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the event that we witnessed behavior that did not comply with those measures. Admittedly, this question was probably geared toward graduate students serving as teaching assistants and in positions commanding some authority over undergraduates. I nonetheless worried that the Law School would potentially put a burden on students to police compliance with the University’s public health measures. It is one thing to command one 1L to wear a mask, but that huge group of students (1Ls or otherwise)? They’re not going to listen.

Naturally, I was relieved to hear about the University’s COVID-19 noncompliance reporting tool. Administrators would deal with noncompliant students. Great. However, I recently found out that not everyone shares my view. Specifically, not everyone shares my view that students shouldn’t have to confront blatantly noncompliant students before potentially submitting a noncompliance report.[1]

I respect that others may not see the world the same way I do. Healthy debate is a good thing—and if you, one person, feel comfortable going up to a group of twenty-five unmasked, not socially-distant strangers (or not strangers, they could be people you know, too) hanging out and blatantly ignoring the rules, and if you feel comfortable asking them to kindly comply with the University’s public health measures, that’s wonderful. But not every student is comfortable with that. And think about this scenario: If students are engaging in that kind of behavior, they know they’re not complying with the University’s public health measures, and they are already aware of the possibility that they could be reported. Given the extensive and repeated warnings, guidance, and explanation we have been given from University and Law School administrators—not to mention having lived in this pandemic world for the past six months and having common sense—we can all recognize when behavior is clearly, obviously wrong. I'm not talking about close calls: questions of mask material, five-and-a-half feet, or sixteen people at a gathering. I'm talking about large groups of people, without masks, within arm's reach. This is no-brainer noncompliance.

I’ve tried to be safe these last six months because I want to protect the people I care about and my community more broadly, and I don’t want to contribute to any further dragging out that this pandemic has up its sleeve. And I don’t think that we all have to be perfect in practicing good public health habits. We’re all human, after all, and accidents happen. But as adults, we should be accountable to ourselves and our colleagues to follow the most essential rules the best we can. If you feel comfortable going up to any noncompliant folks you see and asking them to adhere to University rules, do so. If you don’t, be mindful of what they’re doing that’s noncompliant, give the benefit of the doubt as much as is reasonable, and make an assessment for yourself about whether you want to submit a noncompliance report. The University is doing the right thing by allowing us to choose how we encourage others to keep our community safe and healthy, and any well-intentioned efforts by students toward that end should be supported.

Drew Calamaro ‘21
Satire Editor

Don’t Be a Snitch

Throughout this column, I use the term “snitch” to refer to people who report others on the online portal for breaking the university’s COVID-19 rules. If you report others through this portal, you are, in fact, a snitch. Either own the fact that you are a snitch, or don’t snitch on people, and you won’t be called one.[2]

1. Direct confrontation will always provide more utility to the community than a drawn-out process of reporting to the UJC.

From a utilitarian standpoint, reporting people’s actions to the UJC has zero effect on COVID-19 spread. If the behavior is that bad, then put a mask on, and confront the people transgressing on what you believe to be the rules. Why do this, you ask? Well, for one, you can probably do so safely, since most of the time you are likely reporting the behavior that is directly in front of you. Wearing a mask and standing at a safe distance doesn’t mean you can’t shout. Furthermore, if you think that the behavior is so terrible that it’s worth reporting, maybe you should try to stop it right then and there. Stop the activity, and you stop the spread; that means one less way for you to contract COVID-19.

Contrast this with reporting to the UJC. You are relying on a largely undergrad-run organization to read your report and follow up post-hoc. The people you have reported have already gone into their respective communities, where they have likely spread COVID-19 to the people they are living with. While you could have helped #stopthespread right there through direct intervention, you instead chose to hide behind a phone screen and report others. Whether this shows an utter lack of moral fortitude and lack of conviction in what you are actually doing, I will leave to others to judge.[3] However—and I reiterate—if this behavior is so bad that you think it’s reportable, then confront it, and make a true effort to stop it before it harms people. Exposure and time matters, and if you can stop a gathering from going on longer than it should, then that is a win.

2. Punitive thought processes should not rule the day in a community.

One thing that I think many can agree on is that, despite acting stupidly, we do not want to see anyone develop COVID-19. We know that around 1 percent of individuals under the age of thirty who contract COVID-19 may also develop long-term illness as a result.[4] We also know that COVID-19 causes significant heart damage, which could require lifelong monitoring in anyone, even in children. Are the “rule-breakers” really so bad that they don’t deserve to be reminded of these potential health issues? The answer, of course, is no. For God’s sake, or humanity’s sake, go tell them to stop what they are doing if you think it’s that bad. Just because, in your mind, they don’t value human life, doesn’t mean you get to stop as well. You are a law student—go talk to someone, understand what is going on, get the facts, and then tell them what the rules are.

Those who choose to hide behind screens may find this to be an odd way of thinking. But there are more important things than just being morally right. There are more important things than saying to yourself, “I won’t give them the benefit of the doubt because of X.” There are real lives at stake, not just the rulebreakers’, but their roommates’, their family’s, and yours. Put the phone down, go up to them, and stop the behavior. If you love your fellow humans, do that. And have the guts to tell them in person that you’re reporting them if they don’t stop.

3. You have also broken the rules.

In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees[5] brought a woman before Jesus who had committed adultery. They told him, “This woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus took some time, bent down to write on the ground,[6] stood back up and said, “Let he who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The Pharisees all left, one by one, beginning with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman. He tells her at the end that he does not condemn her, but that she should “go, and from now on sin no more.”

This dramatic scene is literally life and death. And I am sure the pro-snitching side feels the same about COVID-19. However, unless and until you report yourself for all of your violations, you should not snitch on others who you think may be breaking the rules. Otherwise, you are a Pharisee. Have you ridden in a car with someone you are not living with without wearing a mask? Have you had a visitor over to your apartment for more than ten minutes, and not worn a mask? Then you have broken the rules. Report yourself. Or ask someone else to report you. My point is, at some point, you, too, have broken the rules.

I have yet to find a single person who has both snitched on others and who has reported themselves for their own violations. In speaking to pro-snitches, I am struck by their lack of self-awareness. They are able to justify every “minor” violation they accrue, but when it comes to a group of people gathered outside, that is a big deal. So far, most of the violations that I have heard reported have been outdoor activities. Never mind the fact that you are twenty times more likely to catch coronavirus indoors than outdoors,[7] any large outdoor group is now totally subject to snitching by people who do not believe they have broken any rules worth reporting themselves. My point with all of this is that snitching breaks down a community, it rewards nameless and faceless reporting, and doesn’t actually stop bad behavior at the root. It simply drives it into the shadows. Have a backbone, be utterly and completely morally righteous, and go stop it where you see it. Otherwise, just carry on with your life, stop worrying about others’ behavior, and start worrying about yourself.

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu
mwb4pk@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu

[1] The University has indicated that it would like students to encourage other students to comply with the public health measures in the event that they see their peers behaving in ways that are noncompliant. However, the University does not require students to confront their peers about noncompliance.

[2] Judas owned it. That’s why Dante put him in the literal mouth of Satan in the Ninth Circle of Hell in the Inferno.

[3] I am the others. I am footnote-Drew. I judge that it does.

[4] Derek Thompson, What Young, Healthy People Have to Fear From COVID-19, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/what-young-healthy-people-have-fear-covid-19/616087/.

[5] Hypocritical religious teachers.

[6] Probably cramming for a final.

[7] Hiroshi Nishiura et al., Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2.

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Labor, Generally

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Students v. Labor, Generally
73 U.Va 4 (2020)

Pickett, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

I. Introduction

As a 3L, there are few issues that fire me up enough to make me actually do something. Just as an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, a 3L at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by severe injustice. And it is such an injustice that forces me to return to the bench for the first time since I sued the global pandemic that persists to this day.[1] Today I descend from the Ivory TowerTM to place an injunction on UVA Law students performing labor on Labor Day.

