Hot Bench: Tiffany Mickel '22

---

Tiffany Mickel ‘22

Interviewed by Jack Brown ‘23

Tiffany is the new Editor-in-Chief of the Virginia Law Review.

Where are you from?

My parents were in the Army, so I have lived in various places. I’ve lived in North Carolina, Georgia, and Germany, but the longest I’ve lived anywhere has been in Virginia. This is where I consider home.

And where did you go to undergrad?

Although I adore Virginia universities, I wanted to study at a college out-of-state. I attended MIT to study engineering. My favorite subject was math in high school and working to become an engineer felt like the natural thing to do.

How did you go from engineering to law school?

Around my senior year of college, I realized that I didn’t want to be an engineer in the classical sense, so I transitioned to the business side of engineering. I worked for Boeing for a year in its financial office and then moved to D.C. to work in management consulting. The consulting industry is really interesting and foretells what I think it will be like at a firm where associates focus on building relationships with clients as they work to solve their problems.  

After consulting for a few years, I decided to attend law school. It took me a while to figure out where I wanted to see myself. I knew I wanted a graduate degree. And in the legal field you’re always learning and evolving, which really appealed to me. I also admired the intellectual challenge I knew it would present.

How is getting a STEM degree different from getting a law degree?

The most obvious difference is that most law students just don’t like math. But once you get past that sort of line in the sand where people either love or hate numbers, you find that there are more similarities than differences. In both, you have to think critically about really tough problems and look to the core principles to answer those questions. While engineering is grounded by tangible aspects of the natural sciences, the legal theories that explain the nature of law are more abstract.

Do you know what field you want to work in after graduation?

Right now, I’m thinking of pursuing intellectual property transactions, but I am excited to see what else is out there. This summer I’ll be joining Gibson Dunn, which has a free market system to allow its associates the ability to explore many different practice areas. Even though lawyers are inclined or encouraged to eventually specialize in an area, I really like the interdisciplinary aspect of the law. A big reason why I settled on an engineering degree was also because of how diverse the work can be and how much freedom you have to experience your varying interests. So although I’m leaning towards transactional law, at the end of the summer we’ll have to see how I enjoyed it.

Is there one piece of advice you would tell yourself coming in?

Sometimes 1Ls freak out about cold calls, but just remember that it’s unlikely that your peers will remember if you had a bad (or good) one. If you stay committed to doing the work and dissecting the reading material the way your professors encourage, you’ll have plenty to contribute to the discussion. First semester 1L, I, too, was really nervous about cold calls and participating in class generally. But, if you have done the work, push yourself to share your thoughts with the class because you certainly have something valuable to contribute.

What are some of the student organizations you’re involved with?

This past year, I was the Membership Chair of BLSA and the Events Co-chair for Virginia Law Women. Both organizations are committed to connecting students with attorneys to give us a snapshot into the day-to-day lives of practicing attorneys. I am also a part of VLR, whose mission I also value. My advice would be to join organizations where you really believe in what they’re pursuing. And, if you have the time and want to participate, consider serving on their executive board.

How have you been able to balance all these extracurricular responsibilities with coursework?

It’s important for me to know what expectations there are upfront so I can plan and manage my tasks ahead of time. Most roles and courses will lay out your expectations for the duration of the semester or year. But if they don’t, make sure to speak up and ask so that you can meet deadlines and plan out your semester accordingly. Also, make sure to be very vocal when you have a lot of responsibilities so that you don’t double book.

Lighting round!

Favorite phrase?

Raison d'être (translates to “the most important reason or purpose for someone/something’s existence”)

Last movie you saw in theatres?

Bad Boys for Life

Song to hype yourself up before studying?

Work, by Rihanna ft. Drake

One rule you think everyone should follow?

Quiet, hypoallergenic pets should be allowed in the office/workplace

Who are some people you’d love to have dinner with and why?

Michelle Obama and Rihanna. Both excelled in so many areas and it would be incredible to learn what lessons they’ve picked up in rising to the top of entertainment, politics, and philanthropy.

Do you want to give any shoutouts?

I’d like to give a shout out to the BLSA, VLW, and VLR exec boards!

---

tsm5skd@virginia.edu

Pets of Quarantine: Maisie and Kelli

---

Phil Tonseth ‘22
Editor-in-Chief

After almost a year of quarantine, most people have either learned to live alone, or altered their life circumstances to find ‘safe’ friends. While Love in the Time of Corona featured how many different couples are thriving in their romantic pursuits during ‘these trying times’, this feature is for those who choose to shop an animal shelter instead of Tinder for companionship. Like this pandemic, love still lives on, so we welcome you to learn about and meet all of the new furry friends adopted during quarantine, and potentially add a new member to your own family. This is Pets of Quarantine.

This week's guests are Kelli Finnegan ’22 and Maisie, a ridiculously cute and sassy cat.

Hey ya’ll! I’ll go to you first Kelli, what inspired you to adopt?

Hi Phil! My sister called me from a Petco in Blacksburg last spring, and she was crying on the phone because there was a lonely cat there that she wanted me to adopt. I knew nothing about cats, so I didn’t go get her (I hope she found a good home!), but I couldn’t shake the idea after that. Quarantine provided the perfect time to adopt because I was always home and spending so much time alone.

What exactly drew you Maisie particularly? Did you look for a specific breed, age, or different characteristic?

I knew I wanted to give an older cat a chance since most people adopt kittens. Maisie is a bit younger than I was looking for, but I saw her on Petfinder and knew I had to have her. After a FaceTime date with her foster mom, I was sold.

Was it love at first sight?

No! She hid from me in the shelter and kept me up all night for two weeks after that. We definitely love each other now though.

Kelli and Maisie. Photo Courtesy of Kelli Finnegan '22

Maisie, you’re up. Getting straight to the point, what is your favorite thing about living with Kelli?

Well, we’re on the same nap schedule! Other than that, I’m just here for the food.

Kelli, how difficult of a houseguest is Maisie?

I can’t complain. Except for when she’s scratching my couch or tearing up paper towel rolls or yelling at me in the middle of the night. Dramatics aside, she fits right into my life here and is the perfect roommate for me.

Maisie, have you made an appearance in class yet? Or are you more of a “lay on Kelli’s lap during class” type of cat?

Every single class! I like to be as distracting as possible, and professors think I’m cute.

Have you learned anything so far, besides that law students should take more cat naps?

Nah, this stuff is pretty boring. More people should show their pets on Zoom so I can watch them instead.

Slight follow up, but also unrelated. What is with your newfound obsession with plastic grocery bags?

They’re noisy, uncomfortable, cold, and potentially dangerous—what more could a cat possibly want from a napping spot?

Okay, so which store has the best bags that you’ve experienced so far?

Target (they do everything best).

Kelli, how has Maisie changed your life for the better, or worse? Knowing cats, this could go either way.

Depending on the day, it definitely could go either way. Quarantine has been really tough, and Maisie has made it endurable for me. She makes me laugh and likes to cuddle, and that’s all I could have hoped for, so I am really grateful to have her. She inspired my sister to start fostering, and my parents are considering adopting a cat of their own, which is exciting.

Has Maisie made you become a more responsible parent? AKA how often do you really clean out the litter box?

I like to think so! I clean the litter box almost compulsively—I refuse to have an apartment that smells like cat litter. Maisie is pretty spoiled, and the money I’m not spending on nights out at Bilt covers the vet bills.

Speaking of food, are you more of a kneader (AKA making biscuits with your paws), or a scratch pad type of cat?

I’ve been hard at work at the bakery for weeks. Why would I use a scratch pad when there’s a perfectly good couch to scratch, though?

Okay Maisie, let’s see if you can focus long enough to do a lightning round!

Box, or cat bed?

Bed–it’s softer!

Favorite spot to sun-bathe?

The windowsill. I can chatter at all the birds from there.

Laser or string?

String, always.

What’s the name of your favorite toy?

Worm.

Biggest pet peeve?

When Kelli tries to brush my teeth.

What time at night do you prefer to do the ‘zoomies’ and run around the apartment wildly?

As soon as Kelli gets in bed!

On a scale of one to ten, how sassy would you describe yourself?

Nine.

Lastly, soft or crunchy treats?

Crunchy, but I want all the treats.

Kelli, is there any parting thoughts about Maisie you’d like to share, or further convincing you think your readers will need to follow in your paw prints to adopt?

Adopt a cat (or two)! The CASPCA has plenty, and you can speak with their foster parents to find one that is a perfect match for you. If you’re thinking about it and have questions, I’m happy to answer them.

I’ve always loved cats, and now I want to adopt another. Many thanks to Kelli and Maisie for joining us on Pets of Quarantine and sharing their coronavirus experience. Are you a pet owner that adopted a furry friend during quarantine? A roommate that’s taken on the additional role as a surrogate pet parent for your classmate? Or an existing pet owner that’s grown even more attached to your best friend? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email pjt5hm@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Pets of Quarantine.

 ---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Law Library

---

Students v. Law Library
73 U.Va 18 (2021)

Justice Kulkarni delivering the opinion of the court.

