Hot Bench: Eli Jones '21

---

Eli Jones ‘21

Interviewed by Christina Luk ‘21

Where are you from? 

I am from Erie, Pennsylvania, northwest two hours from Pittsburgh.

When did you start thinking about law school? 

Freshman year of undergrad. I was originally an education major, and I wanted to be a high school teacher. But I went to an informational meeting about law and decided to do this instead. I’m fortunate that my undergrad offered a lot of career counseling, and it really benefited me.

Sounds like a great place! Where did you go for undergrad?

Duquesne University, in Uptown Pittsburgh.

So what did you do between college and law school?

Well, I graduated one semester early, and for six months, I was a counselor and teacher for students with criminal convictions. I worked with a boarding school that was basically a step below juvenile prison for ninth to twelfth graders. I taught English.

What was it like coming to UVA after that experience?

I think it was important to have an experience like that, particularly before coming to a place like UVA, which is very elite and overflowing with privilege. It helped me understand that law is real and that behind every decision is a real human life. In class, we talk about things in the abstract, but behind every case is a human person.

So, my experience was really important to me, and it reframed for me how people talk about crimes. There are people who make mistakes, including children, and we apply these labels to them that can stick for life. My experience also helped me learn how to handle stress, and not get overwhelmed.

Did that experience have an impact on what you hope to do as a lawyer? 

I’ve always wanted to do some public service job in the long term. I do think, for sure, seeing how society interacts with people in the criminal law system once they’ve been convicted convinced me we ought to change how we treat people once they’re incarcerated. Working with those high schoolers made me wanna do right by people and, long term, gave me a lot to think about.

I heard that you’re still doing some teaching. Tell us a little bit about that.

Yeah, I got an opportunity at my alma mater to teach about race and law. I came across it on a whim actually. Derrick Bell was a well-known race scholar and alum at my undergrad. I was talking with the Director of the Honors College where I graduated about him, and I said we should commemorate him. And she said, oh, we should do a course, would you like to teach it? I was a bit surprised, but given that everything is virtual now and I’m physically back in Pittsburgh, I was able to make it work. It’s a weird experience, but definitely interesting. We just had our first week of classes.

Do you want to continue teaching in the future?

I would like to. My dad is a teacher, and my mom also teaches. She runs a martial arts school. Plus, both my parents teach at church. I’ve always seen value in it, and I really like the experience and I love interacting with students. So yes, definitely.

You’ve mentioned that you’re an English major with a creative writing background—do you still write?

You know it’s funny, I’ve tried, but law school really saps the creative juices out of you. I find I can sketch the plot points, but finding the creative language is difficult after three years of stuffing my head with Supreme Court cases.

What inspired you to be a UJC Representative and what’s been different about it this year?

Being in SBA, I was like, oh cool, I get to be involved in student government, which is a lot more robust than it is at my undergrad. I enjoy engaging with the wider community and with the whole university. What’s different? The adjudicative process. Seeing how other students from other schools at the university approach quasi-legal issues in different ways has been eye-opening. I think, especially in terms of crafting a sanction, everything is more open-ended than you would expect as a law student. I get locked into thinking if this is a statute, this would be the sanction, but the way other people can craft and personalize sanctions actually makes for a really cool alternative.

Let’s do a lightning round! 

Favorite place in Charlottesville? 

Blue Whale Books on the Downtown Mall. It’s by the Violet Crown Theatre. It’s got the biggest used books collection, and a big collector edition section, and a biography section I always get lost in.

What’s a biography you’d recommend to readers?

Devil in the Grove, by Gilbert King. It’s about Thurgood Marshall and NAACP’s defense of the Groveland Boys.

Anti-Stress Hobby? 

Watching a good TV show. Recently, I watched Neon Genesis Evangelion and True Detective. Really cool.

Pet peeve?

Passive aggression. Snide comments.

Favorite word? 

Community.

If you could live anywhere, where would it be? 

Pittsburgh, where I live right now. I’ll be working here after graduation.

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

No Country for Old Men by the Coen Brothers

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

Pay off my loans.

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

“Keep the Devil Off,” by Big K.R.I.T.

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

I’ve never been to California. I’ve always wanted to see L.A. Coming to Virginia, I’ve learned to appreciate wine, so wine country would be good. Even to see the Pacific Ocean would be cool.

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

Treat other people like you want to be treated.

What do you do for fun?

I hang out with the family. My wife, we have four pets, and they’ve been my main support. They keep me on track in life.

Well, now you have to introduce your pets.

We got one pet for each year of law school: Jefferson, he’s a Jack Russell-Beagle mix. He’s a very distinguished little guy. We got King next, an American Bulldog. Then, the year after, Misato and Zhu Li, two cats. We got them all from the local shelter. Support the ASPCA!

Anyone you want to give a shout out to?

To the folks at BLSA, at the SBA, and all the other classmates I’m happy to call friends.

---

ejj9yj@virginia.edu

Dicta: From Personal Life to Law—A Celebration and Reflection

---

Leslie Kendrick ‘06
Vice Dean of UVA Law

Dicta features overviews of, musings about, and recent developments in Law School professors’ scholarship, as well as their views about current events and happenings in the law. The Law Weekly is excited to reintroduce Dicta and hopes that it will provide an outlet for professors to share their research and reflections with the Law School community.

Professors interested in submitting a piece are invited to contact the Professor Liaison Editor, Leah Deskins (lcd4ew@virginia.edu).

In early January, I gave a talk at the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) Annual Meeting. The AALS Annual Meeting is a large annual gathering of law teachers, librarians, and administrators from across the U.S. and the world. It includes many sessions on a vast array of legal specialties.

This year, the AALS Torts and Jurisprudence sections partnered to host a panel celebrating the life of John Gardner, a Scottish lawyer and legal philosopher who tragically died of cancer in 2019 at age fifty-four. John spent most of his career at the University of Oxford, where for more than fifteen years he was Professor of Jurisprudence, a chair previously held by H.L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin. At his passing, he left behind a rich body of work on criminal law, private law, and legal philosophy, as well as a bereaved transatlantic community of lawyers and philosophers.

I knew John Gardner only a bit, but I have known him by reputation for more than twenty years. I was studying literature at Oxford when John took over the Jurisprudence chair from Ronald Dworkin. One of my best friends had John as her supervisor, and she said often that he was as kind as he was brilliant.

The AALS panel focused on the last book John published before his passing, From Personal Life to Private Law (Oxford University Press 2018). (An essay collection, Torts and Other Wrongs, was published posthumously.)

In From Personal Life to Private Law, John argued that private law, particularly tort law and contract law, involves problems and resolutions familiar from our personal lives. In doing so, he drew on a rich array of examples from both life and literature to elucidate intuitions about law and morality.

At the AALS panel, I compared John’s arguments in From Personal Life to Private Law with his stance on strict liability elsewhere. In other work, John defends strict liability as consistent with fair-notice values and acceptable within a private-law framework. These arguments square well with From Personal Life to Private Law, yet the book mentions strict liability only once. Instead it focuses entirely on the fault standard as paradigmatic of private law. This seems to me a missed opportunity, especially given John’s focus on analogies from literature. From Greek tragedies onward, literature has many examples of figures who are held responsible on what amounts to a “strict liability” basis for actions or failures that they could not have known would have the grave consequences they do. John would have said interesting things about this, and it is our loss that he is not here to say more.

When I planned with the Law Weekly to write this piece, I was going to say more about torts. But in preparing for and attending the panel, I started to think about other, bigger principles from John’s work and life, principles that I try to remember and that might resonate for you:

Life is short: The world lost John Gardner too soon. None of us knows how much time we have here. What do we want to accomplish? How do we want to help repair the world? These are questions not for later but for now.

Relationships matter: Life is still long enough to make lasting relationships. John touched so many students and colleagues. The AALS panel involved friends I have been lucky to meet over twenty years, including one from Oxford, a co-author, and our dear Kim Ferzan. The colleagues you have now will be your friends for the rest of your lives. Your relationships will make your work lighter and your life richer. Take time to sustain them.

Your reputation precedes you: I heard what a good person John Gardner was long before I met him. Hearing that such an accomplished person was also kind had a small but real effect on my perceptions of the legal profession. In addition to the relationships you have, you can affect and inspire people you never even meet.

Life and law are connected: John’s book starts with a conviction that the problems and solutions in law reflect those of life. Law as a profession is not rote performance. It requires creativity, care, and critical thinking. Law school is a chance not only to learn rules but also to reflect. Take the chance. Find what you love or what you love enough to want to change. Learn about it, talk about it with your friends, make it part of what you live and breathe.

This is what I took away from celebrating the life of a wise man. Find your work, find your people. Nourish them, and carry them with you. They will carry you beyond the people you meet, even beyond the span of a lifetime.

Thank you to Christina Luk ’21, Leah Deskins ’21, and the Law Weekly staff for bringing back DICTA and for including this contribution. 

---

kendrick@law.virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Hangry Students v. UVA Law Hedgefund Managers

---

Hangry Students v. UVA Law Hedgefund Managers
73 U.Va 13 (2020)

Justice CHENELLE delivered the majority opinion for the Court of Petty Appeals, 4th District

Amidst the present tribulations and tumult, there have been so many grievous losses and misfortunes that a profoundly problematic plight has been completely ignored—the damage to law students’ budgets wrought by a lack of free food available at the Law School. Plaintiff brought this matter, on behalf of all other students at the University of Virginia School of Law, to the attention of the court through his suit. That suit alleged, amongst other outrages visited upon the student body by the great plague, that students’ food expenditures had been forced sky-high by the lack of opportunities for free feasting. Plaintiff seeks either an injunction forcing the return of this practice or monetary damages in accord with the pecuniary problems produced hereby. Taking a view to historical precedents, as well as the rights and obligations outlined in the UVA Law Student Bill of Rights,[1] the Court grants Plaintiff’s demand, and orders timely performance or payment from the Law School in accordance with the stipulations of the North Grounds Rules of Civil Procedure.[2]

---

            Since the great plague’s onset, a host of deprivations have been visited upon both the American people and the world. Over two million are dead, millions more have been left with long-term sequelae from the disease, countless jobs have been lost and businesses shuttered, and industries across the planet have suffered a blow from which they are still reeling and may never rebound. However, these issues are sadly beyond the scope of our Court’s jurisdiction, and thus we must turn our efforts instead to a dire situation closer to home—the plight of hundreds of hungry law students. They have been forced to passively Zoom into their courses from the comforts of their own homes. They have had to forsake opportunities to intern, extern, and study in exotic locales across the country and the world. And most seriously of all, the rates at which most students here pay for their education have been completely unaffected by the profound changes in their educational atmosphere. Setting aside, for now at least, what this situation should perhaps imply regarding the nature[3] of higher education and credentialism in this country, this phenomenon means students must be compensated in other ways.

We, therefore, must look for another aspect of the law school experience that students have continued to pay for but are no longer receiving. I am informed of a long tradition holding that in times of misty antiquity, such as February 2020, free food would be provided nearly as a matter of course on each day of the week, in such quantity and quality that an impoverished young scholar could go weeks without spending a dollar on their own food.[4] However, with the onset of the great plague, this delightful benefit was withdrawn from the Law School, with nary a fruit basket nor buffet table in sight. Given the lack of compensation to students for all of the other in-person opportunities they have missed, it seems clear that this would be a relatively cheap way for the School to ingratiate itself with the student body. Therefore, in light of the general principles of fairness outlined in several administrative documents too boring to expound upon here and a generous reading of the unconscionability doctrine, the Law School should either make free food available to students again, or, should this prove impossible given the conditions of aforementioned plague, provide monetary damages in the form of an inflation adjusted stipend dispensed to all class members.

