Student Dicta: A Brief Introduction to Unoriginal Textualism

---

Jacob Smith ‘23
Professor Liaison Editor

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. Professors interested in submitting or being featured in a piece are invited to contact the Professor Liaison Editor, Jacob Smith (js3hp@virginia.edu).

What is “unoriginal textualism”? Exactly what it sounds like. Instead of looking to the past, Professor Frederick Shauer thinks that we should look to what the Constitution’s text means now in interpreting it.[1]

            It is worth starting with how “unoriginal” or “contemporary meaning” textualism differs from originalism. Originalists are generally textualists who think that the language, the text, of the Constitution should constrain governmental actors. Unoriginal textualism agrees with that premise. But originalists also believe that the meaning of the Constitution’s text was fixed at the time of ratification: the words mean now what they meant “originally.” Professor Schauer’s insight is that one can be a textualist who views the constitutional text as authoritative and constraining without accepting fixation, without looking to the text’s past meaning to understand the text.

            At first glance, this proposal might seem baffling. What do you gain by swapping out the eighteenth-century (or nineteenth-century) meaning of a word for its twenty-first-century meaning? One might think that judicial wisdom accrues over time, resulting in the evolution of a better, higher form of our Constitution under a common-law constitutionalist approach. But no one directs the evolution of the English language. Why entrust the meaning of the Constitution to a rather random process?

            But, as it turns out, Professor Schauer’s paper operates under the assumption that in “most cases,” the difference between original and modern meaning “will turn out to be inconsequential.” Even when the modern meaning of the text turns out to be vague or underdetermined, it will be because the original meaning of the text was also vague or underdetermined. Unoriginal textualism is not a movement aimed at changing the substantive meaning of, say, the Second Amendment.

            Instead, the thrust is methodological: lawyers, judges, and public officials forced to grapple with the constitutional text can rely on their own impressions of how the English language works. They can look at a modern dictionary instead of an eighteenth-century dictionary. Busy lawyers will find the Constitution more accessible because they do not need to treat it as an ancient text written in a different tongue. There will be no need for judges to become “amateur historians.”

            Making the Constitution more accessible is important to the constitutional purpose of constraining government officials. We want government officials to obey the Constitution and accept its constraints, even when judges are not yet looking over their shoulders. Now, in practice, government officials generally do follow the Constitution when its text is straightforward and easy to understand. For example, presidents do not run for third terms and defy the judiciary to remove them from office.

            Unfortunately, much of our Constitution is not straightforward, but vague. Therefore, it is less effective at directly constraining government officials. Congress has passed laws directly conflicting with Supreme Court precedent interpreting less lucid Constitutional language. One example is the Flag Protection Act, which was passed just weeks after Texas v. Johnson (which found flag-burning to be protected speech) and was predictably struck down within a year. When I asked Professor Schauer why officials would do such a thing, he explained it as a logical calculation: voters care much more about short term political goals than long-term fealty to the constitution. No politician will lose votes for passing popular legislation that later turns out to be unconstitutional.

            Of course, it’s too late to rewrite the Constitution to make it clearer. But how we interpret the Constitution today can make its meaning more or less accessible. When the Supreme Court considers an issue, it can hand down clear decisions to better constrain and guide government officials. But when a constitutional issue has not been adjudicated, the government officials and their lawyers will have to interpret the Constitution for themselves. At that point, a method of constitutional interpretation that is “actually usable,” that allows us to rely on our knowledge of contemporary English, will make the Constitution’s meaning more accessible, more straightforward, and more constraining.

            Whether you think contemporary meaning textualism is a good idea or a bad one, you can certainly learn a lot from Professor Schauer’s paper. Perhaps the biggest takeaway for me was simply how important it is that law constrains, even when no one bothers to bring a lawsuit. Rules do most of their work without a judge ever getting involved: for every traffic ticket there are thousands of maneuvers, lawful and unlawful, the police never see. That important function is worth considering when thinking of how judges should judge and lawmakers legislate.

            And it is worth remembering that law school is hard for a reason. Even lawyers often find it difficult to figure out what the law is, especially in the context of constitutional law. Government officials (and other non-lawyers) desperately need lawyerly aid both to understand what the law requires and why it is important to comply. That’s an important responsibility--even if it doesn’t require becoming an amateur historian.

---

js3hp@virginia.edu

---

[1] Professor Schauer argues for this position in his paper, Unoriginal Textualism, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3911956 and forthcoming in the George Washington Law Review.

Court of Petty Appeals: UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth

---

UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth
74 U.Va 10 (2021)

Morse, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is with a heavy heart that we consider the case before us today. This Court is charged with upholding justice, and today we are faced with a dire threat to this mission arising from the pinnacle of our Court: the Chief Justice himself. The Plaintiffs, every single student at the University of Virginia School of Law, have brought a class-action lawsuit against Chief Justice Phil Tonseth for fraudulent misrepresentation and are seeking i) mandatory hard labor and cultural reeducation training, to be carried out in the Darden basement;[1] ii) an injunction preventing any writing by Chief Justice Tonseth until such reeducation is complete; and iii) compensatory damages in the form of a ceremonial quilt made of all of Chief Justice Tonseth’s crop-tops, short-shorts, and ¼ sleeve hoodies. The District Court of Petty Appeals, calling this “a no-brainer,” granted a directed verdict for Plaintiffs. The Circuit Court of Petty Appeals reversed, in an opinion whose footnotes appear to be a code indicating that Chief Justice Tonseth was physically hovering over the judge while repeatedly whispering “MY Thunderdome.”[2] In response to this miscarriage of justice and the Circuit Judge’s desperate plea for help, we reverse the Circuit Court’s erroneous decision and order the defendant to report to the Darden basement immediately.