During finals month, the Law School kept the library open until 8:30 p.m.[1] This provided the opportunity for students to spread out, focus, create outlines, and attempt to pass their exams or write their papers. Even with limited capacity, the library provides at least three distinct areas to meet students’ needs: study rooms, the upstairs area, and the aptly named “Gunner Pit.” The sanctity of law libraries is respected in all similar jurisdictions as a place to get away from annoying roommates and the allure of one’s bed. Recently, and especially in the wake of the newest round of restrictions, the library now closes at 5:00 p.m. As such, the students of the Law School bring this case seeking to compel the Law School to return to its previous hours.

This case is exactly the kind of issue this Court was designed to hear. It cleanly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court as an issue regarding the Law School. The library is a location used exclusively by law students and the changing of the hours affects them directly. On the merits, the plaintiffs provide a clear harm and show a straight line from changing hours to issues studying. The Court addresses each of the main arguments in turn.

First, plaintiffs contend that the Law School is committing a clear act of discrimination by favoring day studiers over night studiers. This Court is inclined to agree. For those students who would consider themselves responsible, and who this Court would classify as ‘gunners,’ studying during the day provides them the opportunity to get their work done and be home in time for the Bachelor. For the other half of students, studying during the evening allows them either to maintain their college schedule or meet the demands of the work or children. Each student should be allowed to make the choice of when to study. The defense argues that students can still study in any other areas of the Law School and in Scott Commons.

This leads to plaintiff’s second argument: That the hours of the library are creating an unbearable choice to either suffer through terrible roommates and distractions at home or study in very limited spaces in the Law School. The defense is that the Law School  has closed seminar rooms, limited hours on weekends, and created stringent guidelines in the wake of the-thing-which-shall-not-be-named. For good reason, the Law School is unwilling to budge on that last requirement. They additionally argue that the adjusted law library hours are serving the purpose of protecting public health. In the opinion of this Court, it should be up to students to decide whether to potentially get sick studying in limited spaces or to hamper their studying at home. The Law School has to, and indeed already has, decided what is their priority.

For both issues, the existence of alternative study spaces lies at the center. The Lounges provide limits of up to eight people. Classrooms get locked in the evenings. All that remains, for most students, is Scott Commons. The reality is that there is very limited space in that area. The tables in the quiet room are restricted to two people. The tables outside are restricted to one. Beyond space restrictions, there are other detriments to students in packing them into this one area. Students should be allowed to select the environments that they study in. Scott Commons, or ScoCo as it is colloquially referred to as, is an environment of collegiality and distraction.[2] For the students who wish to avoid this type of workspace, they are not left with many options.

Thus, I hereby order the Law School to return the library to its hours from November. The Law School has admitted, both in their arguments and through past actions, that the health and wellness of students is their top priority. This issue implicates both students’ physical and mental health. In packing students into limited areas after 5:00 p.m., the School increases the risk of exposure to the-thing-which-shall-not-be-named. Grades and sleep schedules are paramount for the mental health of law students. In restricting the times and places where students can study, their habits are affected with adverse future effects on grades. As I noted a few weeks ago, rights are not abrogated simply because of the class of people involved.[3] In this case, the rights of night studiers and those who wish to study alone are being affected. This would be the appropriate relief.

Birch, J., dissenting, in which Tonseth, C.J., joins. Pickett, J., joins as to the part of the opinion beginning with “While my young colleague”. Luk, J. also wants to join.

At the outset, Justice Kulkarni’s jurisdictional holding is flawed outside of the currently-effective, temporary statutes. While it is true that, under the guise of COVID policy, the administration has finally restricted use and access to the library to those who are law students, that was not always the case. Having personally watched several “I’m a real doctor”[4] students sleep at upstairs library desks and undergraduate pre-gunners[5] “try to find a quiet place,” this Justice recognizes this issue is not one historically held exclusively by law students. Decisions need to be made in light of the current policies, but with the larger community on grounds, welcome or not, in mind.

The “clear act of discrimination” that the majority agrees with is a matter of choice. Planning[6] one’s studying during the day, or during the night, is a matter of choice and priority. If a student prioritizes the Bachelor, working during the day, and going to sleep before 2:30 a.m., then the hushed air of the library is available to them 9 hours a day. If an individual makes a choice that exposes them to the consequences of their choice, they may not simply ask the Court to rescue them from themselves. Those who prefer to work at night, the “class” of individuals alleging discrimination, has never been a class protected by this Court or the administration. A little more evidence is needed than to look at the schedules of classes from this semester alone: Roughly twenty-four classes start before 10:00 a.m. and another eight start before 9:00 a.m.[7] Night studiers have always been placed outside of their comfort, and their inability to tell their roommate to turn down the music does not grant them a class of their own. Accordingly, it is outside this Court’s review to challenge the policies enacted by the administration.

This dissent should not be read to restrict access to an equitable remedy to those that are of a historically protected class. Outside of the traditionally outlined classes, this Court notes prior protection of parent-students, those working outside of the legal field to support their studies, and those 3Ls who actually still come to the Law School. Additionally, this Court has modified age discrimination to protect those over the age of thirty at any time during their attendance. Should any of these classes present a discriminatory claim as to the law library’s hours, this Justice would readily address appropriate equitable solutions. Even without a proper claim, I will address some of the merits Justice Kulkarni may be unfamiliar with.

While my young colleague on the bench has no memory of a library open past 8:30 p.m., I firmly do. In the before-times, the law library was a place to study between classes, catch up on work, watch the gunners work ahead while outlining, and interact with your peers. This last activity was the most crucial for those not in the Pit of Internal Despair Gunner Pit. Socialization as a form of procrastination and stress-relief has long been a main draw of the library. The decibel levels remained low, but this was often accomplished by rolling chairs right next to each other. The appeal of this method of procrastination peaked in the late evening hours. This is exactly the behavior that the administration is attempting to dispel and is closely tied to the restrictions put in place. Additionally, time seems to move differently as you read in near-silence. Students have sat to read from the red- or blue-covered texts that strain their backs, only to lift their gaze and realize that two hours has resulted in three pages of progress. The deafening silence of the library is a trap, and this Justice has felt the hot rush of shame walking home at 11:30 p.m., only to continue the assignments started in the library. By removing students at 5:00 p.m., the health and safety of the staff is preserved, law students are more likely[8] to eat a real meal for dinner, and shame from late hours of studying are confined to one’s own home.

For the reasons listed above, I grumpily dissent.

Tonseth, C.J., dissents.

To be honest, I didn’t even read the majority's opinion, but 1Ls always lose.[9] Insofar as this case applies to 1Ls, stare decisis rules and those plaintiffs are severable from the case at hand. It is antithetical to our esteemed Bench and my reign of terror to allow this precedent to change. I vehemently dissent.

 ---

omk6g@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] Plaintiffs inform the court that the library used to have even longer hours. Since this Justice has no memory of such a situation, this opinion is rendered with a baseline of 8:30 p.m.

[2] The Court acknowledges that this decision will allow the group known as the “ScoCo Gremlins” to return to their deviant ways without worrying about adverse effects on fellow students. This is a risk the court is willing to take in order to protect the rights of other students.

[3] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va 16 (2021) (Kulkarni, S, Dissenting).

[4] Emphasis in original dialogue

[5] “I’ve taken the LSAT, so I’m basically in law school, right?”

[6] More realistically: Cramming

[7] Many of these are classes for 1Ls, and therefore are superfluous and mentioned here simply for effect.

[8] Not a guarantee

[9] 1L Gunners v. Every- one Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019)

Hot Bench: Christina Luk '21

---

Christina Luk ‘21. Editor-in-Chief of the Law Weekly, 2020-21.

Hi Tuna, welcome to Hot Bench! We are excited to have you with us this week. So how did you get your nickname, “Tuna”?

It was a natural evolution: Christina → Xtina → Xtuna → Tuna.

Tell me about your hometown, where did you grow up? 

I’m from San Leandro, California, where we’re famous for our annual cherry festival. I don’t know if we still grow cherries, but we sure love them. If you go on the city website, the “o” in San Leandro is a cherry icon. Fun fact, the city also has a high-speed fiber optics network, which I’m still trying to figure out how to connect to. For Zoom purposes.

Before law school, you attended the University of Chicago where you obtained a master’s degree in literature. Tell me about that experience.

Ah yes, my sexy plants thesis. I wrote my master’s thesis about Erasmus Darwin’s The Loves of the Plants, which is a long-form poem about reproductive botany, a very new and shiny area of study in the late eighteenth century. The school gave me an award for the thesis, and I guess I turned around and said, “Thanks! I’m going to go do law now.”

Tell me about your favorite involvements in law school!

The Law Weekly! That’s an obvious one. I’ve always loved the paper and the people who put it together. We archive what it’s like to be a student here—what we struggle with, what we celebrate. We preserve UVA Law’s history in a unique way and that’s why it was so important for us to keep publishing this year, even in the midst of COVID. I also love APALSA. I’ve made some of my closest friends in this group and I’m excited to see the organization grow.