I have reached this ruling on a basis not only grounded in Thomistic natural law, the founding documents of these Grounds, and the procedural rules that govern this institution, but also with a keen eye towards precedential considerations. In a 1919 case under very similar circumstances,[5] the Law School was enjoined against discontinuing dining services amidst another pandemic. Similarly, in 1974, amidst the tumultuous shift to the North Grounds, a temporary disruption in food services was found to require compensatory damages to the affected students, who had taken to bowhunting for deer along the Rivanna Trail to supplement their diets, as they were unable to feed themselves on the meager rations they could afford when unsupplemented by additional food from the Law School.[6] The relief requested by the class is further supported by an appeal to reliance, as students have relied on the school for free food for so long that students’ future right to free food is a property interest. Indeed, to deprive class members of their free food is an unfair taking, prohibited by the Bill of Rights.[7] It is thus clear to this Court that, given both the statutory and doctrinal background along with the overwhelming weight of the precedential cases, this class should be certified and the relief for which it prays granted. 

----

            Per order of the Court of Petty Appeals, applying the Make Grub Available Doctrine,[8] Defendant is hereby enjoined to either provide equal opportunities for gratuitous grub as existed prior to the great plague or recompense the class with a stipend commensurate to the value of the grub they would have otherwise received. Should the Defendant fail to comply with this injunction, class members will be given use of the Lawn to plant and grow their own food. The list of crops which may be grown on the Lawn pursuant to this order include legumes, plantains, and leeks. While this list is not necessarily exclusive, plaintiffs must return before this Court and request permission before planting any varieties not specifically enumerated above.

It is so ordered.

---

dnc9hu@virginia.edu

---

[1] Section XXXLVI, Sub-Section CDX, Article LXI, Codicil IX.

[2] Rule 15, 610 (a)(63)(B)(ꝝ).

[3] See Actually, Universities Are Really Just Giant Hedge Funds, Princeton Law Review, 2017 Vol. 39.

[4] In addition to extensive archival research, I reached this conclusion through conversations with those ancient-of-days, 2L’s and 3L’s, who, through their wrinkled lips, muttered reminiscences of Chick-Fil-A wafting through the halls.

[5] See Harry Hungry v. Dean Lile, 16 Pav. 36 (1919).

[6] Baccalieri v. Paulsen, 55 Rot.Unda 3 (1974).

[7] Section VIII, Sub-Section II, Article IX, Codicil I.

[8] See Gross Farm Share Beets v. Students Looking for Free Food, 132 Sco.Co. 15 (2020) for an erroneous application of this doctrine.

Hot Bench: Kunchok Dolma '21

---

Kunchok Dolma ‘21

Interviewed by Christina Luk ‘21

Hi Kunchok! Thanks for joining us on Hot Bench this week. Where are you from? 

I’m from Queens, New York. I consider it my first home, even though I came there much later in life. 

You were back in New York for winter break, how was it? 

Okay. Things are going on, like the vaccine distribution. COVID has been tough—tough for the City, its front line workers and small businesses, but New York is a resilient place. For me, New York is home. New York is my happy place. 

When did you start thinking about law school? 

When I was fairly young. Growing up in Asia, they ask you at a very early age what you want to be and I decided I would be a lawyer, because there were very few lawyers around. My cousin had spoken about what being a lawyer means, and, even as early as high school, I thought of lawyers as people who advocate for some kind of social good. When I was young, I wanted to be a lawyer to fight for the cause of Tibet. I was idealistic, and I didn’t understand geopolitics. Still, those dreams sparked my interest in international law and international human rights law. 

Can you tell us more about the “cause of Tibet”?

Well, Tibet was occupied in the 1950s, so when the rest of the world was being decolonized, places like Tibet and Palestine were being colonized. As a Tibetan, I felt I had to do something on behalf of Tibet. For me, the cause of Tibet has always meant advocating for an independent Tibet. 

Is that still part of your goals as a lawyer? 

It’s part of me as a Tibetan and as someone who cares about marginalized communities and occupied countries. I have a very strong identity as an immigrant from a working class background, and I have a strong identity as a woman of color and a New Yorker. Those identities inspire my advocacy.  

What did you do before law school?

After college, I got a fellowship to work in the New York City Mayor’s Office of Adult Education. I did a lot of community engagement, worked with limited English proficient immigrants, and, after graduate school, I came back to that work once again. I worked in the  New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs(MOIA), where I focused on civic engagement, language advocacy, and language justice. We developed language learning pedagogy based on community based learning models and on pedagogy of the oppressed, where learners are not empty vessels but dynamic co-creators of knowledge.

Is that when you worked on the “We Are NY” videos for the City? 

Yes, those videos talk about immigrant life in New York and help immigrants learn about city services and, through community education tools, help them practice everyday English. When I returned to MOIA, I got the opportunity to rebrand the program and we rebranded it to “We Speak NYC.” We created new videos and workbooks focused on worker rights, immigrant rights, mental health, and elder care, among others. 

That’s the program you won the New York Emmy Award for, right?

Yes, we won the NY Emmy for “Rolando’s Rights,”  a story revolving around Rolando, an immigrant, who learns about paid sick leave and wage theft, and then becomes an advocate for worker rights for his colleagues, community, and family. Season one videos, which were called We Are New York, also won two Emmys. This is the third Emmy for the program, and the first for me. 

What’s something you know now that you would tell yourself coming into law school? 

I came to law school at a much older age. I think for me, my advice might be more personal, I would say, law school is a conservative elite space that is not designed for working class people of color—I would tell myself that in some way law school reinforces prevailing systems of oppression. For someone like me, therefore, part of the challenge of law school will not be just the academics but navigating those power structures and being cognizant of them. I had friends who had gone to law school and gave similar advice, but it’s one thing to be aware of it, and then another to experience it….

For me, the challenge of law school is also retaining, developing, growing into your authentic self without giving into those power structures. That’s where I think being an older student makes you more resolute, you’re more sure of your journey and more conscious of your choices. That doesn’t mean you’re always making the right decisions, just that you’re more aware. 

Thanks for sharing that. Let’s learn more about you. What’s your favorite food? 

Mom’s food, Tibetan Momos. 

Favorite place in Charlottesville? 

My favorite place is the CAT bus, especially the Number 7 Charlottesville Bus. I don’t have a car so I take the bus frequently. On the bus, you meet the everyday people who live and call Charlottesville home. My bus journeys, strangely, keep me grounded to my roots and to life outside the law school. 

Anti-Stress Hobby? 

Watching British mystery and crime dramas. 

What’s a book that left an impression on you? 

Disgrace by Coetzee. 

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

For how much? That’s my first question to you. I don’t believe I will win the lottery, so I don’t buy them … I don’t entertain those thoughts and I(Laughter) I don’t know. 

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

Oh my god, I think it changes depending on the mood or day, but it would be an old Bollywood song with beautiful lyrics/ poetry. 

Oh yeah, you speak a ton of languages, what languages do you speak?

Tibetan, Nepali, and Hindi more or less. 

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

Ecuador, I have so many friends from Ecuador who speak about how beautiful it is. The landscape from my research seems a little like Nepal. So yeah, Ecuador. 

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

(Laughter) I don’t think those kinds of rules exist... It would be “verify your news sources,” given the prevalence of fake news. 

Anyone you wanna give a shout out to? 

I want to give a shout out to Noreen Reza ’21 for all the advocacy and pro bono work that she does, for her leadership, and for being such an inspiration. She does a lot of good work and with such poise and humility.

We’ve talked a little bit about your journey to law school. Looking back, does anything stand out to you? 

I think something that sticks out to me as an immigrant refugee is how the displacement of myself and my family has affected my journey. There’s a struggle that comes from displacement, from being an immigrant and a refugee, and from having to reestablish your roots again and again. It can be consuming. But the community you form around those roots gives you hope for humanity and the good in the world. My journey to law school has not been a straight path. I’ve had to make a lot of stops. Economic and political struggles have always been a part of my life. Redefining myself, my community, my family, and keeping my humanity in all that—all of that is important to any narrative about me. 

How do you feel about your roots now? 

I’ve learned to plant and replant my roots and strangely feel comfortable with movement. I’ve now put down roots in New York, and I’m still deepening those roots, but sometimes that stillness feels strange and scary. I meant what I said about community giving me hope. My community is the working class community in New York, the immigrant community, and women of color. My advocacy has always been rooted in community and I will always continue that work in some way.

---

kd5tg@virginia.edu

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: Hikers v. Bikers

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Staff Editor

Hey, I’m Hiking Here

Anyone who has spent time on a trail will be familiar with the many unique and wondrous forms of disappointment in humanity found only in the woods. There’s littering and graffiti, classic disappointments. There are slow walkers meandering three-across, an entry-level disappointment that heavily overlaps with the disappointment of people who play loud music through tinny speakers in their backpack. There are more advanced disappointments, like time-lapse photographers that set themselves up at the best viewing spot and camp out all day or people who let their dogs run off-leash on popular routes. These are issues even my esteemed opponent would agree with. It baffles the mind why, then, he puts himself so firmly in the most disappointing group of all: people who do not respect the right of way.

His betrayal of trail etiquette should be less surprising, considering my co-writer is a Virginia native and drives like it, but respecting the right of way is an essential tenet of an outdoor person's life. There are three rules: (1) Folks going downhill yield to folks going uphill; (2) hikers yield to horses; and (3) bikers yield to hikers. These are facts straight from the National Park Service, the nation’s single most trusted source of news and information for four years running. While that should be answer enough, I am never happy to leave things at “those are the rules because that’s what the rules say,” so let’s break it down.

First, folks going downhill yield to folks going uphill because going uphill is harder. On an out-and-back trail, uphill usually means you’re on the return and therefore, more tired than someone heading in. This is courtesy codified—not only is it inhumane to break someone out of a good uphill rhythm, but interrupting someone’s momentum can mean the difference between them getting out in good time and having to add in a two-hour water break.

Second, hikers yield to horses because horses can do real harm to their rider and bystanders. Bikers yield to horses for the same reason. No one wants to be responsible for spooking a horse and getting its rider thrown off the side of a mountain. Horses are also harder to maneuver, making it more practical for hikers and bikers to give the right of way.

We take these lessons and apply them to the final rule: Bikers yield to hikers. As profoundly evil as interrupting a person’s hiking rhythm is, there’s also the practical consideration of response time. Hikers on foot, especially moving uphill, have a narrower range of vision than bikers, which makes quick reactions difficult.

Those are the fact-based reasons why my co-writer and everyone who agrees with him is absolutely wrong and terrible. The emotion-based reasons are just as valid. Bikers have their own bike-exclusive trails they can use (check out the bike trail at the Preddy Creek Loop) that are specially designed for trail riding. When bikers insist on using hiking trails, it is essential they yield to others. In a world that is continuously accelerating, people escape to the woods to slow down. Bike riders are already predisposed to careening through trails with a reckless disregard for human life. If we give them the right of way, hikers everywhere will need to be on constant alert to avoid being mowed down. That just isn’t the kind of trail I want to hike on. 

Jonathan Peterson ‘23
Staff Editor

Hikers Beware

I want to preface this: I am not an unreasonable man. I love the middle ground. In fact, it’s my favorite place to be. However, on a matter as simple, clear-cut, and one-sided as this, there is no middle ground. There is right and there is wrong. And I am right.

The only question worth engaging with in answering this issue is this: For whom is it easiest to move off the trail? The person least likely to be inconvenienced by abandoning the trail for a moment should be the one expected to do so. Clearly, it is not the mountain biker, but the hiker, who should carry this burden. Both parties will have approximately the same amount of time to react to the traffic, both parties are vying for the same space, and both parties have an equal right to the trail unless specifically designated for one activity or the other. In which case, there is no argument to be made either way. The hiker is the less inconvenienced of the two, and I shall show this by presenting both sides of the equation, beginning with the mountain biker.

Trees are whipping by your face. The wind is in your hair—passing through your helmet, of course, we love safety. You’ve entered the ultimate flow state as you plunge down the descent. Suddenly, a hiker appears before you. They don’t move as your  brakes screech and you yank the bike to the side of the narrow single-track trail—if it weren’t single-track, there would be no need to make room. You’re on virgin earth now. Leaves crunch and slide under your tires, everything is even bumpier than before, and those trees that were whipping by your face? Now they’re heading straight for you. All kinds of hazards abound, and because the hiker isn’t moving anywhere but forward, you not only need to move off of the trail, you either have to move over and continue trailblazing for a significant portion of time, or you have to come to a complete stop and wait for your interlocutor to trudge up the trail past you. One option is inherently dangerous; the other is an incredible inconvenience.