II. Facts

It was Friday, September 4, 2020 and Jeg McJones was looking forward to the weekend. She was excited about the extra day off, though she was disappointed that she wasn’t going to be able to wear white anymore (it is her favorite color).[2] Jeg was talking with another law student, Christina, about the long weekend when Christina informed her that there was no long weekend—we don’t get Labor Day off at UVA Law.

Jeg was shocked. How? I mean, she labors, right? Not in the traditional sense, maybe, but many would agree that sitting on her phone in the library with a book open, pretending to be productive for two hours, is, in fact, work.

Disgusted by this injustice, Jeg decided to file suit in the Court of Petty Appeals. She seeks an injunction against labor on Labor Day, which I modified to “Labor, Generally” since it sounded better.[3]

III. Textualist Argument

While there is no law that explicitly says workers must be given Labor Day off, it has long been held in the Law of Common Knowledge that “there shalt be no labor on Labor Day.” According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, labor is “an expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory” (emphasis added). Since performing work for law school counts as “labor” under this definition, law students should not be forced to work or attend class on Labor Day.

Law school requires both physical and mental effort. Physically, law students expend effort in various ways. They carry massive textbooks to and from classes. They cry at spontaneous times, running to reach the bathroom before other people see them. They scream into the endless void and they complain loudly to anyone who will listen. They press “join meeting” on their computers, and they press “leave meeting” on their computers—an endless cycle that makes them feel dead inside. These are all expenditures of effort.

Mentally, however, is where law students really expend their efforts. They maintain a willful blindness to the world around them as they try to figure out what a tort is. They struggle to accomplish anything given the overwhelming weight of the dread that fills them anew each morning as they attempt to maneuver the new reality of life in a pandemic. And perhaps most impressively of all, they manage to remain calm despite continually receiving emails talking about “strange and unusual times.”

On this textualist basis alone, I would grant the plaintiff’s injunction. But, there is still more to say.

IV. Substantive Due Process Right Not to Labor

I don’t remember much about Con Law. That is not the fault of my professor, Dean Goluboff, but instead the fault of Con Law, which, to be quite honest, is made up entirely.[4]

I do, however, remember there being a connection between substantive due process and history. And here is some history: Labor Day has existed for a long time and yet the Law School has not celebrated it. I don’t know if I can claim to be surprised given that UVA just started giving us MLK Jr. Day off last year (2019-2020) and is only now critically examining the racist legacy of Henry Malcolm Withers, the namesake of Withers Hall. Regardless, there is a history of no labor on Labor Day and that is enough for me to declare it a right for law students.

It is worth noting that there is a larger problem with Labor Day in society writ large. If this Court had a larger jurisdiction, I would give everyone a paid day of vacation, especially those who work so hard every day just to stay afloat. I guess you will all just have to nominate me to the Supreme Court so I can work my real magic.

V. Conclusion

I have seen enough through both my textual and SDP analysis to declare an injunction against UVA Law students performing labor on Labor Day. Instead, they must spend the day relaxing or doing something besides schoolwork. And to those who wish to use the day to get ahead, I encourage them to get a personality and/or a hobby.

Tonseth, J. dissenting.

Again, as this Court’s sole remaining bastion of actual textualism and the proper administration of the judicial system, I vehemently dissent.[5] I did not think that during my tenure on this Court I would have to work to protect the forgotten hard workers at this Law School, but here I am.

Through his analysis of substantive due process, Justice Pickett makes up an entirely new “fundamental” right.[6] It seems mighty rich, especially from the pricey Ivory Tower he rules from, that Justice Pickett issues an injunction against labor while he pays to attend school. It is almost as though he wishes to change the adage of “hard work pays off” to “B-pluses get BigLaw jobs.” I cannot willingly stand for the grave injustice of granting special privilege to be lazy. In the wise words of T. Jeff, “It is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing.” Do more, Justice Pickett.

In the textual argument posited by the majority, there is a major flaw. I concede that labor is performed by law students in the natural course of their education. However, the only “labor” performed on Labor Day itself is performed by either 1Ls or upperclassmen who unwisely chose not to schedule a recurring four-day weekend into their class schedule. Between “emotional distress is a harm inherent in the choice to attend law school” and 1Ls always losing, I textually find no support for the majority’s argument.[7]

It is a strange and unusual time when Justice Pickett comes down from his Ivory Tower to do the hard labor of declaring that Labor Day should be recognized as a holiday.[8] Due to Con Law being all made up, I have a completely different yet valid argument. As such, I dissent.

---

shp8dz@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

[1] Of note is that coronavirus is currently acting in defiance of an injunction imposed by this Court in Coronavirus (La Cerveza Mas Fina) v. Coronavirus (El Virus Menos Fino). We are waiting for you to finally perish, COVID-19.

[2] This is a lazy Labor Day joke, but go with it.

[3] If I could, though, I would definitely put an injunction on all labor.

[4] Spoiler alert 1Ls.

[5] John Does v. Open Bathroom Doors, 73 U.Va 2 (2020). Tonseth, J. dissenting opinion.

[6] But did he? Still waiting for the Supreme Court to release the full list.

[7] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019)

[8] He probably wakes up every Monday feeling like Garfield.

Hot Bench: Jake Greenberg '21

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Jake Greenberg is the Business Director of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal.

Where are you from?

I’m from a small town called Old Tappan in the northeast corner of New Jersey.

Are you taking classes here in Charlottesville?

I’m actually in Minneapolis, Minnesota this semester. Not quite ready for the cold weather, but I have spent time here during the past two winter breaks so I am used to it.

When did you start thinking about law school?

I wasn’t set on a particular career path for some time, though law was definitely on my radar. In high school, I had really loved classes in different areas including English, history and biology. In college, though, I really began to think about how I could apply some of my wide-ranging coursework in the social sciences, business, and environmental fields and how I could turn my social justice interests into a career. I felt that law was the best way to go about it. So, I became part of my college’s Pre-Law Society and ultimately found my fit.

What’s something you know now that you would tell yourself coming into Law School?

Fight the instinct to write out every detail to every case. That may be helpful on cold calls, but you are better off focusing on learning the essential lessons and preparing to apply those on the exam.

What kind of impact do you hope to have as a lawyer?

Going into law school, I wrote in my application about how the 2008 recession impacted my family and my community. It made housing and the economy unstable, and also made me aware of how fragile some things I take for granted are. Today, the issues are even greater, unfortunately, and I am hoping I can help by working in the affordable housing field.

What organization(s) are you most involved with, and what’s driven your investment in them?

I am most involved with the Jewish Law Students Association and the Virginia Environmental Law Journal.

I have been passionate about JLSA to help continue fostering a sense of community for Jewish students at the Law School. Having attended a majority Jewish undergraduate college, Brandeis University, I felt a sense of community with others who have both shared and different experiences and perspectives, and I wanted to carry a bit of that experience to the Law School. In addition, I have been excited about the club’s work to support other religious groups, like MLSA, as they have started and been excited to plan events together.

I am also very involved with the Virginia Environmental Law Journal. As Business Director, I have been excited to bring more of my business background to the organization and work on social media marketing, the website, and outside printing companies. I am always excited about ways to help with organizations in ways people don’t normally consider but are necessary for helping them drive their ultimate work.

Let’s do a lightning round! Favorite mask?

I have a soft-cotton Washington, D.C. mask. I needed one while I was visiting D.C., so I ran into a CVS and got it there! I like wearing it because it makes me think of my siblings, who live in the area, and because I am looking forward to moving there next year.

Favorite place in Charlottesville?

It has to be a toss-up between the Downtown Mall and the Ragged Mountain Natural Area—both are ten minutes from my apartment and represent the mix of small city and outdoors and nature that make Charlottesville so great.

If you had to do a humblebrag, what would it be?

I can, in fact, ride my bike with no handlebars.

If you could pick one song to play in the background of your life, what would it be?

Perhaps “Starships” or “Super Bass” by Nicki Minaj. Sorry, I can’t pick one, sometimes I just need dance pop music to lift me up. Todrick Hall does a great Nicki Minaj/Disney mashup that I definitely recommend.