I think the group I’ve learned the most from is SBA. I’ve co-chaired the Diversity Advisory Council for two years now (with Ida Abhari ’22 and Will Hinton ’21, my faves), and I’m heartened by the positive changes we’ve seen. Not only are we going to have a Dean of Diversity soon, we’ve also got the new diversity, equity, and inclusion webpage on the school website. I really want to thank the Faculty Diversity, Equity, and Belonging Committee, and its co-chairs Kate Duvall and Prof. Andrew Hayashi, for wholeheartedly working with us and taking stock of student concerns. I think students often underestimate how much change we can make here. There’s a lot of work left to be done, but it can be accomplished with persistence and optimism.

What is one thing your friends tease you about?

My iPhone. I have a perfectly serviceable iPhone SE, which is the size of an iPhone 5 with the hardware of an iPhone 6. It is incredibly compact and it fits in my pocket, which is all I ask of a portable cellular device. But my friends love to tease me for it. I can do everything on it that you can do on a bigger iPhone! The camera isn’t as good, though, I might concede that.

What is your favorite food?

It was my grandmother’s oxtail soup, but now I am pescatarian. Fried fish, I like fried fish a lot, and anything Grace Tang ’21 makes.

What is the most important object you own?

The most important thing in life is your health. That said, I am very fond of my grandmother’s ring that she passed down to me.

Who are your favorite authors?

Don’t do this to me, I’m an English major! I love Emily Dickinson, she is probably my favorite poet. The Flies by Jean-Paul Sartre changed my life. There is a really powerful moment in the play where the main character chooses to shoulder a tragedy that he could have been free from. I was struck by that, I mean, why choose a burden? But I guess the point was that it wasn’t a burden to him. When you care about something, you take a stake in it. When you take a stake in something, you care about it. It is by choosing to take on the weight of something that you are able to participate fully in the society of your choice.

What is an unusual but fun activity that you have participated in? 

Last summer, I did the Chloe Ting two-week summer shred challenge with a friend. It was unusual, because I don’t like to exercise, but it was also a lot of fun. What I learned is that swearing copiously eases the pain of exercising.

If you could level up in life just like in video games, where would you put your next skill point?

Hmmm, health and fitness? I’d like to graduate to exercising without swearing. 

What are some of your favorite TV shows?

I’ve been watching Parks and Rec, because Jenny Kwun ’21 told me I remind her of Leslie Knope. I don’t know if it will be a favorite yet. I highly recommend this Chinese historical drama called Nirvana in Fire. It’s been described as a Chinese Monte Cristo, and it’s perfect for anyone who likes political intrigue and secret identities.

If you were a ghost, how would you haunt?

I would haunt the library and whisper false facts in the ears of scholars.

What common ingredient or spice do you despise?

Ginger. It’s the worst, and it should never be put in anything where I can taste it.

If you were an actor, what kind of roles would you be good at?

The expert who dies, because no one listens to her. 

What do you collect?

I collect poems I like in a notebook, and I used to collect watches.

What are your favorite local Charlottesville adventures?

I really like the local cideries, we’re spoiled for choices here. Bamboo House is my favorite restaurant though. If you drive down Highway 29, past the airport, you’ll see a squat, windowless building with “Bamboo House” emblazoned on its side in fairy lights. The interior is dimly lit. Along one wall is a cheery tableau of taxidermied forest animals and along another is a massive karaoke set-up. Hands down, best Korean food in town. I also really like driving down to Moo Thru with friends to get a thicc boy (milkshake). 

What video game are you playing right now?

I am still working on Hades. It’s a nifty rogue lite that combines my favorite things: Greek mythology and sassy British accents. It’s too hard to play without my monitor, though, so I’ll have to finish the game when I get back to Charlottesville.

Do you get road rage?

Nope. I just like to constructively point out mistakes that my fellow drivers make.

What’s one thing you learned this week?

One thing I learned this week (in Negotiations) is that it’s always in your interest to offer the other side a fair deal, because a fair deal is a sustainable one. There’s no point in coming to an agreement that’ll just fall apart!

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

“Viva La Vida” by Coldplay.

You are about to get into a fight, what song comes on as your soundtrack?

Boss music.

What are your favorite snacks?

I’m not sure, but last week I ate an entire tray of cocktail shrimp from Costco.

Is cereal a soup?

Yes. This is a question that has bitterly divided EICs for ages. I am chagrined that Eleanor Schmalzl ’20’s article on the subject is our most read article on the website, because she came to the opposite (erroneous) conclusion.

---

cl3eh@virginia.edu

Pets of Quarantine: Zona and Alyssa

---

Phil Tonseth ‘23
Editor-in-Chief

After almost one year of quarantine, most people have either learned to live alone or altered their life circumstances to find ‘safe’ friends. While Love in the Time of Corona featured how many different couples are thriving in their romantic pursuits during ‘these trying times,’ this feature is for those who choose to shop at an animal shelter instead of Tinder for companionship. Like this pandemic, love still lives on, so we welcome you to learn about and meet all of the new furry friends adopted during quarantine and potentially add a new member to your own family. This is Pets of Quarantine.

This week's guests are Alyssa Metcalf ’22 and Zona, an absolute gem of a pupper who’s got a body that puts J Lo’s to shame.

Hey y'all! I’ll go to you first Alyssa, what inspired you to adopt?

I think that like a lot of folks, I figured that there was no better time to get a puppy than during quarantine, since we suddenly had all of this free time. It’s been really nice to have a companion during a time where it’s easy to feel isolated; Zona doesn’t just brighten up our day, but she has that effect on pretty much everyone she meets.

What exactly drew you to Zona particularly? Did you look for a specific breed or temperament?

Size was definitely a big factor—obviously, I wasn’t looking for a Great Dane or anything, and wanted a nice balance between a good apartment dog and a breed that was relatively active. Temperament was important, too, and mini Aussies are about as sweet and gentle as they come.

Pictured: Zona knows she's a model, now it's the worlds turn to know as well. Photo Courtesy of Alyssa Metcalf '22.

Was it love at first sight?

I think so! Zona clearly has always been adorable (especially when we first met her and she was the size of a gerbil) but what really drew us in was her personality. She’s always been very sure of herself and has a slight attitude that is really endearing, even if it results in her being a little spoiled sometimes.

Zona, you’re up. Getting straight to the point, do you like Alyssa or Ray more?

I plead the Fifth.

Alyssa, do you agree?

Looks like she’s learned a lot from Criminal Investigations!

Zona, have you been called on to contribute in class yet? Also, do you feel like you’ve learned anything so far?

I haven’t been called on yet, but I like to make an unannounced Zoom appearance every now and then. I can’t say I’ve absorbed too much in terms of content, but I really should catch up on Antitrust in case Professor Nachbar decides to call on me.

Slight follow up, but also unrelated. Why do you frequently sit and lick windows Zona?

If you were as cute as me, you’d want to makeout with your reflection too.

Alyssa, how has Zona changed your life for the better, or worse? She seems like a hoot to me, personally.

Zona’s definitely a hoot, and she really does bring joy into the lives of everyone who meets her. Because she’s so affectionate and funny, she’s able to turn a bad day around, and she’s unquestionably changed my life for the better.

Pictured: The ultimate Christmas card photo. Zona has been a wonderful addition to Alyssa and Ray's law school experience. Photo Courtesy of Alyssa Metcalf '22.

Would you say that you or Ray has become the responsible parent? AKA who takes Zona to pee at 5 AM in this cold weather?

Anyone who lives in Ivy Garden knows the answer to this question: Ray. You can see him around 7 every morning taking Zona out while admittedly I’m still in bed.

Zona, do you get fed any table scraps for when you’re being a good girl? What’s been your favorite so far?

Sometimes! My personal favorites are peanut butter (duh) and the occasional puppucino from Starbucks.

Okay Zona, let’s see if you can focus long enough to do a lightning round!

Best Trick?

Uh, sit?

What’s your favorite yard to pee in?

Lizzie Pate’s (’22) in front of Building 115 is a personal favorite of mine.

Would you rather jump in every puddle on a walk, or roll in the mud?

Both, because I like to make myself as gross as possible before coming inside.

What’s the name of your favorite toy?

Consuela the Cactus.

Biggest pet peeve?

When every single second of my owners’ attention isn’t devoted to me and I’m not getting peanut butter.

Would you count your walk style as a saunter, jog, or runway strut?

Definitely a saunter—like you said, a body that puts J. Lo’s to shame.

Would you consider yourself a doggo, a woofer, a pupperoni, or a borker, and why?

I’m not really much of a barker, so I have to go with pupperoni.

Lastly, Who’s a good pupper?

That’s an easy one: me!

Alyssa, is there any parting thoughts about Zona you’d like to share, or further convincing you think your readers will need to follow in your paw prints to adopt?

I would highly recommend getting a dog to anyone who is considering it! I know plenty of people who have made similar decisions (looking at you, Jack Tucker ’22), and it really does change your life for the better. Personally, I can’t imagine getting through the horrid year of 2020 without Zona, and I consider myself really lucky to have such a great pup.