Sweat drips down your face. Your knees burn, and the air is humid. Gnats are buzzing around. You hate hiking. The whirring of wheels shocks you from your reverie as you look ahead—a majestic mountain biker descends expertly toward you. You would hate to get in the way. You step off the side of the trail. The sweat still drips down your face. Your knees still burn. The humidity is untouched. The gnats follow you ceaselessly. All is as it was. The biker zips past, a cool breeze following them, indicative of the breath of fresh air the biker represented in the monotony of your hike. You continue on in your misery, wistfully wondering if you could ever be so beautiful.

The difference is clear. In one situation, the individual moving off the trail must expose themselves to either unnecessary danger or inconvenience. In the other, one simply takes a step to the left or right, breathes for a moment, and then continues onward. There is no argument to be made against anyone’s right to safety.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Studentry v. LetsGetChecked

---

Studentry v. LetsGetChecked
73 U.Va 12 (2020)

Calamaro, J., writing for the majority.

            This Court, in its long, illustrious history, has never dealt with one issue that affects nearly every consumer—online advertising. At issue, here, is whether LetsGetChecked, the company through which our studentry is required to test for COVID-19, can send me, a justice on this court, an ad for Lyme disease testing services. This Court, in all its wisdom, is answering with a resounding “no” for the following reasons:

I.

The solicitous and purposeless email ads distract from useful ones from the Law School like “The Docket” or infrequent updates from the registrar.

Who among us doesn’t wake up looking forward to “The Docket” every morning? “The Docket” is so useful, with things like headshots for the same rotation of professors, or a student who I definitely and totally know and care about. Getting your name in “The Docket” is absolutely not an exercise in self-aggrandizement, which no one will remember after clicking through to the next email. No, “The Docket” is simply meant to help us recognize the importance of what these professors are achieving—be it an analysis on burning issues like justices making corrections to their opinions, or on unexplored, novel areas such as what Justice Barrett will do to shape the Supreme Court’s opinions. Without “The Docket,” I wouldn’t know where my tuition loans are going, and now that I do, I absolutely think every professor featured on there is worth every single penny of it.

The issue with LetsGetChecked sending me solicitations in my UVA email is that I don’t get to see “The Docket.” Who has the time for both? I also lose out on seeing other important publications, like VIRGINIA Magazine or This Week in Public Service, the latter of which encourages me to share my Barbri subscription with public service people (PSPs).[1] Why can’t LetsGetChecked go the same route as our school administration has with regard to class sign-ups? Just say nothing to me until it’s the last second for me to get a test—that’s what the registrar would do.

The point is, I get inundated with incredibly timely and useful emails from the university, and the last thing that I want to do is find an excuse to never look at my university email again. This is what happens if we continue to get LetsGetChecked email ads. In the process of ignoring a LetsGetChecked ad, I may end up accidentally skipping an all-important and clearly-written email from the registrar on how to sign up for classes. That is unacceptable, and brings us to our next point…

II.

LetsGetChecked triggers test anxiety by telling people to get a test.

As a law student, the last thing that I need to remember is that I have a test coming up in the next few weeks. LetsGetChecked has made the cardinal sin of doing just that. It reminds me of a responsibility to my own personal health, which, as a law student, is something that I do not enjoy thinking about. Furthermore, the last thing that I need is a Lyme disease test. I am a law student, so I don’t go outside except to look for people to sue, and I only have enough capacity to worry about one government-lab-made disease released by accident into the wild, and Lyme is not it. The only bloodsuckers I need to worry about are the opposing counsel and people who ask questions at the end of class.

Additionally, no test should be advertised as pass/fail, positive/negative at this moment in time. Unless the administration is willing to allow for pass/fail tests in our classes, I don’t want to be reminded of the fact that I may have to suffer through a Lyme scare and a graded class. LetsGetChecked is callous to this fact. Rather than refraining from advertising at all, it has decided that it would advertise a test that I assume provides a binary Lyme/Lemon result.

III.

Remedies:  The School should provide one million dollars to students who receive solicitations from LetsGetChecked. In lieu of that, the School should give students free cookies and coffee.

The school, in requiring students to sign up for testing through the LetsGetChecked company, also effectively mandated that students sign their precious data over to said company. However, no compensation has been made to students for their efforts. This data alone is worth probably, like, $1,000,000. If the Law School is unwilling to compensate students for the data they have so painstakingly shared with LetsGetChecked, it should, at the very least, provide free cookies to students on occasion. Specifically, it should do so on Fridays, and maybe provide free coffee as well.

It is so ordered.

Tonseth, concurring.

An inevitable consequence of LetsGetChecked’s rogue actions is that “your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database . . . for whatever reason.”[2] It is foolish to believe that the Fourth Amendment has not been affected by the advance of technology,[3] and this case is no different. While the DNA collection by LetsGetChecked was necessary for COVID-19 clearance, the continued use by LetsGetChecked is constitutionally undermining the rights of citizens to “feel secured in their persons.”[4]

Although most of my fellow Justices find my textualist tendencies abrasive, in this instance, the strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment is critical to ensure both bodily and mental integrity.[5]

---

dac6jk@virginia.edu 
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] I will not. They made their choice.

[2] Maryland v. King, 133 U.S. (Scalia, dissenting).

[3] Kyllo v. United States, 53 U.S. 27

[4] Maryland v. King, 133 U.S. (Scalia, dissenting).

[5] I dissent from the majority's insinuation that public service students don’t need free things. Justice Calamaro sounds mighty uppity for someone almost $200,000 in debt...

Hot Bench: Dev Ranjan '23

---

Dev Ranjan ‘23

Interviewed by Jonathan Peterson ‘23.

So, where are you from, how did you decide on law school—just tell me about yourself!

I grew up in Kentucky and went to college there, but I moved around a lot as a kid as well as between undergrad and law school. I decided to pursue law in 2017. I was working as a sommelier and really came to the point where I had to make a career choice. My coworkers were all preparing for the Master Sommelier exam which was the next logical step in my career as well, but it’s a serious commitment. People spend over a decade just working on this exam.

There are very few Master Sommeliers in the world, right?

Around 200. So yeah, to pursue that would be a very focused decision. My career would be focused on wine for the rest of my life. I didn’t feel like I wanted to make that decision—I enjoyed my job andI still love wine, but I just didn’t want to base the rest of my life around it. If I was going to dedicate myself to something, I wanted it to be something that really felt like it was worth pursuing, and so I landed on law.

For one thing, my wife and I were about to get married and we’re an interracial couple. For a lot of United States history that was illegal basically everywhere, but even into the 20th century, it was illegal in some areas. Then, there’s the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, and it just blew my mind. As a sommelier, I went to work, did my job, and some people got to drink wine. As a lawyer, people go to work, do their job, and all of a sudden interracial marriage is legal! And that’s just crazy. So, I want to do something where I can try really hard to be really good at it and at the end of the day, I can accomplish something truly worth accomplishing.

Moving past law, I know you have an interesting background. Could you pick one particularly special experience to highlight?

That’s tough. After undergrad, I spent a solid amount of time traveling and rock climbing. That was amazing. It taught me that I don’t need much to be happy. Before that, I had my apartment, my espresso machine, all of my nice stuff. Before leaving Kentucky, I sold everything and basically moved into my car. I just drove around doing whatever I wanted, which was basically rock climbing. Another lesson I learned was that, while what I was doing was great and made me really happy, there’s a big difference between the idea of being happy in a moment—or even happiness in general—and being satisfied or fulfilled with what you’re doing.

A lot of what I’ve done—traveling, rock climbing, distance running—these make me happy. But, after doing them for a certain amount of time, I would always return to the fact that, at some point in my life, I need to do something that actually feels like it’s satisfying me. Something that feels like I’m working on something worth working on. I think a lot of people may not realize that being happy and being satisfied are two very separate things, at least to me. In fact, I actually feel like I made an anti-quality-of-life decision coming to law school. I could have pursued other professional avenues, but this feels very worth it for me because I believe it will fulfill other aspects of my ideals or personality that are really important to me and are separate from just happiness.

Was rock climbing helpful for putting things in perspective for you in that regard?

It was. It taught me a lot. So, I was never that into school, especially in undergrad, partially because I started getting into climbing. I’ve even thought, maybe I should have dropped out and gone back when I was more committed. I ended up with some pretty not-great grades. However, something that climbing taught me was that I had the capacity to try really hard. Sometimes that manifested in a specific climb and returning to that climb over and over and over again. Sometimes, in that particular moment, it’s just a matter of how hard you can try to do something as a human being. That’s something people really learn when they get into things, especially sports, that a lot of what holds you back is your mental capacity to give it your all. To endure pain. Discomfort. To acknowledge that a certain goal is more important to you than not feeling those things.

Now that I’ve returned to academics, I’ve applied that mental fortitude, something I totally lacked, to my schoolwork. In undergrad, if I’d had a paper to write or a test to study for and it felt like too much, I’d be like “ugh, I don’t want to do this. I can’t make myself do this.” I realized, through climbing, I don’t really have that anymore. I can make myself do a lot. I took that excuse away from myself. I also realized that just because something is hard at first doesn’t mean you can’t be really good at it. When I was younger, I looked up to people who were natural talents. I wanted to be one of those people for whom things came effortlessly. And so, I thought that if I started music, or a sport, or whatever, if I wasn’t immediately the best at it, that meant I wasn’t talented enough. I’ve learned now that your starting level doesn’t mean everything in the long run. After five years of working on a skill, that first introduction doesn’t really mean as much. I treat things now with the assumption that I can be great at them, which makes you work harder.

---

dpr4vh@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Remote Students v. Student Records

---

Remote Students v. Student Records
73 U.Va. 11 (2020)

Justice Re delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to consider whether the Law School has jurisdiction to enter grades against remote students. Because remote students no longer have minimum contacts with the School, we hold that the School lacks jurisdiction to grade remote students.

I

A class of remote law students requested an injunction preventing Student Records from entering grades.[1] The Court of Hopeless Pleas, which has jurisdiction over challenges to the actions of Student Records, conducted a trial and entered final judgment in favor of Student Records, thus allowing grades to be entered. Section 3 of the “Trying to Make Class Registration Less Horrible” Act (“TTMCRLHA”) allows for direct appeal to this Court in cases seeking to enjoin Student Records. The remote students appealed under § 3 of the TTMCRLHA.[2] We now reverse.

II

            It may be helpful first to review the development of this Court’s jurisdictional doctrine. In Annoyer v. Jeff, 9 U.Va. 714 (1878), the Court held that the Law School’s jurisdiction was strictly limited to its territorial boundaries. Annoyer arose when a 2L named Jeff was repeatedly annoyed by an undergrad (named “Annoyer” by the Court t0 protect his anonymity) while Jeff was trying to read for class at a tavern downtown. Jeff asked the Law School to tell Annoyer to stop, but the Annoyer Court found that the Law School was powerless to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over Annoyer, who had no connection to the Law School. Unlike other undergrads, he had never even studied in the Law Library during finals or taken our free coffee.

            While Annoyer has not been overruled, the Court has significantly modified its rigidly territorial focus. The canonical opinion in this area remains Intramural Shoe Co. v. North Grounds Softball League, 32 U.Va. 310 (1945), in which we held that the School may exercise jurisdiction over someone not present on the Law School’s grounds if that person has “certain minimum contacts with [the School] such that the Law School’s action does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Intramural Shoe arose when Intramural Shoe Company, which specialized in selling athletic shoes to intramural college athletes, was sued by the North Grounds Softball League. Intramural Shoe had employed traveling salesmen to market its shoes to law students present at the UVA Law Softball Invitational.[3] The salesman had claimed that their shoes were so sturdy that “you won’t slip, even if you’ve had a bunch of beer.” Id. at 317. Some of the athletes tested this claim, found it to be false, and sued, claiming that Intramural Shoe had lied, in violation of the Honor Code. Id. at 322. The Court held that the Honor Code could be applied against Intramural Shoe because its contacts with the School were “continuous and systematic.” Id. at 341.