Where’s a place you’ve never been, but would like to go?

It would definitely have to be Argentina—Buenos Aires in particular. This is likely because of my enjoyment of Evita, and also the architecture, diverse culture, and food I have read about there.

---

jfg2gc@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Scott and Billy

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

This week's guests are Billy Hicks ’22 and Scott Simmons.

Hi Billy and Scott! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let's get some deets about #Scilly. How did you two get together?

Scott: Hi Ben! Very modernly, we met through social media about two years ago when Billy was at UVA for undergrad and I was at Longwood. For a few months, our dates consisted of alternating travel from Charlottesville to Farmville on the weekends as we got to know each other. We moved in with each other last year when Billy started 1L.

Pictured: Billy and Scott dress up and dazzle in their suits and bowties. Photo Courtesy of Billy Hicks ‘22.

Has COVID-19 changed the dynamic of living together or your relationship at all?

Billy: To be honest, not really! We’d already been in a groove and had learned a lot about each other over the course the past year. We joke that we’ve been quarantining with each other for almost a year-and-a-half already. One dynamic that did change for a bit was that we went and lived with my family for a short period, but luckily coronavirus hasn’t affected us too much. We did get a puppy though!

*10-minute interview break to play with aforementioned puppy*

Fittingly, I’m going to need you guys to hit me with each other’s’ spirit animals.

Scott: Billy is a bee. He’s the most hardworking person I know and is always concerned with the welfare of everyone else in his “hive.”

Billy: Scott would be a dog. I know, it’s generic, but hear me out. Scott is always comfortable no matter what we do, as long as we’re together and having fun. He’s equally as excited to go new places as he is to stay home to cook or watch a movie with just us. For him, it’s not the activity, but the person.

A match made in animal heaven. Let’s jump back to Corona. It sounds like you two were able to adapt pretty quickly due to your prior pseudo-quarantine experience with each other. Do y’all have any practices in place to keep things running smoothly?

Scott: Well, even before coronavirus, we made it a practice to prioritize Billy’s school work. We were both realistic about the demands and importance that 1L would have for Billy, so we always tried to schedule plans around that and to be flexible if work ever became overwhelming.

Billy: More specific to coronavirus was our time with my family. It was strange to go from having just us to many others in the mix—our little routines and daily lives changed. We tried to be good at carving out time for ourselves though to preserve some of the stability.

Let’s do a lightning round! How would you each describe the other in a word or phrase?

Scott: Selfless. Billy will do anything for his friends and people who need his help. He’s also incredibly humble. Like I said, Billy is one of the hardest working and smartest people I know, but you would never hear that from him.

Billy: It’ll sound cheesy, but Scott’s perfect, at least in my eyes. He is such a joy and loves to have fun. He has this innate understanding of people almost immediately upon meeting them and uses that to make the fun inclusive for all. His emotional intelligence is off the charts. As he’s alluded to, I can get lost in my work sometimes. He’s the perfect person to remind me of the importance of staying balanced.

(Having had the privilege of being friends with #Scilly since undergrad, I second all of this). Best Charlottesville date spot?

Scott: Commonwealth Sky Bar downtown. It’s a cozy but elegant atmosphere that’s rare to find in Charlottesville.

Billy: Pippin. (Scott rolls his eyes). What? You don’t like going to Pippin with me? We go a lot. But it’s got as much wine as you want, beautiful Blue Ridge views, and just a great vibe. What’s not to love?

Wine about it, Scott. Sorry, that was bad. What’s the first activity you'll do or place you'll go once all the social restrictions are lifted?

Answer: Throw a big party! Just a big hurrah with everyone we love and care about.

Let's get abstract. Is there a feeling, sight, smell, image, color, etc., that you associate with each other? Why?

Billy: Long car trips. The first year of our relationship we always seemed to be in a car. We really settled into our road trip roles. I love driving, and he’s the perfect co-pilot. He’s always got the best music or podcast for the mood and trip.

Scott: Bowtie pasta. That was the first meal Billy cooked for me on one of our dates. He’s an amazing cook.

Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Scott: Billy draws incredible people with great values to him because he is one of those people. I’m so thankful to be a part of that circle and to have met Billy and them.

Billy: I love you.

Scott (looking at Billy blankly): That’s it?? Kidding. I love you, too.

Thank you to Billy and Scott for keeping it #Scilly and joining us on Love in the Time of Corona! Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Antitrust and Big Tech, Part II: Private Power and Democratic Government - Where Will 'We the People' Be Swayed?

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Current Events Editor

In the early 20th century, the responsibility of the government to prevent “private power from destroying democratic government” prevailed over the power of industrial titans. Today, whose hands influence the trajectory of democratic governance? On July 29, 2020, this was answered when the House Antitrust Subcommittee held an investigatory hearing examining the “Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.” The nearly five-and-a-half-hour testimony of the respective CEOs demarcated the progress of a nearly year-long investigation spearheaded by Chairman Cicilline (D-RI). He began by reflecting on how being “too big” might be a problem weighed against the benefits created by Big Tech, emphasizing consequences of the abuse of these platforms’ market-power (exacerbated by COVID-19), especially in eCommerce, social media, and other essential platforms. Over a million investigative documents were gathered through this Congressional action, which may provide the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division significant amounts of data to spur potential proceedings.

The hearing was refreshingly bipartisan in nature. Though many concerns were shared across the aisle, conservatives largely focused on political censorship of social media platforms, freedom of speech issues, and international security concerns about China’s increasing technological influence (e.g. TikTok, Huawei, and the use of Chinese Uighur concentration camps in tech manufacturing). Alternatively, Democrats focused on the stifling of competition. They emphasized how eCommerce platforms were so powerful that they risked becoming “bottlenecks,” extracting rents from competitors, harming small businesses, stifling innovation, and abusing their market power to self-preference their own products.

“We would not submit to an emperor; we should not submit to an autocrat of trade . . . with the power to prevent competition,” Senator Sherman declared in the early 20th century, substantiating the free competition principles of our nation’s market economy. Beyond stifling competition, these platforms have the power to regulate speech, mold our understanding of reality, and provide information on elections. Are our 21st century laws sufficient for this era characterized by heightened economic and social power held by Big Tech?

The diffusion or mere regulation of such power speaks to the heart of what role the legislature versus the administrative agencies harbor in antitrust law. Traditionally, the government’s natural role in a system of “free private enterprise” was that of a patrolman policing the highway of commerce. Yet, although legislation exists against monopolies and restraints of trade, the enforceability of such legislation is highly debated.

This issue was at the root of contention between Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Chairman Cicilline emphasized the need for not only the increased enforcement of antitrust laws but also for new legislation to police technology platforms, which Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) likened to “modern-day railroads,” harkening back to the break-up of railroads, big steel, and big oil.

Conversely, Representative Sensenbrenner argued that although greater antitrust scrutiny of tech platforms is a necessity, current antitrust laws are sufficient to meet the challenge. His approach reflected strong consideration for the role of antitrust law in promoting innovation, and that current law was sufficient in balancing the need to promote competition and incentivize innovation. Rather than the law itself, his view indicates that the underenforcement of the law is the challenge. The current law has led to great innovations and advancements which need not be stifled by new regulations in the future.

Illustrating this point, Representative Sensenbrenner alluded to the Obama Administration’s approach to antitrust, wherein Facebook gained approval for the acquisition of Instagram. This approval is being looked at with suspicion in today’s shifting view. Representative Sensenbrenner advanced that the law itself was not the issue at the time of the approval, as the outcome of acquisition could have just as likely gone the other way. This concern reflects a broader debate which casts front-and-center the effect of the “Bork revolution” on antitrust enforcement standards, where the “consumer welfare standard” shifted antitrust enforcement standards to not regard “big” as inherently “bad” if dominance is to the benefit of consumers. This alternative, more rigorous enforcement standard under the “Brandeis” movement, which is more focused on protecting the ability for competitors to enter the market, could change the trajectory. Depending on the dominant “standard” viewed, the outcome for enforcement action could differ without additional Congressional legislation.