I’m a cat person myself, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t tempted to get a doggo myself now. Many thanks to Alyssa and Zona for joining us on Pets of Quarantine and sharing their coronavirus experience. Are you a pet owner that adopted a furry friend during quarantine? A roommate that’s taken on the additional role of a surrogate pet parent for your classmate? Or an existing pet owner that’s grown even more attached to your best friend? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email pjt5hm@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Pets of Quarantine.

 ---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Construction

---

Students v. Construction
73 U.Va 17 (2021)

Justice Peterson delivered the the the opinion of the Court.

The natural beauty of the surrounding area is undeniably a calling card of Albemarle County and the University as a whole. That natural beauty functions as a public good, enhancing the quality of life of each and every individual in the city of Charlottesville. And, as the city is incredibly integrated, damage to the natural beauty of  one part of the city affects the natural beauty of the whole. This, in turn, affects the denizens of this great county, and, more specifically, this great school. As such, this case is brought by the Students as a whole against the undesirable, unwanted, and interruptive construction being carried out egregiously close to the Law School.

Because I too hate construction—and because I have the power, as an esteemed Justice—I have opted to hear this case and rule on it regardless of jurisdiction, standing, and the merits. It is within my power, as overlord and ruler of this session of the Court of Petty Appeals, to make such decisions. And make them I will.

However, this ruling need not be disdained as one of judicial activism. I will not impact the legitimacy of this court by holding on emotion alone. A sturdy analysis of the facts that I prefer, while discarding some of the more positive aspects of construction brought forward by the defense, is all I need to yield the correct result: The construction must stop.

The construction in question began some time ago. The Students have been incapable of supplying the record with an accurate date; however, both parties have stipulated that it began in late January. This poses the first problem faced by Students.

January is a cold time of year. Commuting is difficult. Even here, in Virginia, as evidenced by our most recent holding, the weather is not always favorable.[1] And yet, knowing this fact full well, what do the Defendants decide to do? Block off sidewalks, adding one measly diagonal crosswalk, as if that will satiate the Student’s needs for quick access to the warmth and pleasure of climate control. This shutting down of the sidewalk, as well as half of the parking lot, is the main complaint brought in this case by the Students, who request an injunction ordering construction to halt, regardless of the stage it is in, and to return the commuting space to its former glory. Students care little for the state of the building under construction and merely request an immediate halt to both the noise and the obstructions resulting from the construction.

Hell, even I, the esteemed Justice, was adversely impacted by this issue. I, a paying (hourly) and fully privileged parking-lot-user, had to wait approximately two minutes whilst staring at a “Stop” sign, held askew by a worker (who would also benefit from this injunction by no longer needing to be outside) in the face, for absolutely no apparent reason. No cars passed. No people walked by. There were no earth-shattering quakes resulting from the nearby construction. The only impact that was felt was the one felt by my harried soul, hungry after a day’s law schooling, in need of a little snacky-snack.

Now, as the Justice, I can overlook some wrongs. If I’m not involved, really, it isn’t a huge problem. At that point, it’s just a matter of law. But this time, the construction made it personal, and I am not a 1L you want to get personal with. People avoid me like the plague. Why? I don’t know. But this Defendant is about to find out.

As such, I hereby order whatever entity has given this construction company permission to conduct its devilish workings upon our most sacred soil to immediately halt all further action and return North Grounds to its former glory. I’m talking full sidewalk, no diagonal crosswalk, and, while we’re at it, a food truck stationed at the corner perpetually.

In addition, I also demand, as compensation for the Students involved—let’s face it, I’m not solely self-interested—an apology letter from both the construction company and the administration, detailing in full not only what they did, but why they are sorry.

Briefly, the construction company argues that it is doing a beneficial service for the good of the community. They state certain things such as “think in the long term,” and “really, it isn’t even that long term, it’ll be gone soon,” and “this is absolutely essential construction for safety reasons.” Their pleas fall on deaf ears. There is no jury in this courtroom, only the esteemed Justice. And this esteemed Justice feels like he deserves a food truck.

The Defendants are ordered to halt all construction, return North Grounds to its former glory, deliver a food truck to the premises and keep it running in perpetuity, and write well-thought apology letters to each and every person they have wronged at the school (all of us).

---

jtp4bw@virginia.edu

---

[1] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va 16 (2021).

Hot Bench: Neil Kelliher '23

---

Neil Kelliher ‘23

Interviewed by Jonathan Peterson ‘23

Let’s do an introduction!

I’m from Northern Virginia. I graduated from UVA in 2015 with an engineering degree, then joined the Army and went to Germany. After five years I came to law school.

Why law school?

The interest started in undergrad. After graduating, I was faced with two choices, getting my JD and then joining the military as a JAG officer, which is a good life although I don’t know if it’s for me, or joining the military and doing something a little more exhilarating then getting my JD. I had a really interesting time in the Army, but once I started realizing that I was more interested in pushing through challenging problems and advocating for soldiers, it became clear that I should just go to law school.

Interesting military stories?

Well, right before I went to Germany, I got engaged. I immediately had to tell the Army that I had a date set for a wedding a year out. They were very generous and worked around it. Then, events arose and my unit got tacked on to an exercise that we initially weren’t going to be doing. This was a month and a half before the wedding. So, way too late to change anything with it. The exercise was a ten-country live fire that was supposed to happen the DAY of my wedding. So, I had to do it. Fortunately, we were able to work it out with the other countries like “what if we had this platoon go this day instead of this day?” They didn’t really care too much, so we ended up having another platoon go the day after my wedding. I had my wedding on a Saturday. I flew out at 6 AM Sunday morning from Dulles to London Heathrow. Then I took a bus to London Stansted. I spent a night in the Stansted lobby, then took a flight to Budapest, and then a van ride from Budapest to the training area to do the live fire. It was about 36 hours of consecutive traveling the day after my wedding. Quite the honeymoon. I was only hungover for the first 30 hours.

How did your wife feel about the honeymoon?

She was very understanding. It was more the week when we had to figure out what was going to happen with the wedding that was tough. Like, what’s going to happen if we can’t get the exercise moved? Am I going to have a stand-in at my own wedding? A cardboard cutout?

What was your experience training for the military?

Honestly, the hardest part was learning how to deal with boredom. You go your whole life with something to do, always trying to figure out how to balance things. Then, you get there and there’s one event that has to happen today and 85 people have to do it. No cell phone or anything. It’s boring. You just have to find ways to use boredom to benefit you. Either trying to develop relationships or honing skills, usually.

How have you carried that experience with boredom into your day-to-day life?

Before joining the Army, I was always on my phone. Social media, constant news updates, the works. I found it harder to read books because they didn’t have the constant pull for attention. At most I’d read articles, but I never really dug deep into things. So it’s not so much a skill, but I now feel fundamentally inured to some levels of boredom. That’s definitely attributable to the Army. I don’t use my phone in the same way anymore at all. I just feel less desire to be bombarded with information and more at peace with something longer and more meaningful, like a book or actual interaction. I’m just more comfortable with a slowed down pace of activity.

What kind of genres do you usually read?

Some sort of either business, or energy, or computer-type of reading. Typically stuff written by journalists. I read on my Kindle and I find that Amazon’s algorithm will have the next book lined up to sell to me within a few pages of starting a new book. And I play right into the system by buying it. It’s like they know they’ve got $400 worth of books down this pipeline I’m interested in and they have no interest in recommending anything new until the well runs dry. And I have no interest in looking for anything else because I’m really interested in the books they recommend. So a large portion of what I read is whatever the algorithm says is next. If they wrote a book about that algorithm, I guarantee it would pop right up on my feed and I would read it.

Are the books more descriptive or telling us what should be done?

Depends on what the algorithm is in the mood for, it knows I’ll read them all. I’ve read some that are very direct. Like, “we should expand our nuclear energy capacity.” There are also more nuanced ones detailing what’s going on in a particular field and the possibilities there.

I feel like you probably don’t have a favorite author in this genre?

If it’s anyone, it’s the coder who writes that algorithm. Someone who wears flip flops to work making $800k a year for Amazon with a “Neil Kelliher” file.

Lightning round!

Favorite food?

Mexican.

Any particular dish?

That’s like choosing your favorite child.

Pet peeve?

Long hypotheticals that don’t lead anywhere. The question you know from word one isn’t taking you anywhere but takes four minutes to get there.

Favorite word?

I’ve been watching the Great British Breaking Show, so I’ll just say “RAW!” or “Stodgy” in contexts that don’t make sense.

If you could be one animal, which animal and why?

An octopus. Their camouflage is fascinating.

---

nmk4vp@virginia.edu

Club Spotlight: The Ministry of Truth

---

Phil Tonseth ‘22
Production Editor

Founded in 1948, the Law Weekly has regaled students with the antics that have occurred on North Grounds for the past seventy years.[1] Composed of students who, instead of miserably attempting to write onto Virginia Law Review, would rather write entertaining pieces or detail current events around the school, the Law Weekly boasts a robust membership and contributor base. Published weekly, the Law Weekly is not just for lighthearted stories about Barristers, Foxfield, or visiting speakers. The newspaper can also hang its hat on the fact that it has been cited by the Supreme Court[2], the Fifth Circuit[3], and numerous other state supreme courts.