III

            Turning to the case at hand, we must apply the Intramural Shoe standard to the students. Beyond the couple Tweets we saw, see supra, at n. 1 and n. 2, we have been unable to obtain further briefing from the remote students. Far from leading us to enter a default judgment against the students, we think it kind of proves their case. They exist in a happy state. Once the initial disappointment of the world ending wore off, they were allowed something that few law students are ever granted: forgetting that they are students during the semester. Sure, there is the occasional rude interruption of a Zoom class or the rare email that requires a response, but those invasions are few and far between. Certainly, those rare contacts with the School fall short of the “continuous and systematic” contacts required by Intramural Shoe. 32 U.Va. at 320.

            While this case has barely gotten the attention of the plaintiff-appellants, it has attracted significant interest from various amici. Some have argued that grades and opportunities to compete against each other should absolutely continue. See Brief for Association of Gunners as Amicus Curiae 45 (“We thought that getting high scores on the LSAT would finally give us lasting self-worth, but the high faded. It is bad enough that we can only prove ourselves superior to our peers once a semester. Asking clever questions in class is okay, but only a curved grade gives real, empirical proof that we are not the hoi polloi.”). See also Brief for Cravath et al. as Amici Curiae 5-6 (“Without an updated and thorough GPA, the interviewers we send to OCI [sic] may actually be required to listen to the answers applicants give during interviews. This is too much to ask. The current system of asking formulaic questions, nodding politely through the response, and then accepting or rejecting the applicant based solely on GPA works well.”). Some amici, however, support the students’ request for an injunction. See Brief for Scholars of the UVA Law Faculty as Amici Curiae 11 [“Please, please, don’t make us grade these exams. It’s awful. We have to read 70 (usually incorrect) answers to the same fact pattern. There are so many typos. And most of us just base our grade on who wrote the most anyway. The rest of us throw all the exams down the stairs and give grades based on where they land.”].

            One objection raised by Student Records was the issue of degrees: If the School cannot enter grades against students, how can it award degrees? The answer to this is simply that our jurisdictional constraints exist to prevent parties from being adversely affected by the School if they lack minimum contacts. We can take judicial notice of the fact that grades are always a hostile and adverse action taken against students, notwithstanding the claims in the Brief from the Association of Gunners.

*          *          *

Because remote students lack minimum contacts with the Law School, it would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to allow Student Records to enter grades against them. The judgment of the Court of Hopeless Pleas is reversed, and the case is remanded for the entry of an appropriate decree in accordance with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

---

wdr3mq@virginia.edu

---

[1] Technically, they didn’t file a complaint as much as a bunch of remote students hearted a Tweet that said, “I haven’t been to the law school in months. I don’t want to get graded on a bunch of exams! I wish they’d just let us graduate without grading us.” Several users, in addition to hearting the Tweet, posted a clapping-hands emoji and wrote, “This ^^”, in response. The lower court found that this constituted a complaint with a prayer for relief from a cohesive class of plaintiffs.

[2] It was another Tweet.

[3] R.I.P.

Hot Bench: Isaac Buckley '23

---

Isaac Buckley '23

Interviewed by Jonathan Peterson ‘23.

Tell me a little about yourself: Where are you from, undergrad, work experience? Just the typical I’m-just-meeting-you-ice-breaker style speech.

I grew up in Richmond and came to UVA for undergrad. After that, I did Teach for America for two years at a middle school in the Mississippi Delta, where I taught eighth grade English. I then spent two years working for a firm in Richmond figuring out whether I was actually interested in the law. I spent my last year before law school traveling and working on small-scale organic farms.

What was the Mississippi Delta like?

It’s a fascinating part of the country. I loved teaching the age group I did because those are such formative years. We got to talk about books, and I got to coach football and track, and just had a really good experience. One of my former students just got a scholarship to run track at Mississippi State University. He’s a brilliant student and a great athlete, and I’m really proud of him.

How did you decide on law school?

I ended up deciding on law school because of my experience teaching in the Delta. I really loved being in the classroom and interacting with the students, but eventually it became clear to me that a lot of the biggest issues my students faced, like food insecurity, the undue influence of the prison system in the area, and school funding formulas derived from local property taxes, were all issues I couldn’t address from the classroom. It was frustration at that feeling of powerlessness that really started me thinking about law school.

Is addressing these issues part of the impact you hope to make as a lawyer?

Yeah, that’s my hope. I’m interested in working as a public defender after school.

If public defense is what really stuck out to you, was the prison system in particular one of the more impactful issues for your students?

Yeah, the effect of the prison system on my students and their families was something you could see every day. The Delta is one of the most over-incarcerated areas in the country. The town I was in was right next to Parchman State Penitentiary, and it was this constant threat in their daily lives at thirteen-years-old.  The message my students got from their community every day was that success in school was a way to stay out of prison. That’s true, but it shouldn’t be the only way.

I’ve heard through the grapevine you do carpentry or woodworking? What should I call it?

I don’t know, I make furniture sometimes.

How did you get into making furniture?

I first got interested in it when I was here for undergrad. I was doing English and Foreign Affairs, so, similar to law school, I was doing a lot of reading and writing. Which I love. But, it’s all sort of between-the-ears-work, if you know what I mean. Carpentry’s a physical process that creates this tangible result that’s really satisfying in a different way than creating a piece of writing. It just helps me get out of my head a bit.

Do you have a favorite project you’ve worked on?

A couple of years back I made a coffee table out of this huge old door. I took two panels out of the ends of the door and planted moss beds in them. It ended up being really cool with the moss beds built in on either end, and it still functioned as an actual table.

What was the worst thing you’ve made? Any significant failures?

There was this one table that I tried to make, and the soft pine I was working with warped pretty horrifically. If you put an apple on the table it would just roll onto the floor.

You mentioned small-scale organic farms, would you share more about those?

I lived on a series of small-scale farms in Portugal, Spain, France, and Ireland. I knew I was coming to Law School at this point, and as a result, I figured there was a high likelihood that I’d be sitting behind a desk for long periods of time for the foreseeable future. I’ve always been curious about food: where it comes from, how it’s grown, who grows it, the science and economics of it, and just a general interest. The communes were, for me, a way to travel, to learn, to meet people, and to have a high degree of freedom before beginning law school.

Any interesting facts about food production you’d share?

The coolest thing I got to participate in, hands-down, was lambing.

What’s lambing?

So, lambing is just helping sheep give birth. It’s a real messy process. They come out feet first. But it was one of the coolest things I got to do on a farm.

Let’s do a lighting round! Pet peeve?

Trying to convey non-verbal cues and then realizing that you’re wearing a mask, so it just looks like you’re staring at whoever you’re trying to communicate with. I was going to say personal questions but that feels rude, given the context.

Favorite word?

I really like the word “mosey.” It has this implication of unhurriedness and openness to experience that fits with how I want to move through the world.

Least favorite sound?

It’s this low churning sound that my car started making a month and a half ago which I really need to get checked out. Although I almost certainly won’t.

Spirit animal?

Octopus.

What would win in a fight, a grizzly bear or a silverback gorilla, and why?

I have to give it to the silverback. I think its low center of gravity would give it the edge.

That’s a controversial statement. How do you square away the size difference between the two?

It’s not the size of the gorilla in the fight. It’s the size of the fight in the gorilla.

---

ikb8fb@virginia.edu

Club Spotlight: One for the World

---

Emily Allen ‘22
Guest Writer

One for the World was founded in 2014 by two Wharton MBAs, Kate Epstein and Josh McCann, who wanted to find a way to make charitable giving more effective. Kate and Josh wanted to make sure that when they donated to a charity fighting extreme poverty abroad, their donation was being used to help others in the most efficient way possible. With more than one and a half million nonprofits in the United States alone, it can be incredibly difficult to identify the organizations that create the most impact for those in need. One for the World is here to alleviate that problem by changing the way people participate in charitable giving in order to end extreme poverty around the world. Luke Versweyveld ’22 and Emily Allen ’22 started the One for the World–UVA Law chapter to bring the organization’s mission to the UVA Law community in the hopes of encouraging fellow law students to factor in charitable giving to their future legal careers.

We accomplish this mission by educating students and young professionals about charities that channel donations into real results that help fight extreme poverty. One for the World encourages students to take the 1 percent pledge: agreeing to donate 1 percent of their post-grad income to One for the World’s charities. Since the organization’s founding in 2014, student-led chapters of One for the World on campuses nationwide have donated $750,000 and counting to effective charities. In the 2018-19 academic year alone, One for the World chapters motivated more than 1,550 students across the country to take the 1 percent pledge. 

To find the most effective charities, One for the World partners with GiveWell, a charity evaluator that uses a data-driven approach to identify the world’s most effective charities, specifically where charitable dollars go the farthest. The selection process for the One for the World charitable portfolio has three main stages. First, GiveWell makes yearly revisions to their Sixteen Top and Standout Charities list based on evidence of effectiveness, room for more funding, cost-effectiveness, and transparency. Second, One for the World researches university campuses to determine the relative appeal of GiveWell’s Top Charities to potential donors. Third, GiveWell and One for the World collaborate to decide their final charitable portfolio.

One for the World charities span numerous countries and regions, with frontline work being done in local and on-the-ground operations. Our charities and their evaluators go to great lengths to ensure that treatments and interventions are as beneficial as possible to the communities they serve. Additionally, One for the World charities work in close partnership with local governments, NGOs, and communities. Some charitable organizations that One for the World backs include the Against Malaria Foundation, Helen Keller International, and the Food Fortification Initiative. All One for the World-sponsored charities have been selected as the most effective in fighting extreme poverty based on extensive research and analysis, so donors can feel confident that their charitable giving will make a difference. 

When it comes to charitable giving and fighting extreme poverty worldwide, One for the World takes the guesswork out of philanthropy by helping students and young professionals direct their charitable giving to the nonprofits with the highest proven ROI. You can become involved by taking the pledge: Join the significant giving movement by donating 1 percent of your post-grad salary to One for the World. You can make the pledge at https://www.1fortheworld.org/donate. If you would like to learn more, we will be hosting “Giving Lunches” where you can hear about our mission over lunch—on us! Feel free to reach out to Emily Allen (eha3ye@virginia.edu) or Luke Versweyveld (ljv3hq@virginia.edu) for more information.

---

eha3ye@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Emily and Luke

---

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 Emily Allen ’22 and Luke Versweyveld ’22.

Hi Emily and Luke (not even going to attempt that last name)! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let's start with some basics. How and when did you two meet?

Luke: Hi Ben! Our sections had Crim together during 1L. If I’m being honest, I noticed her in October and developed a little crush, but I never acted on it. Over winter break, I was asked to start a One for the World chapter at UVA—see our informational blurb in the paper this week!—and was looking for a co-president. Emily was the first to respond to my message in the Law School-wide Groupme, and naturally I was ecstatic. We met up for coffee a few times to discuss the organization, but we kept it professional.

Emily: He was so serious and cold during coffee! I was dropping hints he never picked up on.

Luke: How was I to know?! Anyways, we saw each other across the room at Barristers a few weeks later and then spent the night close by each other. When her feet got tired, I gave her a piggyback on the Downtown Mall to the after party. I asked her out the following Monday and we began dating a week later.

That’s like ten meet-cutes rolled into one, y’all. Save some for the rest of us. Let’s talk COVID. What’s your relationship been like during it? Most challenging parts? Silver linings?

Emily: We had only been dating for two-and-a-half weeks when things started to close down, so we’ve spent the majority of our relationship in this weird world. A silver lining of it all is that it’s fast-tracked things so much. We’ve spent so much more time together than we would have—we were originally going to be on opposite coasts this summer but ended up being here in Charlottesville together. We lucked out; it would have been weird to navigate only dating for two-and-a-half weeks and then going our separate ways during quarantine.

Luke: As for challenges, we really haven’t encountered much. It wasn’t too daunting “fast-tracking” things. We were very straightforward about the level of relationship we foresaw ourselves having from the get-go. That talk really helped us navigate things and make decisions together.

Pictured: I mean, wow, these two literally scream Hallmark movie. Plus, they'd probably win an Oscar for most attractive duo. Photo Courtesy of Emily Allen '22.