Philosophizing aside, there is critical agreement that antitrust enforcement of digital platform operations is necessary. Whether the buck-stops-there will be a key feature of our time. Some legislators advocate that digital eCommerce platforms (such as Amazon’s Marketplace) should be regulated by a likened version to the § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, where eCommerce platforms would need to treat third-party sellers on their site with greater fairness. This would create the responsibility (or burden) for sites like Amazon to police its platform to comply with new regulations. Yet it may speak to “fairness” principles, benefiting smaller businesses’ ability to compete in rankings on these online-sites.

Where power must be exercised, “It should be located in the government, not in private hands,” it has been said. Yet, with the growing polarization in and decreased efficacy of public institutions, do Americans trust the government to be honest stewards of such power? With tech platforms playing a key role in the manipulation of information and the facilitation of our civil and political discourse, are their private incentives any better? Can a well-educated “We The People” determine such things when efficacy in the news and media itself reflects that 78 percent of Americans recognize the spread of misinformation online is “a major problem.”[1]

In next week’s article, we’ll assess how the rise of illiberal democracies may affect our view of regulation of these Big Tech platforms. Is American-owned Big Tech the only alternative or might a cure worse than the disease emerge if BigTech in the U.S is replaced by Big Tech in a illiberal nation with a less-transparent governing regime?

As for TikTok . . . we’ll explore that in a week’s time!

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu

[1]https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/American-Views-2020-Trust-Media-and-Democracy.pdf

Club Spotlight: Regional Networking Clubs - Coast to Coast

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Peyton Pair ‘22
Guest Writer

Southeastern Wahoos

Southeastern Wahoos seeks to provide a space for students interested in the Southeast, both professionally and personally, to interact with employers, alumni, and fellow students. The Southeast has a vibrant legal market filled with UVA alumni and a family-friendly atmosphere with a low cost of living. Major markets include Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, and Nashville.

We plan to offer events with firms, student panels, in-house counsel, and public service. In fact, we are hosting our first student panel on September 9 to discuss their work as summer associates in the Southeast. Furthermore, we will provide resources and guidance to first-year students who want to spend their first summer in the Southeast. These resources include resume review and learning to craft a cover letter geared toward the Southeast.

Beyond career-oriented programming, we plan to offer plenty of social opportunities, like SEC football game watch-parties and happy hours, once the pandemic is brought under control. We encourage everyone, even if you’re just curious about the Southeast, to attend events and get to know your fellow ‘hoos. Simply email Peyton Pair ’21 (pair@virginia.edu) to join the email list and receive updates about future events.

—————

Garrett Engel ‘21
Guest Writer

Lone Star Lawyers

Lone Star Lawyers (LSL) works to create a network for students interested in the Texas legal market by connecting them with employers, alumni, and fellow students working in the state. LSL helps students find employment opportunities in Texas and provides a social atmosphere for students interested in Texas and alumni working in Texas to interact. LSL focuses heavily on its mentorship program which strengthens the competitiveness of UVA students who want to work in Texas by allowing 2Ls and 3Ls to guide 1Ls through the application and interview process. We help students “put their best foot forward” when they interview with Texas firms and teach them why Texas might just be the best place for them to start their legal career. In the past, LSL has held firm sponsored events such as our annual back-to-school happy hour, a “Taste of Texas” BBQ, professional and practice area focused panels, grab-and-go breakfasts (and lunches), and dozens of regular happy hours.

LSL is gearing up for many events this semester both social and professional in nature. On the professional side, we plan to host great firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, White & Case, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Vinson & Elkins. Socially, not only do we plan to hold opportunities to safely social distance in person, but LSL is hosting “office hours” every few weeks and continuing its Fantasy Football tradition under the leadership of Dillon Tan ’22, our VP of Social Outreach. We are excited to serve the Law School community again this year. If anyone has any questions or would like to join LSL, feel free to reach out to me directly at sge7uk@virginia.edu.

—————

Luke Versweyveld ‘22
Guest Writer

Heartland ‘Hoos

Heartland ‘Hoos is an organization for students who are from the Midwest, are interested in practicing in the Midwest, or both. The purpose of the group is part social: connecting students from the Midwest; and part career-oriented: connecting and networking with employers across the Midwest. “Heartland” is loosely defined, and if you believe you belong to the Heartland, we are happy to have you in the group. The largest market we serve is Chicago, but we have members interested in markets all across the Midwest, including Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, and more. Wherever our members are interested in, we are happy to act as the intermediary for networking in those markets.

Connor Day ’22 and Luke Versweyveld ’22 came up with the idea for Heartland ‘Hoos in the library last fall. Both are interested in practicing in Chicago, and they were surprised there was no student group serving the third-largest legal market in the country.

The Executive Board includes:

● President – Luke Versweyveld ’22

● Vice President – Connor Day ’22

● Treasurer – Paul Koltz ’22

● Marketing Coordinator – Katie Graves’ 22

● Event Coordinator – Bilal Askari ’22

We will be hosting elections to replace our executive board at the end of this semester. Any interested 1Ls should reach out to Versweyveld at the email below.

Heartland ‘Hoos will be putting on a “Chicago Day” panel on Friday, October 16 from 3-4 p.m. Five top Chicago firms have already committed to attending this event. We will have a panel format where students can ask questions about the attorneys’ respective firms and the Chicago market during the first half-hour. The second half-hour will involve breakout rooms for more individualized communication between attorneys and students. If you have any interest in practicing in Chicago, you won’t want to miss this networking opportunity.

Any questions about membership or participating in Chicago Day can be directed to Luke Versweyveld at ljv3hq@virginia.edu.

—————

Kathryn Querner ‘21
Executive Editor

West Coast Wahoos

West Coast Wahoos is a regionally-focused student organization at the Law School that seeks to create a network for students interested in legal markets on the West Coast, and to provide these students with networking and employment opportunities as well as alumni resources.

According to our Co-President Nachi Baru ’22, West Coast Wahoos’ goal is to get West Coast firms connected with members, to teach members what West Coast firms are looking for, and to teach members how to market themselves specifically to West Coast firms. Although the West Coast Wahoos’ primary market focuses are in California—specifically San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego—the organization provides for career connections and networking opportunities with all markets west of and including Colorado. So, students interested in markets including Denver, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, and even Honolulu would benefit from joining West Coast Wahoos.

Although the Office of Private Practice has established that 1Ls cannot begin attending networking events until October 1, West Coast Wahoos will be sending out information regarding general meetings and mid-semester 1L networking events through its listserv. And for the 2Ls, West Coast Wahoos will be hosting a networking event with attorneys from Jones Day in mid-September. This is a panel event followed by breakout rooms to give students the chance to more personally connect with the attorneys, and further information regarding this event will be spread via email in the coming weeks.

Baru emphasizes that, despite the pandemic’s negative effects on the economy, he has been in contact with many firms that are still expressing interest in speaking with and hiring UVA Law students. In fact, given the need for virtual networking, Baru explained that even more firms are now expressing interest in networking, as those organizations that were previously constrained by the travel time and expenses from the West Coast to Charlottesville now have the opportunity to network virtually with students.

West Coast Wahoos’ Chair of Career Development Ian Hurst ’22 also expressed that he loves the culture of West Coast legal organizations, and that West Coast Wahoos is a great way for students to learn more about West Coast markets. Further, Hurst adds that it is never too early for students to start developing their networking skills, and West Coast Wahoos provides a host of events that give students the opportunity to network and work on building connections and networking abilities.

To be added to the West Coast Wahoos listserv, students can email West Coast Wahoos’ Student Outreach Chair Sami Ghanem ’22, at sg3wu@virginia.edu.

---

pair@virginia.edu
sge7uk@virginia.edu
ljv3hq@virginia.edu
kmq8vf@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Entitled Millennials v. Student Affairs

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Entitled Millennials v. Student Affairs
73 U.Va 3 (2020)

Justice Tonseth delivered the opinion of the Court.