How can you join such an illustrious organization, and are there any cool incentives to do so? The Law Weekly wishes for everyone with an opinion to join, from all walks of life and all organizations. In fact, after attending three of our weekly editing meetings, an attendee officially becomes a ‘Staff Editor’, which, if you’re asking the author, is a pretty cool resume addition.

What would you do as a member of the Law Weekly, and does being a ‘Staff Editor’ mean having responsibilities? At its base, the position doesn’t require any formal work; rather, one can work/help as much as they wish.[4] Members are asked to edit pieces submitted by the various authors for grammar and spelling and to help contribute fun ideas for articles. Plus, if a member has a particular interest, they’re encouraged to write to their heart’s desire about such topic.[5]

Why would you want to give yourself more work by joining this organization? Well, first, the Law Weekly is the funniest band of misfits around the Law School. We turn all of our gripes into weekly opinions on the Court of Petty Appeals, channel our frustrations into the comments section, “Around North Grounds,” and share the funniest professor quotes we hear with the masses. Additionally, pre- (and hopefully post-) COVID, we have free Domino’s pizza at each weekly meeting. Lastly, we also have a corner office in Slaughter Hall with a brand new refrigerator and coffee maker. I cannot sweeten this offer any further.

            If you’ve gotten this far in the article, I applaud you. However, I need to provide a disclaimer that, while all of the above information is accurate, I was contractually bound to write it. Here’s the real truth. Ever read 1984 by George Orwell? Did you notice that it came out in 1949, a year after the Law Weekly was founded? If you made that connection, I hope you also connected the dots and noticed the similarities between the Ministry of Truth and the Law Weekly. The Law Weekly is the underground organization that controls what is fact around these parts, and we work hard to make sure our narratives fit those truths.[6] You may be thinking, this would violate the First Amendment and chill speech, especially in a time when political commentators are facetiously arguing for ‘alternative facts.’ You may even attempt to use my boy Scalia’s own remarks against me, when he said “[t]he mere fact that a private individual can chill somebody's speech does not say, well, since a private individual can do it, you know, the ‘Ministry of Truth’ can do it.”[7] Respectfully, we disagree.

Pictured: Where truth is formed, pizza is served, and the Law Weekly controls the world. Photo Courtesy of reddit.com

            At its core, the Law Weekly is its own propaganda machine.[8] We alter the facts to fit our own desired narrative, often requiring the Law School to change its tactics to continue to appease us.[9] What I didn’t tell you about our office is that it's strategically located directly above the dumpster behind the Law School. Ever wonder where graded exams go that students thought they did well on? Our dumpster. Ever wonder where positive articles go about politically charged student organizations? Our dumpster. Ever wonder why the administration continues to let us post ridiculous stories about ranking bread, playing Zelda, or Call Her Daddy? The administration knows we can throw them in our dumpster.

            We chose to spotlight our club, the Ministry of Truth, both as an invitation and a warning. For all of those with similar worldviews who like pizza, you are more than welcome to join our pseudo-cult. For those students who believe you can undermine us, good luck and come give it a shot. We are both the institution and the resistance. We are absolute and never wrong. We are Big Brother. Join at your own risk.

 ---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/about-virginia-law-weekly

[2] Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)

[3] Thermo King v. White's Trucking Service, 292 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1961).

[4] See, another reason why Law Weekly is more fun than being on a journal.

[5] See Love in the Time of Corona by Ben Stievetar ’22 or the multiple features on Antitrust by Donna Faye Imadi ’22.

[6] DISCLAIMER: the Law Weekly takes pride in publishing true and honest news stories.

[7]https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/22/supreme-court-reviews-ministry-of-truth-election-speech-case

[8] We are an actual news organization; this is all satire. Please don’t take this or me seriously.

[9] For instance, we forced Student Affairs to bring back Weekly Wind-down Fridays because we wanted more cookies in 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA, 370 U.Va 100 (2020).

Criminal Law and Kerfuffle FC: A Snow Day Talk with Professor Thomas Frampton

---

Leah Deskins ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor

Last Friday, I logged onto a Zoom call with Christina Luk ’21, Maria Luevano ’21, Sam Pickett ’21, and Jacob Smith ’23 to interview Professor Thomas Frampton. A native of Washington, D.C.,[1] Professor Frampton attended Yale for his bachelor’s and master’s degrees, before attending UC Berkeley for law school. After law school, he clerked at the trial and appellate levels, practiced law as a public defender for the Orleans Public Defenders in (shocker) New Orleans for a few years, and then was a Climenko Fellow at Harvard before landing in Charlottesville last summer. Professor Frampton is a criminal law scholar, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, taught criminal law this past fall. This semester, he’s teaching criminal adjudication.[2]

Pictured: From a criminal law scholar to a banjo picker, Professor Frampton is multi-talented and a must-take-professor! Photo Courtesy of law.virginia.edu.

The first portion of our discussion focused on “academic” topics. Professor Frampton explained that he’s been very impressed with how well students have rolled with the punches and been so resilient this year, and that his favorite part of teaching is learning from his students.[3] We chatted about the oral argument for a real case he conducted in his criminal law class last semester and the wonderful opportunity it presented for 1Ls to see the law in action. Professor Frampton also spoke about a current article he’s working on that discusses prison abolition and focuses on how the criminal justice system should handle the “dangerous few.” Although Professor Frampton is still working on his argument, it seems like the article will be very interesting and timely, and one that students should be on the lookout for. Finally, we discussed an interesting quirk of Professor Frampton’s teaching style: He asks students to call him by his first name but calls students by their last names. I wish I could say there was a fascinating reason behind this unusual phenomenon, but really it seems that the last name thing is sort of a default setting for Professor Frampton. However, our conversation may have prompted him to reconsider his ways. TBD.

The second portion of our discussion dealt with life outside of the Law School. Professor Frampton mentioned that he’s looking forward to experiencing the Charlottesville music scene once things are back up and running again, and that during the pandemic, he learned how to play banjo.[4] Aside from working on his banjo technique, he has been a member of a local soccer team, Kerfuffle FC.[5] And his three favorite musical artists are The Mountain Goats, Against Me!, and Phil Ochs. We also learned that he hates eggnog and that he’s not a fan of King Cake. I mean, who wants to bite into a plastic baby, anyway?

Lastly, Professor Frampton offered some advice for law students. He advised that, as UVA Law students, we’ve already done a ton of gold star chasing, and that at some point we should make peace with ourselves and relax our desire to continue to collect gold stars. While Professor Frampton framed this advice as directed at “1L Thomas,” his insight could benefit law students of all levels.

I decided to get in touch with Professor Frampton about speaking with the Law Weekly because I’ve really been enjoying his criminal adjudication class. His interview did not disappoint. We had a lively discussion, and he even suggested a new, professor-related idea for the Law Weekly: instead of students interviewing a professor, the professor could interview the students. Overall, it was a great interview, and my only regret is that the pandemic prevented us from getting together in person.[6]

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu

---

[1] DC proper, not Northern Virginia or Maryland. Specifically, he’s from the area near the National Cathedral, which also happens to be where he got married last year.

[2] Of note, Professor Frampton incorporates real-world, current(ish) happenings into class meetings and conveys enthusiasm for discussing legal and policy issues adjacent to the doctrine in the casebook. Readers may recall that he conducted an oral argument for a real client during one of his criminal law class meetings last semester.

[3] Professor Frampton explained that he spends a lot of time preparing for class, at least in part because students’ questions are “intellectually exciting.”

[4] Am I seeing a bluegrass cover band in the Law School’s future? Alternatively, he could play the banjo part in “Come on Eileen,” a la Professor Kim Ferzan’s rendition of “Heartbreaker,” at Fauxfield 2019, should any Law School-affiliated group ever play that song. *wink*

[5] I’m supposed to mention that Kerfuffle FC defeated the Law School’s team, Barristers United.

[6] Professor Frampton wanted me to mention that he’s 7’4”. Because of the pandemic, there’s no way for me to see how tall he actually is, so I guess I’m just going to have to accept this stated fact as true. See Christina Luk, Something About Twiqbal But Make It Zoom, 72 Va. L. Weekly 19 (2020).

Court of Petty Appeals: 1Ls v. God

---

1Ls v. God
73 U.Va 16 (2021)

Tonseth, P. delivered the opinion of the Court.

I.

Sunny skies, warm temperatures, and picnics on Copeley Field. Abundant wineries, the ability to manage a proper school/social balance, and a collegial atmosphere. What do all of these have in common, you ask? These were promises made to the current UVA Law 1L class at their admitted students weekend to lure them into paying for an overpriced Zoom School of Law Degree. While petitioners here have taken copious advantage of both the oversaturated wine market in Charlottesville and relied on their classmates in the truest sense of the Law School’s collegial atmosphere, their claim concerns the weather that has overtaken North Grounds, specifically the god-awful amount of snow recently. Never before has this esteemed Court had the privilege of deciding whether law students may enjoin God for preordained weather events, but no one is above the law, not even God himself. Although I relish the power I have bequeathed unto myself to rule against God if I really wanted to, I must rule against the 1Ls on both substantive grounds.[1]

II.