I may pitch your relationship as a Hallmark movie. Let me get some character development if I do—how would you each describe the other in a word or phrase? 

Emily: Luke is motivated and a go-getter. He knows what he wants and takes practical steps to reach those goals, like starting Heartland ’Hoos (the Midwestern law students organization) because there wasn’t a student interest group for his desired legal market. Luke goes out and does, without making excuses. I love it.

Luke: Emily is the most passionate person I’ve met, she’s not lukewarm about anything. It’s impressive to see how much she cares about things and how she lights up. It’s really inspiring.

Sorry to hear she’s not LUKEwarm, tough break. Eh? Eh? Let’s do a lightning round. Best Charlottesville date spot? 

Emily: Bebedero on the Downtown Mall! It’s got great guac and fun cocktails.

Couple’s costume this (socially distant and safe) Halloween?

Luke: Johnny and Moira Rose from Schitt’s Creek.

You’ve got the brows for it, Luke. Let’s go Buzzfeed on this interview. Pick a beverage category and choose which one each other are.

Emily: Wine, because we drink so much of it. Luke is a Cab Franc because it’s his favorite, but also because it’s slightly boujee and smooth like him.

Luke: Emily is a spicy Cab Sav. Kind of feisty.

It’s not lukewarm anymore, folks. What’s your song as a couple?

Emily: Anything by Kacey Musgraves. I never listened to or liked country music before Luke, but now I love her.

Dream quarantine location?

Luke: Upstate New York or New England in a small town during peak fall. It’s on the books for 3LOL fall break.

First thing you’ll do when life goes back to normal?

Emily: Hit a concert or a music festival. Luke was supposed to see Khalid but it was cancelled, so we’ll probably circle back. Also, I just want to see all my friends at once, be able to run up and hug them, and to hit Virg with them. I miss Bar Review. 

Luke: We also want to travel to Singapore or somewhere big!

When I close my eyes at night, I see an open Virg table waiting to be danced atop. Anyways, what’s your favorite memory together?

Emily: We went to his family’s farm in Wisconsin this summer and one night we went for a walk down a dirt road in the middle of nowhere. I’d never seen the stars and moon shine that bright. It was super romantic and wonderful.

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

Emily: Luke smells like coffee all the time, but in a good way. We drink a lot together, him a concerning amount sometimes. 

Luke: Warmth. Emily’s so comforting and the person I always turn to when I’m in need.

The dialogue is writing itself. 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? 

Emily: I’m really thankful and lucky to be in a relationship that’s both very romantic and serious, but also so fun and exciting. Every day it feels like we’ve just started dating and I feel like I’ve won the lottery. I love you, Luke. 

Luke: This year has obviously been really hard in a lot of ways, but it’s also been the best year of my life thanks to Emily. I love you, too, Emily.

Many thanks to Emily and Luke for helping me begin my romantic-comedy screenwriting career with this interview 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

Court of Petty Appeals: 3LOLs v. Gunners

---

3LOLs v. Gunners
73 U.Va. 10, 2020

I.

With great power comes great responsibility. The job of this Court today is no easy task, but the scales of justice must be restored to their proper balance. Petitioners bring this case by way of appeal from the Circuit Court of Petty Appeals, claiming that Justice Amy acted improperly in denying them injunctive relief. In reviewing the evidence and briefs de novo, it is clear that the Circuit Court overextended its authority  (a/k/a a 1L justice thought their opinion mattered) and attempted to legislate from the bench. Due to this error and the plaintiffs proving beyond a reasonable doubt[1] that the Gunners’ speech falls within the category of ‘fighting words’ and incites violence/lawlessness, I hereby reverse the Circuit Court of Petty Appeals. In doing so, I issue a permanent injunction against the respondents, ruling no further annoying or double questions may be brought in class. Welcome to the Thunderdome.

II.

For some unbeknownst reason, law schools still strictly adhere to the Socratic method as their primary mode of instruction. In most cases, this involves the professor peppering a student or class with generally vague and leading questions, hoping to elicit answers that will elucidate the key findings of a case. In reality, especially after 1L year, this ends with the professor asking basic questions and hoping someone (anyone) responds because grades stop mattering after OGI. Enter the respondents.

            Law students are generally a curious bunch. Whether it is staying after class to clarify issues with the professor, vigorously attending office hours to impress the professor to hopefully get that half-grade bump after finals, or taking the professor out to lunch,[2] most students are curious yet respectful of other students’ time and attention. But then there are the respondents. You know the type. Each class has a few students who exude a “holier than thou” attitude regarding their education.[3] They manifest their self-entitlement in multiple ways, either by posing extravagant self-created hypotheticals, asking multipart questions that lose everybody, including the professor, or raising their hand at every possible chance, leading the instructor to feign blindness to avoid the morass of the pending question and doom. Petitioners have had enough.

            Petitioners, suing as a class of 3LOLs, allege that the incessant and wasteful questioning by Gunners falls within the category of ‘fighting words’ and is ‘vulgar and offensive,’ both grounds that would disqualify this speech from being protected by the First Amendment. They further argue that this speech incites violence[4] under Brandenburg.[5] Lastly, 3LOLs argue that they spend their tuition dollars to learn from the professor, not the students who think they’re smarter than the professor.

            Countering, Gunners claim that their speech is protected, that the 3LOLs are being ‘snowflakes’ in claiming ‘hate speech,’ and that any ruling against the Gunners would have a chilling effect on their right to free speech.

III.

The First Amendment codifies that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech.” Arguing in support of this, defendants point to Tinker v. Des Moines as their seminal touchstone. In doing so, they claim that prohibiting the expression of their opinion is unconstitutional unless petitioners can show that the expression would interfere with the operation of the school.[6] Countering, petitioners point to Cohen v. California,[7] Brandenburg, and Morse v. Frederick[8] as precedent, showing that the incessant questions do not fall within a protected class of speech, because students generally do not hold this right. Additionally, the obscenity and audacity of such questions, coupled with how much petitioners hate hearing them, led to their application of the incitement test from Brandenburg.

            Relying on the wise words from my homie Clarence, the respondents’ claim fails because “as originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.”[9] While this language dispels the notion that the defendants’ speech is protected, further analysis must be done to establish the petitioner’s case. First, in applying the Brandenburg test, the respondents’ questions/speech must be analyzed for 1) an intent to incite lawlessness/violence; 2) imminence; and 3) likelihood. As intent is subjective, petitioners point to the smug smiles and continued actions of the respondents as evidence to prove their intent, to which this Court sympathetically agrees. While defendants argue that a resting b***h face, throwing a pencil, or failing to invite respondents to any type of social gathering are not forms of lawlessness/violence, I vehemently disagree. UVA Law is known for collegiality. By responding in these three ways, petitioners have effectively overturned a welcoming culture to shun the nonbelievers. Therefore, petitioners have succeeded in proving the respondents; negative intent to incite lawlessness pursuant to Brandenburg. Imminence and likelihood are subsequently easily satisfied, as petitioners point to multiple instances where they immediately contemplated retaliation and violence during the respondents’ questions, with nobody doubting whether they were serious or not.

            Second, petitioners also succeed in proving respondents’ questions are ‘fighting words.’ Describing the hypotheticals and multi-parted questions as “lewd, obscene, and profane,” they incline me to agree with them. Although it may be a slight stretch to classify otherwise innocent questions as ‘fighting words,’ especially since I highly doubt most law students have ever been in a fight,[10] the thought of throwing a punch at the respondents must have crossed the petitioners’ mind, thus satisfying the second prong.

            In a last-ditch effort to salvage their case, defendants claim that any attempt to limit their speech by this Court, as an extension of the state, amounts to a chilling effect on their constitutional rights. They’re right, for once. The goal of this decision is for the defendants to chill out[11] and let everyone else enjoy their law school experience. If we give any merit to the respondents’ argument, it would be “the latest stage of prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined Constitutional restrictions”[12] upon what could be deemed inciteful fighting words. The Gunners can’t talk their way out of this problem. They lose.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] Or is it preponderance of the evidence? Oh well, it’s not like I go off any standard other than my own personal opinion anyway.

[2] Only virtually now, thanks COVID.

[3] Bet these kids don’t even know how to properly shot-gun a beer, noobs.

[4] Moreso perceived than actual, but you’ve all had those thoughts when a Gunner drones on.

[5] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

[6] Thanks for the assist, Quimbee.

[7] Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

[8] Morse v. Frederick, Frederick, (551 U.S. 393 (2007)

[9] Id., Thomas J., concurring.

[10] Fighting with your mom over increasing your credit card limit doesn’t count here, unfortunately.

[11] Someone order them a prescription of chill-pills please, or a frozen marg. Your choice.

[12] Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) Scalia J., dissenting.

Hot Bench: Maria Luevano '21

---

Maria Luevano ‘21

Interviewed by Phil Tonseth ‘22

Hi Maria, welcome to the Hot Bench! Let’s introduce our readers to the wonderful person you are. Why study the law, and why specifically at UVA?

I had always considered law school, but honestly hadn’t thought seriously about it until after the 2016 election. I think I started studying for the LSAT that December. I realized how much more I could accomplish with a law degree, even though I didn’t know at the time what that would look like exactly. I chose UVA because I wanted to be near D.C. and I fell in love with the school during Admitted Students Weekend. I felt instantly at home here and I knew it was where I wanted to spend the next three years.

You’ve been involved in so many clubs and organizations while here, do you have any favorites or ones that have drastically changed your experience?

Co-chairing Admitted Students Open House and being a Peer Advisor (shoutout to Section D) are definitely up there for me! Clearly, I love giving advice, solicited and unsolicited, so I found them both to be super rewarding experiences. I’ve also loved being a part of the Latin American Law Organization (LALO). It’s a small group with a lot of passion.I really enjoyed being on the Executive Board last year and working to help grow our presence on campus.

As half of one of the coolest “power couples” in the school (no credit to Sam Pickett ’21), how have you managed your relationship with being so active and engaged in the school?

Sam and I have a lot of similar interests, so it’s been easy to be involved in things together! It also definitely helps that we’re both pretty extroverted, which means that it’s never that hard to convince the other person to stop by an event, or Bar Review, “just for a few minutes.” We also really try to be understanding and supportive when the other one has a lot going on (a/k/a me this semester—thank you Sam!!).

Co-chairing the SBA Graduation Committee, do you have any fun gossip or news you can share for this year’s ceremony? Are there plans to help 3Ls make up for the loss of traditional activities with COVID-19?

While it has been disappointing that we couldn’t throw the traditional graduation activities for 3L’s this semester, my co-chair, Savanna Williams ’21, and I remain hopeful about the possibilities for next semester! We are incredibly excited to have Supreme Court of Virginia Justice Cleo Powell ’82 as our commencement speaker, and we look forward to revealing more details about the ceremony over the next few months. As far as fun gossip, I now know the head size of every person in the 3L class. Sadly, no, I won’t be naming names as to who has the biggest head (but it rhymes with squilliam baloney).

If you saw ‘you’ as a first day 1L in the mirror, do you think you’d recognize yourself?

Well my hair was shorter and I didn’t have the crushing weight of 2.5 years of law school on my shoulders, but yes I think I would recognize myself!

Getting really personal now, would you do this all over again?

This survey? Probably not. Sorry Phil, it’s a lot of pressure!!

Time to get feisty.

What are your 7 Wonders of the Law School:

1. The Pink Cow painting

2. The law library’s annual Christmas decorations

3. The law library’s Grilled Cheese Night

4. Mandy

5. The trees out in front of the Law School during the month of October

6. The water bottle filler next to MyLab, which has the coldest water in the Law School

7. The Law Weekly Office on Monday nights starting at 5:30 p.m.

Favorite class you’ve taken?

Trial Advocacy with Professor Hudson. Or Law of the Police with Professor Harmon . . . or any class with Professor Gilbert . . . I can’t choose.

Would you rather vacation in a treehouse or igloo?

Igloo. No bugs and there’s the potential for a polar bear sighting.

Best date spot in C-ville?

C&O Restaurant. Although Sam and I recently got takeout margaritas from Plaza Azteca and had a great evening on the couch watching Schitt’s Creek, proving romance is still possible during social isolation!!