“If a hungry little traveler shows up at your house, you might want to give him a cookie. If you give him a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk.” While no one foresaw Laura Numeroff as the Nostradamus of UVA Law for her illustrious work, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, her words could not be more poignant or applicable. Driven by hunger, greed, and poverty, the class of Entitled Millennials of UVA Law, hereinafter referred to as “plaintiffs,” leveraged this quote to secure a judgment in the District Court of Petty Appeals in their favor. Awarding of damages against the Office of Student Affairs, in the form of an expanded fruit selection, increased slots for registration, and punishment for repeat participants, goes beyond the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. Due to the faulty interpretation and application of 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA, 370 U. Va. 100 (2020), in conjunction with my personal disdain for stare decisis, the decision against Student Affairs and award of damages is vacated. We humbly ask Student Affairs to accept our deepest condolences for this miscarriage of justice.

II.

Hybrid classes, social distancing, mask-wearing, and the close of the Snack Office[1] all greeted students harshly upon their return to Charlottesville in mid-August. In a single ray of sunshine, Kate Duvall and the Office of Student Affairs established a partnership with Bellair Farms to deliver a mix of fresh vegetables, at no cost, to students every Friday.[2] While it is beyond me why anyone would willingly eat vegetables,[3] Student Affairs sponsored forty slots each week until October 6, on a first-come, first-serve basis, with SBA apportioning an additional twenty-five slots.

Plaintiffs complained to the District Court of Petty Appeals on two grounds. First, they claim that Student Affairs ignored their statutory duty to limit people from signing up for multiple slots, rather hoping to rely on the “collegiality” of UVA Law for law students to look out for each other. Further, plaintiffs complain the free produce they received was odd, whether it was a bag of beets,[4] a kohlrabi,[5] a single ear of corn, or assorted small squashes. In stating their claims, plaintiffs rely solely on the 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA precedent of a breach of contract to get more free food, at their own quality standards.

In 1L Cookie Monsters, Justice Stievater ordered Student Affairs to return “Weekly Wind Downs” and the associated free trays of cookies for 1Ls to enjoy on Friday afternoons. Relying on the UCC and the 1Ls’ detrimental reliance, Justice Stievater in dicta explained that sufficient consideration existed between Student Affairs and 1Ls to create a breach of contract for the failure to provide free cookies. Brief for the Plaintiffs applied this precedent to their situation stating “the cost of tuition, which is still over $60,000 for ridiculous Zoom classes, is consideration enough for a ‘Whole Foods’ style fruit selection. Registering for a slot clearly metered acceptance of the offer, and thus Student Affairs has breached our implied quality standard. Replace cookies with Kohlrabi and the cases mirror each other,” at 24. Oh, how the turn tables.

III.

Respondents willingly ignored the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: We do what we want. Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U. Va. 96 (2019). Through our landmark decisions, this Court has consistently shaped events and outcomes in favor of law students to the detriment of the administration. However, these decisions are often left to the whimsy of each Justice, weakening the support for their precedential value. It is thus the words of (a Supreme Court) Justice, Clarence Thomas, that drive my decision to follow and apply the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure to this case today, “when faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.[6]”

The class of Entitled Millennials did not detrimentally rely on Student Affairs to provide free vegetables to their elevated standards, as neither did the 1Ls and their Friday cookies.[7] Student Affairs gratuitously provided these options, whether healthy or good for the soul, at their own discretion to generate a rare smile from a student while at school. The plaintiffs attempted to accept, yet demand better gifts[8] from Student Affairs is shameful. If anything, the plaintiffs ought to thank Student Affairs for thinking of them in their time of need. Further, this Court points the plaintiffs to Honor Code Committee v. Fried Chicken Thieves, 72 U. Va. 655 (2020), where blatant violations of the Honor Code not to steal free food is applicable here to slots for vegetables. The ire of the plaintiffs should thus be directed inwards, Lord of the Flies style.

“Emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending school.” 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U. Va. 22, 24 (2019). Just because plaintiffs are already stressed in the first week of September[9] does not mean they can blame Student Affairs for not meeting their astronomical expectations (i.e. beggars can’t be choosers). It is therefore decreed that this Court is no longer bound by stare decisis,[10] that 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA is overturned as an erroneous abuse of discretion, and every plaintiff owes Lisa or Kate Duvall a handwritten apology.

STIEVATER, B. dissenting.

I confess myself to be bitterly disappointed with the majority’s outcome in this case. For one, this is the Court of Petty Appeals and the Justices who preside over it are similarly petty. Since handing down what I believed to be a landmark holding in 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA, 370 U.Va 100 (2020), I have come to revel in my unofficial titles of reverence, which include, but are not limited to: King of Cookies, Sultan of Snickerdoodles, and the Chocolate Chip Khan. To be stripped of these so early into my 2L year burns deeply, like a tray of cookies pulled out of the oven with no mitts. Justice Tonseth includes a reference to the fictional Dothraki language from Game of Thrones in footnote five. Perhaps he will recognize this one: The North remembers. So too will the countless cookie monsters that Justice Tonseth has wronged today.

Secondly, Justice Tonseth builds his abominable decision on faulty ground. Indeed, it is ground no sturdier than a crumbly cookie. The decision today concerns the alleged quality of vegetables, which the majority writes the plaintiffs have no legal right to argue over. I need not wade into the waters of this argument. The class in 1L Cookie Monsters did not argue over the quality of cookies, only that they continue to be provided once the contract was formed. My holding recognized this right to continual cookies at Weekly Wind Downs because there was sufficient consideration, in the form of tuition, to form a contract. It did not purport to demand a quality of cookie. The Entitled Millennials before the Court today erroneously imagined 1L Cookie Monsters to provide them a legal argument. That might have been the case if the Bellair Farm Fridays were suddenly discontinued by Student Affairs and no vegetables were available at all, but it is not the case when the vegetables are to their displeasure.

I condemn Justice Tonseth’s disregard for stare decisis and the majority’s crumbly legal reasoning. They were not too mighty to partake in cookie eating themselves last year, I might add. I rebuke the Entitled Millennials for attempting to fly too high as a collective, greedy Icarus in their search for “Instagram-able” vegetables, thereby sacrificing the 1L right to cookies. I lament the loss of my legacy as the Protector of (Baked) Goods. If I can’t use my legal education to secure my friends and myself cookies, what’s this all been for? I dissent.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
bes4cf@virginia.edu

[1] We miss seeing your face 3x a day and still love you dearly Lisa!

[2] See “Friday Farmstead with Student Affairs” email, Kate Duvall, August 17, 2020.

[3] The only green I eat is tiny cilantro pieces on my pizza and the limes in my Coronas.

[4] The 1L recipient of this bag failed to call Dwight Schrute to ask for the best way to utilize these, to his own detriment.

[5] Which I sadly just learned is not part of the Dothraki language, but a part of the cabbage family.

[6] See Clarence Thomas Is Actually Right About Supreme Court Precedent, Slate (last visited September 3, 2020).

[7] But seriously, who would eat kohlrabi? Why can’t you just use lettuce or a regular turnip instead?

[8] Yes, I looked up the rules for gifts from my property outline. It didn’t help my argument, as I must’ve zoned out when Professor Nicoletti talked about them, so let’s appeal to ethos attacks instead. I really should pay attention more.

[9] Same, I keep getting my seat stolen in class because my professors won’t do a seating chart. ☹

[10] It is with my own whimsy I have declared this power. My rule of tyranny begins now.

Hot Bench: Ali Muhammad

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Hi Ali! Welcome to Hot Bench! So, I’m sure almost all of our readers have seen you around Grounds, but they might not all know that you are our steadfast security guard. So, when did you first move to Charlottesville?

I moved to Charlottesville in 2007 from Germany.

When did you start working for the University of Virginia?

In 2013.

How did you get started here?