At the outset, God, through divine intervention, has requested this suit be dismissed for a lack of standing on the part of petitioners. God reasoned that 1Ls cannot possibly claim to be injured from the overbearingly cold, bleak, and grey weather lately. Nor have the large amounts of snow dampened their return to North Grounds. However, God forgot that “emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending school.”[2] Therefore, I find an injury in fact to establish standing, even if that’s a mere prudential aspect of jurisdiction. Against the objection raised by God that standing is a requirement of Article III, I rely on the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: “We do what we want.”[3] Again, standing schmanding, I want the power to hear this case and rule against the Divine.

III.

Like Lazarus rising from the dead, God decided to save his best trick for last. Pointing to our ruling in 1Ls Gunners v. Everyone Else, “1Ls always lose,”[4] and thus must do so here. While my 1L colleagues may wish to override this rule as tyrannical, unfair, un-collegial, mean-spirited, and the works, it is a keystone of this Court’s jurisprudence. Further, in my reign of terror on this bench, this Court will not imply that rights exist for 1Ls through substantive due process.[5] 1L is supposed to be hard. 1Ls already got an easier journal tryout, the ability to attend class from the comfort of their bedrooms, and the opportunity to avoid all of the embarrassing stories that would result from one bad night at Bar Review. It is beyond any sense of reason to lay at their feet the ability to enjoin God for the snowy weather on North Grounds.

Lake, D. concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Introduction

We are ruling today on whether or not to issue default judgement against cold, absent Defendant (hereinafter “God”) and in favor of the well-prepared, delightful, good-looking Plaintiffs (hereinafter “1Ls”). This collective action has united a fractured class against one true adversary—God Themselves, and the unconscionable weather They have wrought.[6]

Facts

It has been a long, long winter. Plaintiffs have borne a series of increasingly egregious slights with grace: first the death and decay of Charlottesville’s lovely foliage, then 4 p.m. sunsets, then finals, then people saying “don’t you love having seasons,” and finally bitter cold and gray settling over town like a blanket made by someone who took up crochet to help with their anxiety and made themselves hate-finish it.

            The record clearly shows Charlottesville is a Southern city, located in a Southern state, sold to prospective students as an idyllic mountain retreat. Google “UVA Law” and check through the images—how far do you have to scroll before you see snow?[7] Discovery has yielded testimony from at least one Floridian who was told “you can make it through the winters here with just a sweatshirt” and later had to chip actual ice off her windshield with an expired gift card on more than one occasion.[8]

Whose Injury Is It Anyway?

Me. It’s my injury. I have been injured by the snow, and so have the Plaintiffs. Justice Tonseth correctly concludes Plaintiffs have an actionable claim against God based on the extreme emotional toll the weather has inspired, but fails to mention the psychic turmoil 1Ls suffer as a direct result of the Law School’s deceptive advertising practices. Plaintiffs have cited expert witness testimony in support of their claim that this fraud was a matter of determinism, making God directly responsible. (See: Final Destination, 2000; David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature, (1739)).

Conclusion

Plaintiffs have a right to seek damages against God for both injuries, and this court ought to allow their case to proceed. We cannot rely purely on sweeping precedent established three whole years ago. The Justices who wrote 1L Gunners are long out of touch with modern times, and could not have predicted a winter such as this. This Court must let the 1Ls go.

Kulkarni, S. concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Both of my esteemed colleagues appropriately recognize that 1Ls have standing to bring this case. God is all-powerful but justice ranks one step above. Justice Lake appropriately recognized the emotional and psychic damages that Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of the action at issue, relating, in part, to the false recruitment strategies employed in the past year. But even she fails to consider the emotional harm from losing the ability to see other 1Ls outside. The Law School recommends that interactions between students occur in a way that is compliant to health protocols. Chief among these protocols is a recommendation to meet outside, at a distance. God is working directly contrary to these goals with extensive snowstorms and extreme cold weather.

            Beyond the level and scope of injury, the opinion of Justice Tonseth relies upon 1L Gunners, a case that continues to misdirect this court. In addition to pointing to this ridiculous precedent, Justice Tonseth claims that avoiding “all of the embarrassing stories that would result from one bad night at Bar Review” is a benefit that has accrued to 1Ls as a result of the tragedies of the past year. This one comment shows how far my esteemed colleague has strayed from the public with his devotion to one bad case; I am sure that Plaintiffs would appreciate the opportunity to enjoy an event such as Bar Review. Rights are not abrogated simply because of the class of people involved.

            In two years, Justice Tonseth will no longer be opining on this court. In two years, I shall remain steadfast in my devotion to the idea that 1L Gunners sets bad precedent and all decisions made following it should be held void.

            To conclude, Plaintiffs have an actionable claim and the Court should allow the case to proceed.

Schmid, J., concurring in the result.

I agree with Justice Tonseth that 1Ls cannot be granted the relief requested. I write separately to elaborate on two points. First, I am troubled by the attack upon our bedrock principle announced in 1L Gunners that “1Ls always lose.” As my time on this Court is nearing its end, I strive to ensure that stare decisis is respected and our precedents are not jettisoned willy-nilly by the younger members of this Court. The rule articulated in 1L Gunners has been a bedrock principle of this Court for as long as this justice can remember (read: since allll the way back to Fall 2018). This Court’s former Chief Justice Shmazzle[1] [9]proclaimed that the rule that 1Ls always lose is the “second-most important rule of this court” behind the principle that “we do what we want.” Such authoritative words should not be cast aside so hastily by the younger members of this court. Were we to overturn a “super-duper precedent”[10] such as 1L Gunners, I have concerns for this Court’s legitimacy. After all, the Court of Petty Appeals’ “power lies . . . in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception [that 1Ls always lose].”[11]

            To actually give some semblance of legal analysis, I believe, in any event, that the Plaintiffs have sued the wrong party. The party who controls the weather in Charlottesville is actually the person who sends the weather-related emails to the Law School community: Dean Stephen T. Parr. As such, Plaintiffs should have sued Dean Parr for any perceived weather-related grievances. On either grounds, and consistent with this Court’s precedent, 1Ls lose.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
ms3ru@virginia.edu

---

[1] This ruling may also be a duly-ordered penance for all of the shenanigans I engaged in at Bar Review.

[2] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22, 24 (2019).

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

[4] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019).

[5] NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports, 73 U.Va 9 (2020).

[6] Diddy Morris has cooled it on the survey requests, and the camaraderie she inspired has quickly dissolved.

[7] Really, really far. Suspiciously far.

[8] This brave, anonymous student is filing a separate claim against the lying liars who lied to her.

[9] And Deposed Newspaper Tyrant.

[10] That’s the technical term, right?

[11] I don’t think Justice O’Connor would mind this paraphrase.

Hot Bench: Whitney Carter '23

---

Whitney Carter ‘23

Interviewed by Jack Brown ‘23

Where are you from?

Seattle, Washington.

Where did you go to undergrad and what did you study there?
I went to a school called Whitworth University, which is in Spokane, Washington on the east side of the state. It’s a small liberal arts college, and I studied Communications and minored in Political Science.

What made you start thinking about law school?

I graduated early. Going into my last semester I thought, “Wow, I hate journalism, I do not want to do this anymore,” but it was too late for me to change my major and still graduate early. So I decided to join the Peace Corps to take some time to figure out what the next step was. While I was there, I decided to take the LSAT because the law seemed like a place where you can make a lot of change and that was something I always wanted to do.

Where were you stationed in the Peace Corps?

Ukraine, I taught English in a small village in Southwest Ukraine.

What was it like taking the LSAT in Ukraine?

It was difficult because I had intermittent Internet access and couldn’t buy books or take a class so I ended up only using used Powerscore books that someone had already written in and tried to study with that. The actual test was only offered once a year in the capital, so I had to take an overnight train and a bus to stay there for the weekend to get there and take it. I also took it on my birthday, which was kind of rough.

How did you get interested in Public Defense?

Brian Stevenson, who wrote Just Mercy and is well known within the public defense world, spoke at my school. After that, I read his book and thought, “Okay this is super cool, I want to do something like that.” At that point, it wasn’t necessarily public defense, but I wanted something where I could make an impact. Then, when I settled on the law I decided to go in that direction because that’s what he did.

How has it been pursuing public defense at UVA?

Initially, it felt very daunting. It can feel like there’s a Big Law push at UVA. But I’ve still been able to find my niche through both PILA and LPS. I have mentors who remind me that law school is only a step in the process and to remember why you’re here and what your goal is.

What has been your favorite 1L memory so far?

Not school related, but I got engaged right before the fall semester started. We got engaged on campus, which was beautiful and it's really cool because we both go to school here together.

Wow! What is the story behind that?

When we met we didn’t know that the other was going through the application process. It was on our first date that we found out. We just started dating knowing there were a lot of unknowns with where we were going to end up. Both of us intended to go to the best school we could get into and since we had very different interests in the law we only applied to three of the same schools.

Initially we were both going to be in D.C., which was going to be great because we’d both be together even if we wouldn’t be at the same school. Then I got in here, which was an incredible opportunity I couldn’t turn down. Luckily, right before we put down a deposit anywhere, he got in here and it was like, “Oh my gosh, it’s all meant to be.” Later we drove all the way out here [from Washington] to move in and got engaged on the steps of the Law School.