If you could retire today, what would you do with your free time?

Travel and perfect every TikTok dance.

Pineapple on pizza, are you a fan?

Absolutely. I’ve never ordered it personally, but if it’s there I’ll eat it.

Favorite memory of the Law School?

I’ve had many, but Dandelion my 1L year was truly unforgettable.

What is your life’s theme song?

I can’t think of one exactly, but if there’s a song out there about getting 323 people to read and respond to your emails I would dedicate it to the 3L class (love you all!!!)

---

ml8gt@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports

---

NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports
73 U.Va 9 (2020)

Justice Tonseth delivered the opinion of the Court.

I.

The crack of the bat (and a cold one), the cheer of the fans, and the glory of dominating on Copeley field are at stake in this case. COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the world in 2020, bringing normal life and all of its associated trappings to an abrupt halt. It is by way of this pandemic that Petitioners bring their claim. In essence, the North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) has sued IM-Rec Sports for violating their free exercise rights to play softball, with the only acceptable remedy being to immediately implement a fall softball season. Due to the failure of the respondents to prove their compelling interest was narrowly tailored to the least restrictive means, this Court rules in favor of NGSL and orders the season to start immediately.[1]

II.

Neither party disputes what is truly underlying this case. Respondents, overseeing intramural sports for UVA, control and administer all aspects of the sports students’ play. From scheduling games to certifying umpires and awarding participation trophies to the members of Greek life that are still overcompensating for a lack of you-know-what, IM-Rec does it all. Their administrative role has taken on a new shape this fall, regulating which sports are acceptable for students to participate in while complying with the dictates of COVID-19 protocol.

            Through their determination, respondents have allowed for a bevy of intramural sports to continue this fall, including beach volleyball, Spikeball, and cornhole.[2] Petitioners have sued over one specific inclusion, kickball, countered with the exclusion of softball, claiming this exclusion violates petitioners’ explicit right of free exercise codified in the U.S. Constitution.

            For those unfamiliar with NGSL, allow me a brief digression to truly paint the scene of their claim. UVA Law attracts its fair share of brainiacs, policy wonks, and do-gooders who will make an immense impact on the world. But beyond these, UVA Law attracts the best and brightest softball players, who hope to translate that success to national fame and a mid-level BigLaw gig. I mean, ESPN “the Ocho'' even acknowledged the level of skill at UVA Law,[3] proving the importance of softball to the Law School community. It is with this in mind that we conduct our analysis.

III.

Petitioners, relying on their fundamental right of free exercise codified in the Bill of Rights, point to the First Amendment, specifically the clause, “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . free exercise . . .”[4] While potentially taken out of context, being the true and unwavering adherent to textualism as I am,[5] I will entertain this argument.

            When analyzing a case under the ‘free exercise’ doctrine, respondents must be able to show that the substantial burden they have placed on petitioners concerning their free exercise of softball is justified due to the furthering of a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.[6] Petitioners point to this test as “the girl-next-door of legal tests—overlooked in a comfortable, seductively familiar way,”[7] yet crucial to proving their claim.

            In breaking down this inquiry, it is essential to start with the substantial burden analysis. Petitioners have met the baseline to show how respondents’ failure to allow softball to be played this fall merits a substantial burden. From limiting their ability to day-drink in socially acceptable ways, to forcing NGSL players to take up the more expensive sport of golf instead, and further, by making NGSL members seek therapy to determine if they’re truly just washed-up athletes, petitioners have cleared this procedural hurdle. The burden thus shifts to respondents.

            Understanding this exclusion of softball occurred during a pandemic, NGSL concedes that IM-Rec has a compelling government interest in protecting public health.[8] The case hinges on the tailoring of this exclusion. As an arm of the state (a/k/a the University), any policy respondents promulgate must be generally applicable. However, with the dearth of exemptions for sports that are allowed, compounded with the similarity in risks that kickball and softball share, shows that IM-Rec has singled out petitioners unfairly. As my boi Antonin would say, paraphrasing slightly, respondent’s “opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity”[9] when you look at their rules and how they were applied to NGSL. We simply cannot allow this to stand. The number of exemptions, combined with the similarities in kickball and softball, show that respondents have not narrowly tailored their policy.

IV.

In writing this opinion, I do not suggest that further rights are implied under the Constitution through substantive due process. Rather, this analysis is focused specifically on textualism, the importance of softball to UVA Law, and my desire to stop losing copious amounts of golf balls on my now-free Friday afternoons. Respondents’ final attempt to contest that my bias has decided this case strikes out for three reasons: 1) We do what we want,[10] 2) I have life tenure—try to impeach me, and 3) Let the kids play.

Calamaro, J., Dissenting

            When emotional immaturity rears its ugly head in an ill-reasoned opinion such as this, one must attempt to be an adult and write a dissent worthy for future generations. Namely, this generation, but in the future. “NGSL is dead,” said Nietzche; and indeed, it has shown itself to be but a vapor in the winds of eternity. These winds, which blow over all of the land, also blow over wonderfully sculpted golf courses. They rustle the leaves, give bemused golfers pause as they back away from the ball to readjust their aim, only to chunk it ten feet in front of them.

            This is fall golf, the greatest activity possible, requiring only the most valuable of resources—time and money. Most importantly, fall golf will always be there, beckoning each person with its promise of greatness, at least for one shot, and great sorrow as well. But most importantly, fall golf is better than softball, and it is better than whatever these ne’er do wells want to complain about not having. They are in the golf course of Eden, and they want to eat the cursed fruit in a prideful fervor while they ignore the opportunity to shoot well over 100 and come home disappointed after a five-hour round.

            Indeed, golf is expensive. But the rewards are immeasurable, and no false equivalency like my colleague has made between softball and kickball can be made with golf. I find it laughable that a sport which will decide entire careers is given little to no deliberation in my colleague’s opinion, and it worries me that he chooses to view it—not as a safe and fun alternative—but as a nightmarishly expensive endeavor. I am saddened that the Court does not realize that this entirely reasonable activity is a viable alternative, and according to our jurisprudence, should not have even ruled on this subject in the first place. Go golf, and you will not only find yourself, you will find god (Tiger Woods) as well.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu

---

[1] Any and all claims of bias respondents claimed against yours truly are unfounded. While I solely chose UVA Law to play in the NGSL, I believe I am well equipped to balance my personal interest with my immense power from the bench.

[2] https://recsports.virginia.edu/intramural-sports

[3] https://www.lawweekly.org/april-fools/2020/4/1/espn-the-ocho-to-broadcast-ngsl-fall-season

[4] Brief for the Petitioners, 7.

[5] I mean, they did quote the actual Bill of Rights. I can’t deny that. I’m not concerned with the absence of religion. Sports fans are just as irrational and dedicated as religious folk, so the words are interchangeable.

[6] At least, this is what the outlines I downloaded for both ConLaw and Religious Liberty tell me.

[7] Porter, Elizabeth G., ‘Pragmatism Rules’ 101 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 1 (2015).

[8] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

[9] Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014).

[10] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va 96 (2019).

Hot Bench: Douglas Maggs '23

---

Douglas Maggs ‘23

Interviewed by Jacob Smith ‘23

Welcome to Hot Bench! For the benefit of readers who haven’t met you yet, please describe yourself in a few sentences.

Sure. I’m originally from Arlington, Virginia. Grew up my whole life in the DC area. I went off to college at Harvard and then I did a master’s degree at the University of Edinburgh. I found my way back to DC, worked in economic consulting for a couple of years, and now I am a 1L at UVA Law, and I’m having a great time here!

Great! So let’s talk about your master’s degree in archaeology. Did you spend a lot of time sifting dirt in a kilt? What was that like?

Yeah, so it was a classical art and archaeology degree at the University of Edinburgh. It was a twelve-month program. The first two-thirds were regular semesters with classes, but  perhaps my favorite part of the whole experience was the third part. I was down in Italy for most of that part of the degree, about forty-five minutes north of Naples on a Roman dig site. I was in a particular trench that was located where the theater used to be, so I was finding everything from coins to pieces of an oil lamp to pieces of pottery. Maybe the coolest thing I found was volcanic ash deposits, not from the famous Vesuvian eruption, but from a later third-or fourth-century Vesuvian eruption.

And to the second part of the question, unfortunately I was not digging in a kilt. However, I did graduate from the University of Edinburgh in a kilt, and I believe that is still my profile picture on Facebook to this day.

So you’ve worked as an economic consultant. What’s been one of your favorite experiences in the real world of work?

I was at a small firm called Criterion Economics for the past couple of years. And although it was a small firm we worked on some really interesting cases before the ITC (International Trade Commission), the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), and a few times, different district courts. I think the most exciting thing for me was the moment right when we got a new matter and it was just a mad dash to gather as much intelligence as we could. Who’s this client? How does their business model work? Who is the opposing party? How does their model work? How do they interact? What court proceedings have either of them had in the past? I loved all that recon intelligence work. And I think there was nothing more exciting than being able to bring the findings back and tell the boss, when you testify or when you’re deposed or anything else, here are the points that we’re going to want to hit.

It seems you’ve done a lot of traveling. I know it’s hard, but can you pick one favorite or tied-for-favorite country and tell us why you enjoyed it so much?

I had the chance to go to Australia a couple of times. And it is a really phenomenal place. One time I went there and I rented a camper van and drove down the entire east coast of Australia. And during that trip I snorkeled the Great Barrier Reef, I watched the sun rise on a beach that was full of wild kangaroos, I felt like I made friends with the locals at every single stop I made. I just can’t say enough nice things about Australia. And also the adventure of driving a manual transmission camper van on the wrong side of the road, that was kind of fun too. Except when I tried to shift with the door handle. That didn’t work so well.

Wait, you tried to shift with the door handle?

Well, because in an American car, if you’re shifting, it’s with your right hand. But because you’re sitting on the right-hand side of the car in Australia, the shifter is to your left. So I’m trying to shift out of first gear, and, instead of catching the gear shifter (which my left hand should have reached for), I opened my door and really surprised myself!

Let’s do a lightning round!

Favorite kind of pizza?

Hawaiian.

Most unusual talent?

Avid ham radio operator.

Favorite kids movie?

I loved Finding Nemo. I remember watching it in theaters when I was a kid and thinking that it was such an awesome movie. And it has Australia in it too.

Would you rather fight 100 rabbit-sized horses or one horse-sized rabbit?

I feel like I have to go for a horse-sized rabbit, but I’ve got to watch out for those hind legs.

If you had to write a novel, what genre would it be?

Mystery.

Favorite candy?

Kit Kat.

Backup-plan job?

I always thought being a firefighter would be a pretty cool profession.

---

dtm2bb@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Residents of the Pavilion v. The Pavilion

---

Residents of the Pavilion v. The Pavilion
73 U.Va 8 (2020)

Justice Peterson delivered the opinion of the Court.

This opinion is necessitated by complaints over the poor maintenance of The Pavilion (Pav), an apartment building for students situated conveniently near North Grounds. The complaint at hand relates to the overactivity of fire alarms in the building, which plaintiffs of this class action allege has negatively impacted not only their sleep, but also their willingness to rely on the fire alarms in question. As per usual, this Court has no jurisdiction over Darden students residing in Pav, nor does this Court desire jurisdiction over—nor any relation with—Darden students. The plaintiffs seek damages for lost sleep and breach of contract, as well as an injunction requiring Pav to provide adequate maintenance of the fire alarms.

It is the conclusion of this Court that not only did Pav not breach its duty to its residents by employing working fire alarms, but also that the fire alarms in question cannot be faulted for being overly sensitive.

Facts

            During the month of September 2020, residents of Pav claim they experienced three erroneous fire alarms. One of the alarms in question is believed to have been set off by a dubious individual intentionally creating smoke through an unknown, albeit most likely unsurprising, method—this complaint can be wholly discredited as the alarm was functioning as intended. The cause of the other two alarms being triggered at inordinate times of the day and night has yet to be determined. Neither party has entered any evidence indicating why the alarms were triggered. The plaintiffs contend that, in the absence of a justifiable reason for the alarm, the harshness of the fire alarms on their soft, untested, bourgeois ears qualifies as a tort deserving of not only recognition, but compensation. Additionally, plaintiffs contend a breach of contract with Pav, hoping to recover damages from the breach. Finally, plaintiffs seek an injunction for maintenance of the alarms.