Well, when I first moved here I could not speak English. So, when I got here I took English classes twice a day. I took the beginner’s English course for six months, and then I took an advanced course. I then studied IT and received an Associate’s Degree in IT. Then, I got a job working at UVA as a security guard.

Where are you from?

I was born in Iraq. I was actually born in Baghdad. I left because of the war. I don’t want to be negative ,but because of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and because of the First Gulf War I simply could not live in Iraq anymore. That was when life began to get hard, in 1991. I left Iraq for good in 1998. From 1991 to 2003 there was an embargo on Iraq, and so Iraq was unable to get any medication or food whatsoever. Those were very very hard years.

Have you been back to Iraq since?

I went back to Iraq in 2014. I could not stay because it was a nightmare—everything was destroyed. It was worse than it was in 1991 or in 1998. It was very sad. I couldn’t stay for more than two weeks. It was incredibly sad.

Is there anything you miss the most about Iraq? Anything you wish you could bring over?

That’s a good question—I don’t know. It was a good learning experience to live there, but I learned a lot about my culture once I left.

How so?

Well, once I lived in a Western country, I came to wish we had colleges in Iraq, that we had an education system. We could have done very well, but most of the time we just have war. I realized that I felt sorry about the Middle East, and about Iraq, because they never had the opportunity. They never had a choice, and they never had the opportunity to live differently.

What brought you to Charlottesville specifically?

I could not renew my visa in Germany because of the 2003 war in Iraq, so my only choices were to return to Iraq or come to America. I was able to come to America because I was granted refugee status when George W. Bush signed his second order to allow Iraqis to come to America. I was placed in Charlottesville by the American government.

Have you seen many other parts of America?

I’ve been to New York. It was the most amazing thing I’d ever seen—just so huge. I love museums in America, especially the National Museum in D.C. I also love American teachers and professors. They are the best in the world. They teach you to see things from many different perspectives. At Piedmont Community College, my professors were just amazing. My teacher at the Adult Learning Center was absolutely incredible. You know, when you move somewhere, you have culture shock, and the teachers helped me a lot with that.

If you could live anywhere, where would it be?

Germany. I would love to go back to Germany.

You like Germany better?

It was a different experience. They were a lot more laid-back in Germany. Here in the US we work long hours and study a lot. For most of my time in America, I’ve worked two jobs. Life is very expensive in America

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it?

Ohhh! (laughing). I would go and help the people I know need money in Iraq, and everywhere around the world. I actually play the lottery once a week so I can dream about that.

Weirdest thing you’ve seen on Grounds?

Oh my god, I don’t want to get myself in trouble! The weirdest thing is when people don’t take the opportunity to study here seriously, because when I was the students’ age I would dream about such an opportunity to study as this, which I never had.

What’s something most people don’t know about you?

I can always be there if they need help.

What from your own life experience would you want students to apply?

I would advise young people to move around a lot, live in different places, and have different experiences. As you get older your life starts to get faster and faster, and if you stay in the same place you’ll look back on your life and wonder what happened.

Any last remarks for students?

Don’t be afraid of the future. It’s normal to feel that way, but when you get old you don’t feel scared anymore because you’re used to the feeling, and life is like waves. Sometimes you’re up and sometimes you’re down.

---

aam3q@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Abby and Andrew

Virginia Law Weekly September 2, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

Although it’s been months, many aspects of our “new normal” continue to present challenges that can be strange and frustrating to face. From sitting next to someone in class to hitting Bar Review, things that once seemed a given feel far away, or at least vastly different behind a mask and six feet apart. We’ve been forced to connect more creatively in our professional, personal, and—we’ll say it, you smokeshows, you—romantic lives. Indeed, like a professor explaining the holding five minutes past the bell, love continues on, so we at the Law Weekly thought it would be intriguing, pleasantly distracting, and (dare we say it) heartwarming to hear how couples and singles alike are handling romance in light of all these changes. You've heard of Love in the Time of Cholera, but get ready for Love in the Time of Corona.

This week's guests are Abby Porter ’22 and Andrew Tynes ’22.

Hi Abby and Andrew! Welcome and thanks for kicking us off this semester. Let's start with some basics. How and when did you two meet?

Abby: Hi, Ben! We met two days before classes started 1L, getting drinks at Sedona with a group of people and then later that week at a party. We spent most of the party talking and became friends. After about a month, we attended another party together as friends, but that night something clicked and there was a clear, natural shift in our friendship toward a relationship. We’ve been officially together since November!

Ah, all roads and relationships lead to Sedona. Let’s talk COVID. What’s your relationship been like during it?

Andrew: Back during spring break, we had been out of town visiting her parents and got back to Charlottesville right as the semester shifted online and things were shutting down. We had to decide pretty quickly what our quarantine situation would look like. We decided to stay put here together. We’ve now spent more of our relationship in quarantine together than not.

Abby: It’s been a (successful) trial-by-fire. We had a good number of friends who were here over the summer that enabled us to have some other social outlets, but we spent a ton of time together and learned a lot about each other in the process.

Pictured: These two beauties lit up the stage at Barrister’s this spring.

Let’s hear it! How would you each describe the other in a word or phrase?

Abby: Andrew is very curious! He loves to experience and explore new things. I’ve learned and experienced a lot of things with him that I normally may have overlooked on my own. The other night we watched a Fellini movie that he had been wanting to watch. I ended up loving it, but wouldn’t have ever thought to watch it had it not been for Andrew.

Andrew: There’s a funny metaphor for our relationship that we talk about a lot. I’m like a whale and Abby is like a barnacle. We have a very symbiotic relationship and are dependent on each other, but in different ways. I’m pretty introverted and would say Abby brings out the extrovert in me when it comes to socializing. On the other hand, Abby is super extroverted, which has obviously been more difficult these past few months. In the absence of those normal social outlets, I think I’ve been able to be a sounding board and guide as she adapts to this more introverted lifestyle we’ve all been living.

That’s dolphinately a good metaphor. Let’s pivot back to Corona for a second. I bet spending all that time together could have been overwhelming. Did you have any practices in place to keep things running smoothly?

Abby: Yes! I think we’re good at sitting together in the same room and doing our own thing, but we would plan out set activities to look forward to each day. I think the separation of those two things helped keep work hours for work. Communication about COVID risks was also crucial. We both realized that because we were quarantining together we had a mutual responsibility to be smart and safe. We made a habit of always keeping each other in the loop and letting each other know if we were ever uncomfortable with respective personal plans.

Andrew: Meetings, networking calls, and big projects at work were fairly easy to do separately. But when things at work were slow, there was definitely a temptation to socialize with each other or do something impromptu. But, going back to the introvert/extrovert dynamic, I occasionally do need time alone to recharge my batteries. She’s the opposite and recharges by being around people. We definitely had to communicate through this difference in personality and practice.

Let’s do a lightning round! Best Charlottesville date spot?

Andrew: Ten. Great sushi and vibe. It’s shockingly fancy and city-like. I love the rural charm of Charlottesville, but Ten flips that on its head and makes you feel like you’ve escaped to Manhattan for the night.

Abby: Lampo! Best pizza in Charlottesville and incredibly cozy.

Favorite memory?

Answer: It’s tempting to pick a big activity or moment, but our favorite times are the little things—sitting on the porch with a glass of wine, drinking coffee, or making new recipes for dinner. There haven’t been a ton of big moments during this summer, but that doesn’t mean that there haven’t been any good ones.

First activity you'll do or place you'll go once all social restrictions are lifted?

Answer: On a micro-level, something fun and around a ton of people—maybe axe-throwing at a brewery. On a macro-level, though, we’ve been planning an eventual trip abroad. We’re torn between Peru, Japan, and Italy.

Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Andrew: I would say that Abby is a rare type of moral and ethical person. I think in today’s society it’s easy to either go with the flow or to act out of a desire to impress others via performance. I think it’s very rare to make the right decisions for the right reasons. Abby always acts with righteousness. She’s got a clarity of spirit that draws people to her.