Okay now let’s do some lighting round questions, favorite food?

Thai food!

Favorite class from undergrad?

International Relations, but it was really just because I liked the professor.

Class you’d want to teach?

I'd probably just want to rant about the injustice in the criminal justice system. Something about bail or prison reform.

If not law school, what would you be doing?

I think I'd be working for a non-profit, doing some sort of service work. That was always kind of my path in general. 

Last movie you saw in theatres?

Just Mercy, Brian Stevenson’s movie. It was in February, right before everything shut down.

Last non-law book you read?

Over Christmas break I read Gideon’s Promise, which is about the Sixth Amendment right to public defenders. It all tracks I guess!

I definitely think you’re in the right place.

I know, right!

How do you de-stress?

I try to watch the trashiest TV imaginable. Right after finals, I watched the Real Housewives of New Jersey, which is my guilty pleasure. 

Do you have a favorite case?

Reiss v. New York—it’s the case where her boyfriend threw lye in her face and then they got married after that. Everything that happened around that case was absolutely insane.

If you could give yourself one piece of advice what would it be?

The best advice I’ve ever gotten was when I was fifteen, when my teacher told us to always surround ourselves with good people.

Any shoutouts?

Reidar and Weekend Thursdays.

---

wc5fe@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Froz T. Snowman v. Student Administration

---

Froz T. Snowman v. Student Administration
73 U.Va 15 (2021)

Pickett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Luk, C.J., Deskins, Calamaro, Luévano, Jones, JJ. Join.

I. Introduction

            Growing up in the Midwest, I had the privilege of experiencing some of the best days known to humankind: Snow Days. When the news would arrive that we had the day off from school, I would rush to get dressed in my warmest clothes before venturing outside to frolic with my neighbors. There would be sledding and snowball fights, followed by hot chocolate by warm fires. But, snow days in 2020/2021 are different. As the world has been forced online, it seems that there is never an excuse not to be working. And as schools embrace online learning, the question becomes: Why give people a snow day when we can all just attend class from the comfort of our own homes? That question is what brings us here today.

II. Facts

            On Sunday, January 30, 2021, snow fell upon Charlottesville, Virginia. In the lead up to that day, student Froz T. Snowman received an email that described the Law School’s inclement weather protocol. It indicated that classes could be canceled in the event of a snow day, or that they could all be moved online. Feeling as nostalgic for snow days of old as Conservatives are for Antonin Scalia dissents, Snowman sued UVA Law, hoping to enjoin them from moving classes online instead of giving students the snow day they deserve.

III. The Peter Pan Covenant

            The Peter Pan Covenant, widely known as You’re Never Too Old to Have Fun, provides that a student at rest stays at rest unless acted on by an outside force. When it snows, students default to rest. They deserve to curl up inside with a good book or movie and hot cocoa, or to go outside and have fun. And so, a snow day makes perfect sense—let students stay at rest before pushing them back into the exhausting world of law school.

            Respondents today (UVA Law) seek to overturn the Peter Pan Covenant, claiming that there is no right to rest or to have fun. They’ve already taken Spring Break and spread it out over the whole semester, but they aren’t done yet. They want all fun gone.

            But the Peter Pan Covenant is as old as the Cold Call. For as long as there has been misery, there has been fun, and the Peter Pan Covenant has always been this Court’s way of enforcing ~some~ kind of work life balance. And so today we reiterate the legality and importance of the doctrine. If UVA Law finds the weather bad enough to cancel in-person classes, it must cancel classes of all kinds. Let the kids play.[1]

IV. Standing

            Unfortunately for Snowman, however, I am taking Federal Courts this semester. So, I have standing on my mind. And in this case, I can’t find standing for Snowman. There are two major issues with Snowman’s case. First, UVA Law didn’t put all hybrid classes online on Monday. It only put hybrid classes online that started before 10:00 a.m. And people who take in-person classes before 10:00 a.m. don’t, to be frank, deserve standing in any case. This Justice is not an early riser and I object to any show of favor toward early risers. Plus, as the concurrence points out, it mostly affected 1Ls and 1Ls always losing is a staple underpinning of the Court of Petty Appeals. If we let 1Ls win, then we are opening the door to a slippery slope of giving 1Ls rights.

            The second issue is that this case is based on a hypothetical. I don’t know a lot about standing, but I do know that courts generally shouldn’t decide hypothetical cases on hypothetical issues. Something about separation of powers and Article III. If I could decide hypothetical cases, though, I would absolutely #FreeBritney. So, until UVA Law actually moves all classes online because of the snow, I simply can’t make a ruling.

V. Conclusion

            While I have sadly ruled against Snowman in this case, I would like to make my position perfectly clear. IF UVA Law cancels all in-person classes, but does not give us a snow day, then a law student would be able to sue and they would win in this case. But sadly, that hasn’t happened yet. And if it does, I look forward to seeing you all out in front of the Law School for a socially distant snowball fight.

J., Tonseth concurs in part, dissents in part.

            “I do not join the Court’s opinion because I am not sure what it means.”[2] These hallowed words by my former colleague on the Supreme Court ring equally as true in this case. From my humble vantage point atop my ivory tower, I cannot stand for this attempted besmirchment of justice. Jurisprudentially, there are almost as many holes in Justice Pickett’s opinion as there are emails from Diddy Morris in my junkmail folder.[3] Justice Pickett “tells us, by a process of retrospective crystal-ball gazing posing as legal analysis,”[4] that Froz T. Snowman lacks standing. Standing shcmanding. However, Froz’s farcical pseudo-legal analysis is just plain bad. Therefore, I half-heartedly concur.

            Since over one-third of every UVA Law’s graduating class works in New York City, how about we apply some New-York-specific law and see how the Petitioners like those apples?[5] Section 4528 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules states that “any record of the observations of the weather, taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated.” In the case at hand, however, petitioners fail to rely on the required weather data from a certified bureau to establish the prima facie case.[6] If Froz is attempting to use the weather data from the events of the snow day, which occurred on Sunday, and apply it to the following day of class, then the petitioners’ desired outcome would be a classic case of judicial overreach. Further, after a cursory look at LawWeb, there are only two Monday morning classes that were detrimentally affected prior to the School opening up at 10:00.[7] Because “1Ls always lose” is a founding doctrine of the Court of Petty Appeals, I find no merit in these petitioners being able to argue their case successfully.

            As a sheer matter of principle, and dare I say laziness, Justice Pickett would attempt to implement  a snow-day solely  to avoid attending class, even though he only Zooms from home.[8] This inclination to cancel classes goes against prior precedent advocating for more snacks from the school, additional access to Seminar rooms, and decreased tuition due to the transition from in-person classes to Zoom. Rivaling Veruca Salt in sheer audacity, the majority demands all of these treats from the Law School, for a reduced price, while also apparently attending school even less than a normal second-semester 3L. If this makes sense to any lawyer beyond Rudy Giuliani, God help us and this profession. Time for Froz T. Snowman and his problems to melt away.

---

shp8dz@virginia.edu 

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1]The concurrence claims that I am attempting to attend school even less than a normal second semester 3L. He is correct.

[2] Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880 (1981) (J. Powell, concurring).

[3] Yes, I still filled these out, but Google auto-sorted them anyways.

[4] Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (J. Scalia, dissenting).

[5] While I personally love big apples, I will only eat granny smith apples. Sue me.

[6] Tbh I have no idea what “prima facie case” even means, still. Let’s hope I’m never a litigator.

[7] RIP to the 1Ls who have ConLaw at 8 a.m. on a Monday. Woof.

[8] Two points should be made here: a) Justice Pickett and I have an RBG/Scalia relationship off of the Court & 2) he’s a 3L, do you expect anything less?

Hot Bench: Austin George '23

---

Austin George ‘23

Interviewed by Jonathan Peterson ‘23

Who are you, where are you from, and how did you end up at law school?

I’m Austin George, I’m a 1L originally from Alabama, but I moved to Georgia, so both are home for me. Funnily enough, I’ve wanted to do tax law since I was in high school.

How did you get started with Taekwondo?

I started when I was five because it was mandatory in my family. My grandfather came to the U.S. from Korea in 1965, and he began the tradition. Back when he started learning in 1946, Taekwondo was reserved for adults. So, he had to beg to just to get beaten up by adults. When he was born, relations between Korea and Japan were strained. His father went to Japan to work, where he ended up dying. My grandfather grew up in Japan and, when he came back to Korea after World War II, he only spoke Japanese. Everyone at school bullied him. He didn’t even know enough Korean to explain his situation. Essentially, he got so angry about being called a “Japanese bastard” that he wanted to beat up the kids doing it, so he learned Taekwondo. By the time he came to the U.S. he was a Master, and was one of the first Grandmasters in the U.S. He had his children study Taekwondo, starting at the age of five. His children did the same, so, it’s been a tradition in my family now for three generations.

What’s Taekwondo’s history like?