Analysis

            The issue before us is, per usual in the Court of Petty Appeals, one of first impression. The Trial Court of Petty Claims, having no desire to even entertain the plaintiffs’ claims, declined to review the case and, in an unprecedented move, sent the issue directly to Appeals. Thus, this Court shall be reviewing the claims in full.

            The plaintiffs’ case rests upon innumerable assumptions of privileges that the Court can only imagine are the result of receiving participation trophies and no shortage of parental affection as children. These are the hallmarks of the Gen-Z and Millennial experience and the clear cause of the insidious degradation of America’s future and the mental fortitude of its youth. Courts have a serious policy interest in promoting the application of the tough love these TikTok-ers and influencers never received in their childhood. Additionally, the legal side of the plaintiffs’ case is just as destitute; there can be no recovery under these circumstances.

            The first of the Residents’ claims is for damages resulting from the overactivity of the fire alarms in question. The plaintiffs allege both a tort stemming from a breach of duty and a breach of contract to reasonably maintain the utilities within the apartment complex. Both of these contentions amount to one thing—pure malarkey. While Pav does share a special relationship with those who have a lease and, thus, has a duty to those individuals, there is still the question of whether there was a breach of that duty. And the answer to that question is conclusively to the negative. The fire alarms, while noisy, cannot possibly constitute the amount of physical damage required for a tort claim. Nor was the resulting emotional distress stemming from, as plaintiffs put it, “lack of sleep” anything greater than what plaintiffs subject themselves to intentionally each typical Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night.

            The plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim fairs no better—there can be no breach when a company’s utilities are over-performing. Would plaintiffs also return a racehorse if it ran faster than reported? Or, perhaps, would the plaintiffs turn their noses down at a meal more delicious than promised? Overperformance on a contractual obligation cannot be the standard for breach now, nor has it ever been. The overperformance of the fire alarms can be interpreted to mean one and only one thing: enhanced safety for those living in Pav. In short, the plaintiffs should be grateful to live in such an accommodating and concerned apartment complex—an apartment complex this Court is sure other businesses will model themselves after.

            We move to the plaintiffs’ third claim, requesting an injunction to force Pav to “fix” its fire alarms to the standards specified by the plaintiffs: Such an injunction cannot, based upon policy reasons, be allowed to move forward. To force a business to behave in such a manner would be to promote perverse incentives for all businesses. It would incentivize little to no reactivity in fire alarms for fear of an identical case arising. The human cost of such an incentive would be unimaginable if other apartments adopted this policy. Due to the lack of a sustainable claim in both the tort and contracts issues discussed earlier, as well as the policy reasons necessitating non-action on the part of the Court, this injunction would be an unconscionable measure which would surely be seen as one of the greatest housing tragedies in Charlottesville history.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, the Court dismisses all of the plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, the Court believes plaintiffs should grow up, toughen up, and buy some ear plugs if it’s really that bad. And, ultimately, if that doesn’t satisfy the plaintiffs’ sky-high standards, they might as well just move to Ivy.

It is so ordered.

---

jtp4bw@virginia.edu 

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: Backing Into Parking Spaces

---

Christina Luk ‘23
Editor-in-Chief

Back, Back, Back It Up

            I’d tell you why my co-writer is wrong about the merits of pulling into a parking spot, but he didn’t actually give me a reason why he’s right. I can tell he’s annoyed, though. Impatience can be a terrible burden. In life, we wait for many things. We wait for coffee, we wait for the bus, we wait for professors to grade our exams, and, sometimes, we wait for people to park their cars. What does it matter if they park their car nose first or trunk first?

            The difference between the two comes out in the wash. It might be faster to pull into a parking spot, but we’re all familiar with the agonizing wait to back out in a busy parking lot. On the other hand, you could spend some time backing into a spot, and then smoothly pull out when you’re done. Whether you prefer to do the work upfront or afterward is a matter of personal preference.

            From a safety standpoint, though, there is a clear winner. Think of it this way: It is much harder to drive backward than forward. Not only is it difficult to see behind you, because of your car’s natural blind spots, but the controls are also backward—turning the steering wheel left moves the head of the vehicle to the right and vice-versa. For these reasons, when you do have to back up, it makes sense to do it in a way that minimizes risks.

            The greatest risk on the battleground we call the modern-day parking lot is other people. You never know when an errant shopping cart, small child, or car will pass behind you as you attempt to back out. Fortunately, that is not a problem when you back into a parking spot, because the cars around you are entirely stationary.

            More importantly, backing into a parking spot makes it easier and safer to pull out. After you’ve picked up your sweet potatoes (or whatever it is you needed from Harris Teeter on a Wednesday afternoon) you can jump into your car and pull out of your parking spot with a full range of vision and confident control of your vehicle—both things you need to deal with other cars and pedestrian traffic.

            One last thing, because I know the audience I write for: It is way cooler to back into a parking spot than it is to pull in. There’s nothing like the sweet satisfaction of backing into a spot, smooth as silk, and basking in the grudging admiration of your peers. (That’s why we came to law school, right?) Has anyone ever said to a person who pulls into a parking spot, “Wow, good job?” No. But when that person pulls out, everyone in that car will crane their neck back to ensure the car doesn’t get rear-ended: “Wait, hold on, hold on, okay—you can go now.” Which would you rather hear?

            Now, in our fair country, I’m all for #freedom of parking. Do whatever you want. But if someone’s going to come for backer-uppers, I think a few words should be said in fairness. My co-writer is a fan of social norms; I’ve got a norm for naysayers to adopt: Back up, let me drive.

Drew Calamaro ‘21
Satire Editor 

Go Straight In

            I am a fan of social norms. They are the reason why we wear masks, why we hold the door for people, and why we go to the grocery store with the express goal of speaking to no one unless absolutely necessary. These are the things that keep a society together, and ultimately are why nations succeed for hundreds of years. Social norms are the glue that society needs.

            It is through this lens that I write against a great evil that has plagued our nation for far too long. This is something that has the potential to bring down our country from within. I am talking, of course, about backing into parking spots. It is the backer-uppers who will ultimately cause our great country to fail. We must not let that happen.

            How often have you driven to the grocery store in a hurry, needing to get some sweet potatoes or something during a commercial break? Invariably, you turn into a parking lot aisle and are stopped by what you think is someone pulling out of a spot. But, alas, it is just the opposite—it is a driver attempting to back in. You sit and wait, and wait, and wait, as they pull out, then pull in, then pull out again, and finally, they slowly back in. As you slowly pass them, you glare at them—they should feel the burn of your hatred for having the gall to make you wait to take your own spot like a normal human being.

            The truth is, bad drivers back into spots. They’re utterly incapable of pulling out backward without hitting a person, place, thing, or idea. The solution, of course, is to practice backing your car out slowly. But instead, bad drivers make others wait while they back in, their fear palpable to the other drivers around them. Backing into spots not only wastes others’ time—it wastes the drivers’ time as well. Studies have shown that bad drivers have squandered as many as eighteen days of their lives backing into spots.[1]

            Not only that, but the purported “it makes pulling out easier” argument defeats the purpose of backing into a spot. Namely, because backing into a spot makes you insufferable as a driver. I don’t think that I have looked at a driver who backs into spots a single time and said to myself, “There is a good, decent driver who is probably not terrible at driving. I’d love to ride in their car.” The opposite, in fact, happens. These are the same people who go slower than the speed of traffic on highways—a legitimate threat to public safety.[2] Now, whether we should take away these people’s driver’s licenses is up in the air—people need cars. However, at the very least, I think people who back into spots should be made to suffer angry glares in the parking lot constantly. We must discourage this scourge of social norms, until no one is left to defend backing into spots. You are the worst.

 ---

cl3eh@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu

---

[1] Trust me on this.

[2] But actually, if you drive slower on highways than the flow of traffic you are statistically more dangerous than someone who goes faster. Look it up.

Hot Bench: Ethan Treacy '23

---

Ethan Treacy ‘23

Interviewed by Devon Chenelle ‘23

Where are you from?

I’m originally from a little town outside of Tallahassee, Florida, called Quincy.

And then after high school, you went to UGA [University of Georgia]?

Yep. It was just right. It was far enough away from home so that I was in a new place, but close enough that I could easily make it back when I needed to.

What did you do between your graduation from UGA and joining the Marine Corps?

I moved to Austin, Texas, and got a job as an insurance salesman in January 2013. It took me about eight months to realize I didn’t want to do that, and then I spent the next two years preparing to join the Marine Corps. I reported to Quantico, Virginia, in January 2016 for training, amidst a bitter winter storm. I commissioned as an officer ten weeks later on March 26, 2016, the proudest day of my life. 

What did you do in the Marines?

I was a public affairs officer. Your role as a public affairs officer varies drastically based on what unit you’re with. My job while I was with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit was primarily media relations, handling the public-facing image of my unit and managing our team of public affairs Marines, which I did for roughly a year. For an example of what my job entailed, on my first deployment one of our MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft impacted the flight deck of one of our amphibious assault ships and went over into the water with twenty-six Marines onboard. Three of them tragically died in the accident. That’s a situation where my job is immediately implicated. Our unit is going to get a lot of media attention and my boss, the commanding officer, needs to have a public affairs officer to help advise him on how to handle the media side of the situation as it develops in real time.

Could you talk a little about your time working at the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines?

The United States has a very close relationship with the Philippines, and I was assigned to serve as the military public affairs representative at the US embassy in Manila. In this capacity, I stood at the intersection of the public affairs efforts of the U.S. Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. I was briefing the ambassador two or three weeks after I got there, and it was this mind-blowing experience, where I was one of the youngest, most junior officers to ever fill that billet. The most interesting project I worked on was not well known on our side of the Pacific but is very well known in the Philippines: the return of the Balangiga Bells. When we fought the Philippine-American Wars, an army unit took three bells from a village in the Philippines. President Duterte and many others over the decades badly wanted these bells back. President Trump and Secretary of Defense Mattis got an authorization to return the bells, and it was the story of the year, perhaps the decade, for the US—Philippine relationship. People had been working for their return for decades, and a couple days before I left, we had a big ceremony where the bells were returned.

Let’s talk about your time as a liaison officer to a Japanese military unit.

There is a unit in Tokyo called the Bilateral Coordination Department where the ground services of the Japanese and American militaries coordinate their efforts. In that unit the US Army is represented by a full bird colonel, the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force is represented by two-star General, and 1st Lieutenant Treacy represented the Marines. It was quite surreal, because when we had meetings, the representative of each service would be at the table, and it would be two star general, a full bird colonel, and then me. I was representing to a foreign military and sister service unit of 30,000 Marines commanded by a three-star general, so it was extremely important that I be accurate, professional, and that I do my job well.

So why did you leave the Marine Corps? 

Leaving the Corps was the hardest thing I ever did during my time in the Marines. Given my age, I felt that my choice was leaving when I did or staying in until retirement. There were too many other things that I want to do in life, so I decided I wasn’t going to stay for a whole career. I had always been interested in the law, so law school was the next logical step. None of my family or friends are surprised that I am here.

---

ect6r@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Megan and Parker

---

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 Megan Ong ’22 and her boyfriend Parker Gardner, a Physics Ph.D. candidate at Rice University.

Hi Megan and Parker! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let’s get some background. How did you meet and how long have you two been together?

Parker: Hey Ben! Megan and I met seven years ago during our freshman year at Dartmouth. Before freshmen matriculate, most come up the summer before fall to get used to the area and to meet people. Those who come from farther locations will often stay until school begins, which was the boat Megan was in. My family was living in Hanover, so I was also in town. We first met at a soccer game and got to recognize each other a few more times since there were so few people on campus at that time. A few weeks later we kissed at a party, started going on dates around town, and the rest is history.

I don’t know if I’m more impressed by the length or brains of this relationship. What has the Corona situation been like for you two?