Abby: I would say I value how Andrew comes to everything with passion and an opinion—he genuinely cares about what he believes in and isn’t apathetic about anything. He’s got an admirable, stalwart spirit when it comes to his views, and he stands up for what he believes in. I would also say that I’ve learned a lot of things from him. He thinks outside of the box and isn’t really bound by traditional thinking. He’s an excellent ground-up thinker who isn’t satisfied by band-aid solutions. Finally, I would like to formally apologize for preventing him from finishing The Sopranos this summer by forcing him to watch Parks and Rec every night with me instead.

Many thanks to Andrew and Abby for kicking us off this semester on Love in the Time of Corona! Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Antitrust and Big Tech, Part I: The Path to 21st-Century Technological Transformation

Virginia Law Weekly September 2, 2020

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Current Events Editor

Already a year has come and gone since I first happened upon the event “Antitrust in the Digital Economy” as an eager 1L and was inspired to learn and experience all that the legal profession offers us. Writing my first Virginia Law Weekly piece covering the event, titled “Make Antitrust Cool Again: Antitrust in the Digital Economy,”[1] I recall Professor Hockett's passion as he sought to convince his audience that 1) antitrust was “cool;” and 2) it was quite a “big deal” in relation to regulating Big Tech. U.S. antitrust laws that form the foundation of our nation’s free-market economy, prohibiting monopolistic conduct and conspiracies in restraint of trade, are governed mainly by the Sherman Act passed in 1890. (Big Tech refers to Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple—the preeminent tech companies of our time.)

It only took my coverage of this one event to sow the seed of intrigue on how “Big Tech” companies influence the social, economic, and political systems that pervade every facet of our lives. Serendipitously, exactly a year has passed since I first learned what the term “antitrust” meant through my reporting. As a 2L, I return, having had the chance to sink my teeth into these issues by working in the Technology Enforcement Division at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). By way of this experience, I feel inclined to report to you that Professor Hockett’s belief about the promise of a career in antitrust law, as well as how antitrust law relates to Big Tech, is correct. Big Tech’s influence is critically important to our lives and antitrust is at the heart of determining how to usher in our 21st-century technological transformation—a technological transformation which not only affects our economy, but our nation’s fundamental democratic processes, international security, and our shared conception of reality itself.

When the unthinkable descended upon the world by way of COVID-19 in mid-March, many things changed in our personal lives. We were stuck in our homes for weeks on end, longing for the “simplicity” of our former grocery runs or restaurant outings. But, we had great resources at our disposal to match the moment. Resources we have come to regard as our “virtual toolboxes.”

Prior to the pandemic, I had felt trepidation about entering a “virtual reality.” I was disinclined to use all of the “tech tools” at my disposal. In fact, I employed any method possible to avoid downloading apps like Venmo or even making purchases online via eBay, Amazon, or Instacart. Yet necessity was the mother of conformity once COVID-19 turned our lives upside down. Many Americans, like myself, who previously did their utmost to avoid being sucked in the digital economy due to concerns about privacy, data, and lack of transparency, were impelled to change course. Paralyzed by the pandemic and stuck at home, we adapted.

For better or worse, our economy was also forced to adapt, markedly impacting 51 million Americans who filed for unemployment as of mid-August.[2] Both producers (workers who are unemployed) and consumers (all of us) thrust to change our habits. On the consumption end, millions of Americans turned to large e-commerce sites such as Amazon for basic commodities (remember the toilet paper catastrophe?). They also turned to Facebook and Google (parent of Youtube), seeking ways to combat the effects of social isolation. Moreover, with over one-hundred million iPhone users in the U.S alone, we spent an incredible amount of time on our phones/devices—downloading apps that became more influential in shaping our conception of the world around us and ourselves.

Our increasing dependence on these digital platforms only exacerbated their power to construct and influence the realities we were siloed into within our homes. This influence was reflected in monetary third quarter earnings reported on July 31. Amazon reported record revenue and profit increases, doubling profits to a record $5.2 billion, far exceeding expectations. Apple also reported a 11% increase in quarterly sales due to strong demand for apps, reliance on remote-work devices, and a lower priced iPhone.

But, this might all seem so obvious to you. “Of course, their earnings increased,” you might think. And why should that be an issue? These tech companies provided us great services in an unprecedented era. Could we have imagined enduring such a catastrophic global event as this pandemic without such technological interconnectedness?

You have a point. Being profitable in America is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to “Be Big.” As House Representative Sensenbrenner said in his opening remarks at the investigative hearing before the House Antitrust Subcommittee, on July 29, 2020, which examined the “Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.” “Being big is not inherently bad” and “America should reward the success of its business.” The nearly five-and-a-half-hour testimony of the CEOs of these companies (Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai) demarcated the progress of a nearly yearlong investigation spearheaded by Chairman Cicilline (D-RI). He began the hearing reflecting exactly why being “too big” might be a problem, weighed against those benefits of Big Tech. His statements emphasized the consequences of the abuse of these platforms’ market-power (exacerbated by COVID-19), especially in eLearning, e-commerce, social media, and other essential platforms.

Over the course of the next month, I’ll reflect on my recent experiences at the FTC to illuminate how regulation of Big Tech via our nation’s antitrust laws, or statutory authority, may impact our lives. We’ll turn to the recent Antitrust Subcommittee hearing to do this, then to how antitrust in Big Tech intersects with U.S. international security objectives. Lastly, we’ll focus on how Big Tech is regulating our social processes and conceptions of our communities, especially in light of the recent and upcoming elections.

Big Tech is a BIG issue. Let’s get to it.

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu

[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2019/10/2/make-antitrust-cool-again-antitrust-in-the-digital-economy

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/07/16/51-million-americans-are-unemployedheres-the-story-of-the-job-seekers-behind-the-numbers/#39e611956ac1

Court of Petty Appeals: John Does v. Open Bathroom Doors

Virginia Law Weekly September 2, 2020

John Does v. Open Bathroom Doors
73 U.Va 2 (2020)

Justice Jones delivered the opinion of the Court.

We’ve all heard of the open-air office. Great spaces where you can collaborate and be super nosy about your colleagues’ lives. But should this nosiness extend to places you normally don’t want to smell? This court affirmatively answers the question with a no. Just shut the door.

It is Tuesday. You are sitting in the library by the windows facing the JAG school. You’re a 3L, you don’t have a care in the world despite the global pandemic,[1] and so you don’t notice that you’ve sat a little too close to the bathroom. All of a sudden, you see a poor 1L walk past you a little too fast. Tragedy is about to strike. Because this 1L has had too much Chipotle. Now you realize it. The bathroom doors have been kept open. You hear it. At first the sound strikes like a polite car horn when someone hasn’t noticed a traffic light turned green. But then the noise crescendos. You wonder if you’re still hearing the 1L, or if there’s a recreation of the Battle of the Somme going on at the JAG school. The Guns of August continue firing until finally, they stop. But it is not over. Just like World War I, the artillery barrage is followed by noxious gas. A defeated, sad 1L emerges, looking like he wishes his mask covered more of his face. Rumor has it that that 1L switched all his classes entirely online that same day.

Plaintiffs, an entire class of people who suffered just like our poor 1L,[2] filed suit alleging a violation of their fundamental right to privacy, their right to not be heard,[3] and their right to shut the freakin’ door, man. This is not the first time the administration has been reprimanded by this Court for bathroom-related privacy violations. See Students’ Bodies v. The Overbroad Crack in Bathroom Stall Doors, 223 U. Va 281. (2019).

The defendants make several arguments on appeal. First, they argue that open-air bathrooms are necessary to prevent the spread of disease. However, as my travelers on Oregon Trail so tragically discovered when they died of dysentery, bathrooms on the open road are ineffective at preventing the spread of disease. Next, defendants contend that there have been no real damages inflicted on plaintiffs. While the Court’s knowledge of damages is limited (sparky-sparky boom-boom means big cash money, we all know from the Supreme Court’s virtual hearings what a big deal a single flush can become.[4] Finally, defendants muster an equal treatment under the law argument. If plaintiffs’ online Zoom counterparts can use the bathroom in the middle of their classes, then clearly the in-person student must take the same open-air approach or the curve will be thrown off. To which we say: Equality does not apply to bathrooms. That’s why some bathrooms have urinals and their cakes while others go without.