Taekwondo’s history is interesting; it isn’t very old in terms of its actual formation. Of course, the principles and foundations are ancient, it’s rooted in karate and tang soo do, which I believe was actually Chuck Norris’s foundation. One of the original founders, Choi, had to flee due to a gambling debt he owed a wrestler. He trained in karate while in Japan and, upon returning to Korea, Choi had a reputation in martial arts and the wrestler left him alone.

That led to an idea: If martial arts can empower a small man, maybe it can empower a small nation. Korea then founded World Taekwondo as its most prominent martial art. My grandfather did not have high opinions of Choi, who ended up unhappy with the direction Taekwondo was headed. Choi felt he was not getting the recognition he deserved, so he formed ITF (International Taekwon-do Federation)  in North Korea. A relative of Choi’s formed the other branch of ITF which basically didn’t agree with World Taekwondo but didn’t want to be involved with North Korea.

Chuck Norris?

Well, Chuck Norris and my grandfather were actually good friends. My grandfather moved to California and, at that time, Norris was a motorcycle cop there. Norris actually sought out my grandfather to work on his wheel kick.

What’s the difference between World Taekwondo and ITF?

In the mid-60s, World Taekwondo would put on demonstration teams, and they still do to this day. Now, they do these incredible routines with high kicks, flips, even some dancing. When my grandfather was doing demonstrations, he was smashing rocks with his head. It was impressive, but in a totally different way—it was much more about displaying strength and pain tolerance. As World Taekwondo advanced, they wanted to make sparring both pleasing to an audience and safer for the combatants. ITF is really focused on combat, not so much flash and spin.

What does a World Taekwondo practitioner do?

Most people focus on one or two competitions. I specialized in sparring and forms. As a kid, I was better at forms, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve become more interested in sparring. I think starting at such a young age hurt me, I was always sparring kids older in class which hurt my confidence. But my parents were really hard about good technique, so I tended to do well in forms.

Good tournament stories?

I was still a blue belt and I’d never practiced forms so hard for a competition. For some reason, my mom told me not to forget that I needed to practice. I swear to this day she cursed me. At the tournament, I forgot everything. I got dead last. I was so mad that I decided I had to win sparring. I’d never gone into sparring with that attitude before, and that tournament was the first time I ever knocked somebody out, and I won sparring too. I didn’t win sparring often, so to get last in forms and first in sparring, that always stuck out to me.

Did you ever want to quit?

Yeah, actually, I hated Taekwondo as a kid. That changed in high school. I started training with my uncle and I guess there’s a difference between training your nephew and training your son. He was just a more fun teacher. I’d always had an unspoken agreement with my mom that, when I graduated high school, I could do what I wanted with Taekwondo. But, by the time I went off to college, I loved Taekwondo. It’ll be a part of me forever.

And, as credit to my mother because I did just say she wasn’t a fun teacher, she was much more balanced with my training than her father was with her. She competed in the 1988 Olympic trials. She was the 1989 collegiate athlete of the year in forms and sparring. At one point she was ranked #1 in the world in forms despite splitting her time. She trained for hours every day as a kid, I only trained twice a week. She loves Taekwondo, but not in the same way as I do. She still does it now but that’s in part because it’s what she knows. I feel lucky to say that I still do Taekwondo because I truly love it and want to keep pursuing it. My mom didn’t even want me competing past black belt—all she wanted was for me to experience competition at each belt-level. But now, I know I’ll compete again, and that’s my choice. I feel like I’m able to make that choice because my mom was balanced in my training.

---

ajg4pk@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Loiterers v. The Powers That Be

---

Loiterers v. The Powers That Be
73 U.Va 14 (2021)

Lake, D. writing for the majority.

            The question before the Court is whether the powers that be (in this case the shadowy cabal secretly governing the University of Virginia School of Law) (hereafter “the Administration”), acted within their proper authority by banning loiterers (hereafter “the Students”) from seminar rooms for the Spring 2021 semester.

The answer this court has reached is an emphatic no.

I.

The 2020 Fall semester showed remarkable resilience from students, professors, administrators, and most notably, custodial services.[1] UVA Law entered winter break with no significant COVID-19 outbreaks and an increasingly sophisticated system of prevention/response. By the end of the semester, this system included random prevalence testing, restricted library hours, a school-wide mask mandate, and a restriction on eating and drinking outside the designated sacrificial cesspool (hereafter “ScoCo”).

In search of the barest scraps of community, students utilized seminar rooms to take Zoom courses with classmates and to study between class a healthy six feet apart. Some students[2] did not comply with the restriction on eating and drinking in seminar rooms. Discovery has yielded reports of students taking bites of a “granola bar,” sipping “water,” and “vaping.” Plaintiffs do not contest these findings.

Beginning in the Spring 2021 semester, all preventive measures from the successful Fall semester were put into effect, along with a new ordinance suspending student seminar room access—indefinitely. Administration buried their notice of closure at the bottom of one of a dozen Return-to-Grounds emails students received mid-January, citing “persistent non-compliance with protocols” as their justification.[3] It is this regulation the Plaintiffs seek to overturn.

Plaintiffs failed to include a claim of improper notice with their amended complaint, so this case turns exclusively on how far the Administration’s executive power extends.[4]

II.

Some have argued that it is not the judiciary’s place to interject in disputes between the executive and legislature, but the seminal case Marbury v. City of Madison, Wisconsin (1803) set the precedent for judicial review of non-political actions. Closing the seminar rooms was unpredictable, unpopular, and poorly executed: the classic signs of political action. Digging a bit deeper, we find this to be a legal action subject to judicial review, because of how the regulation infringes on the enumerated rights of the legislature to make all laws necessary and proper for execution of “all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”[5] As Baker v. Sedan (1962) affirmed, the judiciary has the final say on whether another branch has exceeded their authority.

While the Code of Virginia allows for any locality to pass an ordinance prohibiting “loitering in, upon or around any public place, whether on public or private property” (Va. Code § 15.2-926 (2020)), a quick scan[6] of the Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville Code of Ordinances reveals no such regulations. Even if such regulations did exist, anti-loitering ordinances are often unconstitutionally vague and overbroad anyway.[7]

Thus, if an ordinance might be passed that does not infringe on due process, it would be the province of the legislature and not accomplished with executive action. The unilateral, indefinite closure of whole sections of the Law School by the Administration clearly violates that most sacred principle of separation of powers. 

III.

Why, then, did this Court grant a writ of certiorari and invest several hours of time thinking of legal puns instead of dismissing the case? You might be familiar with the phrase unprecedented times. It would be improper to proceed without considering the role of the executive in times of emergency.

Is the Law School in a state of emergency? Obviously not, or we would be 100 percent online. To avoid jinxing the delicate peace the School has maintained, we are willing to sprinkle in some nuance; COVID-19 is the most serious public health crisis America has faced since the beginnings of the opioid epidemic. It needs to be addressed through consistent, broad, and proactive measures. This Court can acknowledge the invaluable contribution of many state governors to stopping the spread and saving lives by implementing mask mandates, curfews, and restricting gatherings when their legislatures were unable or unwilling to act. The Administration has certainly been admirable in their commitment to similar measures.

The Students do not protest the mask mandate, they do not protest the limited library hours,[8] and they do not protest the six-person gathering limit or the six feet of space needed to social distance. These measures, while outside the normal power of the Administration, are tolerated and even encouraged by Plaintiffs. Students protest only the very silly idea that ScoCo has a magic barrier around it that COVID-19 cannot cross but the seminar rooms do not. If students are permitted to eat and drink six feet away from each other in the toxic airspace of ScoCo, filled with a constantly fluctuating population of students, it doesn’t make sense to this Justice as to why the same safety standard is not met in the comparatively more restricted environment of a seminar room, which might have three students or so at a time. 

The double standard is confusing and appears to be totally arbitrary. Unless the Administration has a better argument than the one presented (such as, maintaining the enhanced cleaning standard for so many rooms was unduly burdensome on custodial services) we would like to hear it.

* * *

Because the powers that be nonetheless lack the authority to enact such far-reaching, strange, unusual, and/or cruel regulations by executive action, we must grant the relief prayed for by the Plaintiffs. An injunction directing the immediate unlocking of all seminar rooms is thus ordered.

The Court compromises with the needs of the Administration by consenting to sentence any student caught vaping inside to corporal punishment in Spies Garden.  

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

---

[1] Custodial services have gone above and beyond the call of duty in meeting the new disinfectant and safety requirements on top of regular duties and we love them.

[2] You know who you are.

[3] Can you Bluebook emails? Please respond quickly, journal try-outs are fast approaching.

[4] Ignoring for the sake of argument the iron-fisted autocracy the Administration runs.

[5] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8., but you should really be familiar with this by now.

[6] This Justice has a ten-page paper not yet begun at the time of this writing due very soon, so an investigative standard of “cursory” was approved by the Chief Justice.

[7] See City of Chicago v. Morales 527 U.S. 41 (1999), the only crim law case this Justice has committed to memory.

[8] The record shows at least one incident of a Justice being shut in the library and all the lights turned out on her with NO WARNING while taking an evening class, but can agree she should have paid more attention to the altered hours notification.

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...