Megan: We’re long distance, obviously, so back in the spring I had planned to go visit him in Houston and was really excited to spend a full week with him. We got a little more than we bargained for though when classes went online! I decided to stay in Houston, and it was incredible. We spent three months there, then went to visit my family for three months, then spent some time in Charlottesville until Parker had to go back to Houston in August.

That’s a big adjustment to go from long distance to with each other for ~six months! Were there any hiccups in adjusting?

Megan: I was initially worried there might be some growing pains because we’d never lived together—I mean, I had no idea if he was even the type of person to make his bed every morning or do his dishes promptly! But those worries were very quickly dispelled and, honestly, the past six months have been some of the best of my life. Coronavirus has been such a blessing in disguise for us. I will say though, it can be tough to focus in a small space when you’re with someone you love! We’ve both been working a bit better ever since Parker went back to Houston.

Parker: Agreed, except that Megan knew I was a bed-maker from college! On my end, I was really eager to make our situation ideal. I got her a desk in my apartment so she would have a place to focus and work, and we planned a lot of outings when possible and safe. It honestly felt like a vacation to some degree at the beginning, but as coronavirus got more serious, it was tough for Megan to be away from her family. Her mom is a doctor and was going into the ICU, so that was worrisome, and we were concerned that state borders might close.  There was also the natural stress of living in a pandemic and both being stressed out students, but we’re pretty transparent people.

Pictured: Megan and Parker, either doing jumping jacks, or saying “I love you this much!” TBD. Photo Courtesy of Megan Ong ’22.

Let’s get ~fun~, where would your dream quarantine location be and why? 

Parker: For me, a nice house in Charlottesville with plenty of space. Two offices, a bedroom, full kitchen, living room—the works. Maybe on Old Garth Road or Barracks. We drive around and look sometimes.  

Megan: For me, I think it would be his parents’ guest cabin in Wyoming. It’s the perfect balance of being on vacation with family and being alone at the same time with your own space. Since Parker had a roommate and we were then with my family, it sometimes felt like we were never quite at home by ourselves during the spring and summer.

What’s your “thing”?

Megan: We like to make really long, extravagant dinners that go for hours. It’s so fun to make it and eat super late into the night. Over quarantine we made some killer risotto and chicken a few times.

The key is to keep stirring till that wrist falls off. Hit me with your favorite memory together as a couple.

Megan: When we graduated college, we used some money we had saved to bike from Germany to Italy. We carried everything on our bikes and slept in little tiny hotels along the way. It was really incredible.

That may be the most idyllic thing I’ve heard all year. Let’s get groovy. What color comes to mind when you think of your partner and why?

Parker: Red. Megan looks great in red.

Megan: Parker is for sure dark green. He loves trees and is very scientific, which screams green to me.

What do you admire most about each other?

Parker: I admire a ton about Megan, it’s honestly a ten-way tie. If I had to pick though, it would be that she’s so incredibly caring for others, despite having so much personal talent and ability that would make anyone else self-centered or less focused on others. 

Megan: Parker is so curious and kind down to his very soul. He wants to know everything about everybody and everything. I’ve never once been bored in seven years. 

Parker is running up the scoreboard here with these answers. What’s the first activity you’ll both do when things go back to normal?

Parker: I want to spend a long time in the cheese section of a grocery store—a fully immersive and tactile experience with smelling, touching, and scratching my chin as I ponder what to buy. Something that takes a long time in a public place. 

Megan: Fly to Europe!

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?

Megan: I’m just so lucky. We randomly met our first days of college, and I ended up with the person who inspires, challenges, and makes me better. RBG has a great quote where she says she had more than a little luck in her life, but nothing equals how lucky she was to meet her husband. I feel the same about Parker. 

Parker: I would say Megan is where she is today because she repeatedly made the right decisions when confronted with difficult choices in her life. She should take pride and feel confidence in her past choices and her future choices going forward. I would also say I’m so glad to see her thriving at law school with such an amazing group of friends.

Many thanks to Megan and Parker for 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

Court of Petty Appeals: Law Students for Fall Break v. The Law School

---

Law Students for Fall Break v. The Law School
73 U.Va 7 (2020)

Justice Deskins delivered the opinion of the Court.

This opinion comes in response to one of the many concessions and sacrifices law students have been forced to endure as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic—the cancellation of their beloved fall break. A plaintiff class consisting of students across the J.D., S.J.D., and LL.M. classes avers that this cancellation is improper, and they request an order reinstating fall break.

Facts

This summer, in response to the pandemic, the University of Virginia administration announced that there would be no fall break this year for undergraduate students, and the Law School administration followed their lead, similarly cancelling the Law School’s fall break. The University’s administration cited public health concerns in justifying the drastic measure. The administration averred that removing any break in classes during the semester would lessen the ability of students to come and go from Charlottesville during the semester. They worried that traveling students would bring COVID-19 with them upon their return to Grounds, thus putting the University community and Charlottesville in danger. The Court cannot remember whether the Law School administration cited similar concerns, but it assumes without deciding that the same reasoning led to the cancellation of the Law School’s fall break.

Later in the summer, students across the University began the fall semester, both on-Grounds in in-person classes and online in a variety of different places (on-Grounds, in Charlottesville but off-Grounds, and elsewhere around the country and the world). Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was an uptick in COVID-19 cases after the undergraduates returned to the area. In response, the University put additional restrictions in place, including a renewed and reinvigorated request that students (including law students) not leave Charlottesville and not invite outsiders to town.[1]

Plaintiffs assert that they really, really, really need the break. They aver that they are exhausted, that they aren’t the type to go to London or Florida over breaks because they’re strapped for cash and/or saddled with debt (and also just straight up exhausted[2]), and that they legitimately need the time not only to rest but to study because they sincerely care about how they do in school. They also claim that it is inappropriate for the Law School to impose the cancellation upon law students—the real COVID-19 problems are coming from the undergrads.

Defendants emphasize that the cancellation was needed to prevent students from travelling and bringing COVID-19 back to Charlottesville with them. They state that the risk is too great that some students would travel and bring the virus back if given the chance. They further declare that the cancellation simply “makes good pedagogical sense.”

Analysis

The issue at hand is one of first impression before this honorable Court. The Court of Petty Claims previously dismissed this case, asserting that Plaintiffs did not have standing to dismiss their claim. That court declared that Plaintiffs had not successfully pled that they would suffer harm as a result of the cancellation. We disagree. Plaintiffs have clearly demonstrated that they would suffer harm. Their briefs were riddled with typos, poorly formatted, and clearly not proofread before being filed—per se evidence that Plaintiffs need a break from the mental beating of law school. The Court also finds that the class was properly certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.[3]

This Court rules in favor of Plaintiffs for three main reasons. First, this has been an unusually difficult time for Plaintiffs, even more so than a normal fall semester at the Law School. They suffer from isolation, monotony, and worries about the future, among many other concerns, at much higher levels than they normally would, and this has taken a serious toll on their wellbeing. Second, as Plaintiffs aver, they need that time to study and catch up on work! Out in the real world, one can take paid days off to relax, go to medical appointments, and get one’s car registration updated. Not so in the Law School world. Should class members skip lectures or fail to do their readings in order to study for other courses, their grades may suffer. Having a few extra days of break after Thanksgiving before exams begin will not do the trick. A mid-semester break is absolutely necessary. Third, as Plaintiffs state in their briefs, the real risk here is the undergrad population, not law students. In contrast to undergrads, who often live in dorms or other large communal housing arrangements, eat in dining halls, and are otherwise unable to avoid coming in contact with other people, law students such as Plaintiffs often live off-Grounds, with few, if any, roommates, and can easily avoid coming into contact with other people.[4] Law students are much less likely to transmit the virus to their classmates.

Defendants raise a good point in stating that having fall break would give students an opportunity to travel elsewhere and potentially bring the virus back with them to Charlottesville. Yes, in the past, some law students have travelled to places near and far over fall break. Yes, such travel would pose public health risks this year, as Defendants have claimed. However, the University Administration has already shown that it can prevent students from traveling by sending out new travel restriction policies through videos posted on various social media outlets after business hours, letting those videos percolate among the student body, and then sending an email to the University community the next day explaining the new restrictions. In short, Defendants’ concerns about travel can easily be avoided by imposing restrictions on student travel for the duration of fall break.

This Court does not look fondly upon Defendants’ claim that skipping the break “makes good pedagogical sense.” Perhaps studies do indicate that continuous academic calendars, without breaks, facilitate better learning. However, even if there is evidence to support Defendants’ claim, they have often chosen to ignore “good pedagogical sense” in the past. For example, research has shown that cold-calling is an unnecessary, unhelpful, counterproductive, and archaic pedagogical technique. Yet, many professors at the Law School still utilize cold-calling in their lectures. When Defendants decide to fully modernize their pedagogical approaches and implement evidence-based techniques shown to better student outcomes, they are welcome to try to cancel fall break. In the meantime, this Court does not treat their claim as being made with sufficient good faith to allow the cancellation to proceed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the Law School community to endure a number of novel hardships. The cancellation of fall break need not be one of them. We hereby REVERSE the finding of the lower court, and we ORDER that Defendants reinstate fall break.

It is so ordered.

Martin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with much of the Court’s reasoning, but I would remand for trial to resolve remaining questions of fact. 

This court is bound by its precedent in Students v. Labor, Generally, 73 U.Va 4 (2020), wherein it was established that students have a due process right not to be unilaterally denied traditional breaks. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions and popular perception, Plaintiffs have not waived their Constitutional rights to health and well-being, for which breaks are a necessary prerequisite, by willingly becoming law students. As such, Plaintiffs’ complaint should not have been dismissed by the lower court on summary judgement.

Defendants’ decree was a broad infringement on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and thus traditionally would be voided for vagueness. Defendants’ actions not only prohibit time for dangerous activities such as travel, which few students are in a position to do but also time for such benign and common break behavior as working on job application materials, sleeping, finishing classwork that has been procrastinated on, sleeping, staring at apartment walls in existential dread of student loans, sleeping, binging Netflix, and sleeping.[5]

Nonetheless, exigent circumstances may sometimes call for extreme emergency measures. Defendants have attempted to distinguish this case from Students v. Labor, Generally, by arguing that circumstances have changed because of an increase in positive cases at the University and Law School.  Defendants have argued that the elimination of fall break is the only way to fulfill the compelling governmental interest of adequately reducing the transmission of COVID-19. As long as reasonable people could disagree on whether this is the case, this is a question of fact that should be decided by a jury.

Plaintiffs have argued that, while eliminating the break would reduce the opportunity for travel, COVID-19 is already in the Charlottesville community. Any Plaintiff with the energy left to travel presumably also has the energy to engage in other high-risk activities in the local area, such as patronizing indoor bars and restaurants, which in normal times are frequently done while classes are in session. Plaintiffs have further argued that Defendants have also proved itself capable of using other, less restrictive measures to reduce travel and gatherings, such as the new policies that the Court mentioned in its opinion, and that Defendants could also reduce travel by shortening rather than eliminating fall break. Defendants have countered that other measures have proven ineffective in sufficiently reducing transmission. Defendants also presented evidence that similar holidays in other locations, including some schools, have led to upticks in COVID-19 cases. In light of this evidence, it is my opinion that reasonable people could disagree on whether eliminating fall break is a necessary emergency measure to curb COVID-19 transmission.

Therefore, I would also reverse the order of the lower court dismissing the case, but rather than granting summary judgement for Plaintiffs, I would remand the case for trial.

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu
rdm9yn@virginia.edu

---

[1] A similar request had been in place before.

[2] Did I mention that Plaintiffs are EXHAUSTED?

[3] The Court took Class Actions/Aggregate Litigation with Professor Ballenger last semester, so the Court knows that class actions must be certified pursuant to Rule 23, but because everything ended up being pass/fail (“Credit/No-Credit” in official terms), this Court has little recollection of how the Rule actually works. Nonetheless, the Court has a gut feeling that it’s satisfied, so we’ll go with that.

[4] Indeed, even this Justice spends almost all of her time alone in her chambers. Even if she had clerks, she would avoid them as much as possible.

[5] As the Court noted, Plaintiffs are all exhausted.