The dissent uses a bunch of fancy words that the Court doesn’t have the energy to pretend it understands now that I’m a 3L.[5] What is a boogie, some kind of French hat? The dissent also brings up the standing of plaintiffs. But in bathroom-related affairs, standing is not the point. The point, in fact, can be accomplished with no standing at all. Therefore, the requirement of standing is waived.

Never has there been such a traumatic bathroom incident since the time I was in kindergarten and the bathroom door broke, locking me in.[6] On that day, I swore to never let something like that happen again if I became a Petty Justice. So, here we are. Injunctive relief is granted, and the doors must close.

TONSETH, J., dissenting.

As this Court’s sole remaining bastion for textualism and the proper administration of the judicial system, I vehemently dissent.

1L Gunners v. Every-One Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019) provides a baseline rule here: 1Ls always lose. There goes over a third of the plaintiffs here. Further, another third of 2L/3Ls aren’t attending in person, see COVID-19 v. Students, 20 U.Va 20 (2020). This reduces the original class of Plaintiffs to a generous number of three hundred. As this Court has previously ruled, see Lululemon v. Athleta, 315 U.Va 18 (2019), law students are too boujee to wear knock-off workout clothes, let alone use a public restroom. It is obvious the majority has ignored the basic prerequisite for having a case on this docket: standing.

Justice Jones, sitting on his ivory throne as a 3L, relies on the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: We do what we want, Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers 369 U.Va 96 (2019). Apparently, this arrogance also ignores that the plaintiffs have a legitimate claim. This Court has wisely held that “emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending law school.” 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22, 24 (2019).

Ignoring these otherwise rather important procedural aspects, this case is correctly decided on the merits. The Law School’s open-door policy, applying only to bathroom entrances, yet not bathroom stalls or the administration’s offices, is both arbitrary and capricious. If I learned anything from having to trudge through Justice Scalia’s numerous dissents in Con Law, it is that the role of the judiciary isn’t to make policy. However, this decision is based on sheer decency. A right to privacy may be contentious, but law students already struggle enough under pressure. See 1Ls v. Flex Exams, 309 U.Va 73 (2020), (granting an injunction against virtual proctors on 1L spring exams, although the exams were pass/fail, due to the likelihood 1Ls would clam up worse than they do when trying to talk about anything other than law school to friends back home). It would be inhumane to allow the administration to inflict more pressure on students, especially when performance and relaxation is critical here.

But because I can dissent, I do.

---

jmj3vq@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

[1] An astute reader might question the veracity of this story based on the fact that a 3L is in the library in August. To which we say: “tongue sticking out with eyes closed emoji.”

[2] No sound that emerges from the bathroom when it shouldn’t is too small for a plaintiff to not be included. You might call this the “trickle down” effect.

[3] See Professors Who Cold Call 3Ls v. Feb. Club (2018) (holding that the right to not be heard is fundamental, and, in the case of 3Ls, a social duty).

[4] For an in-depth discussion of who flushed (Justice Breyer), see Ashley Feinberg, Investigation: I Think I Know Which Justice Flushed, slate, May 8, 2020. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/toilet-flush-supreme-court-livestream.html.

[5] Nor does the Court have the energy to maintain consistent pronoun use when referring to myself.

[6] This is a true story. The fire department had to come and everything.

Hot Bench: Lisa Napier

Virginia Law Weekly September 2, 2020

Lisa is the “Snack Office Queen” and Faculty Assistant for Student Affairs.

Hi Lisa! Welcome to Hot Bench! For all our readers who might not know, Lisa holds court in the Student Affairs Office a.k.a. the Snack Office and is the friendly face of Student Affairs. Lisa, can you tell us a little about yourself?

Sure! I’ve been an employee of the University for thirty-two years and all but six of those years I’ve been at the Law School. My first job at the School was in Admissions. I worked there for four years and then I moved to Student Affairs. This was way back when we had only one building.

That’s right! The Law School used to be just Withers-Brown Hall. Was there a dedicated office for Student Affairs back then?

Yes, there was. The Office has really evolved over the years. Dean Harmon was my first Student Affairs Dean; she did a lot with student needs and she actually started the Peer Advisor Program. Just thinking about how that has evolved and grown . . . when we started, there were only twenty Peer Advisors.

When I first started, we dealt a lot with supporting students. Dean Harmon, at the time, had a degree in education and counseling, so she worked with in-house counseling and we worked a lot with people who had needs. We did a small amount with organization type things—at that point, if there was funding, we were not in control of that funding. But now, we have grown! Dr. Gibson is part of our team, and Kate and Dean Davies do a lot of academic counseling. Having the team come together, that was great.

What are some changes you’ve seen in the thirty-two years you’ve worked here?

I think, each year, we always see a difference in each one of the student classes. The difference in personality is just amazing.That’s always a change. And the technology at the school—going from where we started—oh my gosh, what is email? Back then we had two people in IT and when we got our first departmental email, wow. I think the technology is amazing and the [new] building.

In your own work, has that changed or shifted throughout the years?

Oh yeah, when I started, I wasn’t sitting in the same office as the Dean, so when we moved and got the open floor plan, I began to engage more with students. I used to be behind a wall and a little sliding window—like a dentist’s office!

So, colloquially, we all know the Student Affairs Office as the Snack Office. When did that start?

I think when Dean Davies came. At first we had some candy and then we realized it was a great way to get students engaged. Hopefully, we’ll still have people come in even if there are no snacks.

No snacks this year? :(

Yes, for safety, there will be no snacks this year. We miss it! We miss seeing everybody in that capacity.

What is your favorite thing about the Student Affairs Office?

Of course it’s the students—I love helping out any way I can and I love working with you guys.

Let’s do a lightning round!

Favorite place in Charlottesville?

C’ville Coffee—Toan and his wife own it and I love them.

Where is somewhere you haven’t been but would like to go?

You know, I’ve never been out west to Wyoming or Montana.

One song to play in the background of your life. What would you pick?

My go-tos are my Bon Jovi songs. I loved the big hair bands. “Living on a Prayer”—love it!

Pet peeve?

Okay, this will be funny [for Dean Davies]. I have this thing about when people call Dean Davies “Sarah.” It’s a respect thing. Not showing respect is one of my pet peeves.

Favorite phrase?

Bless your heart.

That can go different ways!

That’s true. Mine usually goes the good way.

What do you like to read?

I like mysteries.

If you could make one rule that everyone had to follow, what would it be?

Be kind to one another.

Where did you grow up?

I grew up local—lived all my life twenty-five miles south of here in Scottsville, Virginia. I grew up on a dairy farm. We lived in a very rural area, I came from a humble background—it was a treat for me to come to Charlottesville. We had wide open playing fields [in Scottsville], it was great. I still live in the area: my husband and I—and Sable, the dog (she’s a four year old Charcoal Lab).

Growing up, what did you want to be?

I wanted to be a teacher. At that time, scholarships weren’t as generous. I had what I needed but no extra—that’s why I went to associate’s college and got my degree in business administration instead.

What’s something most people wouldn’t know about you?

I was an active EMT. My husband and I ran a rescue squad in Scottsville for twelve years. I’m still certified in the state of Virginia, because you never know what might happen. I was motivated because of my brother; he passed of a massive heart attack at thirty-two. And we didn’t have a squad in our rural area. I decided then that that’s what I wanted to do. And then I got hooked and became an adrenaline junkie.

What’s your favorite thing about the Law School?

I think the close-knitness—not just of the students, but the faculty and staff. We’re like a big family and I really love that. I’ve always felt that here.

As our parting shot, what would you like to tell all the students?

We wish you all the very best. Stay safe during all this and I hope to see each and everyone of you very soon. Just stop by and say hello!

---

lnapier@law.virginia.edu