            The Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Chief Justice Tonseth “made multiple, aggressively confident representations that he possessed a sufficient amount of cultural knowledge such that he was qualified to write in and run the Virginia Law Weekly.” The evidence the Plaintiffs offered to support this claim is Chief Justice Tonseth’s recent misidentification of Dennis Villeneuve’s Dune, as “just another Marvel movie.” But what say you, astute and skeptical reader – couldn’t this have been a slip of the tongue? And even if it wasn’t a mistake, is it really indicative of the Chief Justice’s hilarious, woeful, and glaringly deficient grasp of the cultural zeitgeist? First, yes.[3] Second, as Watergate showed us, small mistakes can begin investigations which lead you down a path revealing hitherto unheard-of levels of corruption and vice.

            While I could spend buckets of ink detailing all the unnerving similarities between President Nixon and Chief Justice Tonseth, that’s not why we’re here today. The sad, simple fact is that if Chief Justice Tonseth had only insulted Dune, Plaintiffs wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But the Chief Justice’s long history of cultural calumny, seemingly without end, can broadly be organized into three categories of offenses. The first category consists of all the movies that the Chief Justice has identified as a “superpeople, Marvel movie,” including Star Wars, The Titanic, Call Me by Your Name, Mad Max, and The Pianist. The second category is the Chief Justice’s refusal to read any news source that is not Barstool Sports or Buzzfeed.[4] The third and final category is what you could call, boomer-lite references. This category is where I admittedly find myself somewhat sympathetic to the Chief Justice’s position, as I am myself, like the Chief Justice, nearly 30 years old and have a penchant for references to terrible 80’s action movies and 90’s MTV series.[5]

            We concur with the Trial Court’s determination that the preponderance of evidence standard was met by the above evidence, and now move to explore the broader motivations and implications of this decision. Leaving aside the difficulties of being a newspaper editor when you’re the young-body-old-mind Benjamin Button, adrift in a world you no longer recognize or relate to, there is the added weight of the responsibility that the Law Weekly and this Court have in upholding the law of UVA. The law is the expression and operationalization of society’s norms. A society’s norms are grounded in its culture. If the Chief Justice willfully does not inhabit the same culture, how can he possibly rule on matters of importance to the Law School? Indeed, how has he managed to do so to this point?[6]

            This brings us to the first of two conclusions: that this Court does its best to bring the Chief Justice’s reign of terror to an end and admit our own complicity. To paraphrase Succession[7] how much those of us who executed the Chief Justice’s wishes is for another day, but I think this is the day his reign ends.

            The second, and more important of the two impacts of today is that this Court finally, inexorably, and triumphantly overturns its long-standing precedent handed down in the Court’s decision in 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else 939 U. Va. 111 (2019) that 1L’s lose.[8] Given that 1/3 of the plaintiffs in this case are 1Ls we cannot possibly rule in their favor without abandoning this precedent. While the need to do justice in the immediate case provides overwhelming support for this decision, the truth is that my disdain for stare decisis outside of decisions which I signed onto and my own self-interest as a 1L, is the driving force here. Let the reign of the 1Ls commence![9]

It is so ordered.

Reyna, J., concurring.

I join my colleague, Justice Morse, in full on this important cultural matter. However, I must issue this concurrence to admonish most of the UVA Law public at large in addition to Chief Justice Tonseth specifically.

            Mr. Chief Justice, I’m not disappointed, I’m just mad. Where should I even begin: should it be at your comically inadequate knowledge on what even is or isn’t a superhero movie, or at your general ambivalence towards putting in the effort to watch Star Wars? I consider both infractions to be categorically determinative of perpetual guilt from henceforth.

            Now I must speak to the UVA Law general student body. While it is true most of you are incredibly busy with your heavy course load and light social lives, I know for a fact that all of you binged Squid Game in one night but still have yet to see iconic, generation-defining content. While I try to do my small part of dragging as many people as I can to watch films like Dune and, Shang-Chi, and forcing people to watch Revenge of the Sith until they admit it’s the best Star Wars film, I am but one person who can only do so much. If you’re looking for an escape from Law School, and I know you are, I am officially mandating that everyone, if they want to, voluntarily go appreciate the one-of-a-kind experience of watching a great movie for the first time.

Kulkarni, J., concurring.

I don’t need to see any of the other opinions to write my own. Is the Chief Justice missing key portions of cultural knowledge? Yes. Is it incredibly biased and inappropriate that he gets to write an opinion? Absolutely. Should he be sued for other reasons as well? No question. This Court exists to hold the school accountable and if we cannot hold our own to the same standard, then we are derelict in our duties. Do better, Mr. Chief Justice, because if given the chance, Justices Birch and Wunderli will join me for the most scathing majority opinion ever.

Tonseth, C.J., dissenting.

If you come at the king, you best not miss.[10] While this first and foremost will be my catchphrase once I’m cast to be on a Real Housewives show, it equally applies today. All of the Associate Justices who swung and missed today should’ve ensured that they had proper standing before they started, as they definitely got caught slipping.

            I don’t even need to bother myself with reading their “opinions.” They’ll probably attempt to dismiss my trope about standing by quoting Professor Re’s “standing shcmanding” philosophy, or arguing that as the benevolent dictator of Big Brother, I allowed this case to proceed in the first place. To that, they are correct. You don’t simply refuse to play a game against a toddler, knowing you’ll ultimately win in the end. They need to have some hope, some belief that they have a chance.[11]

            Even as I’ve let this case proceed, and even though there is no standing to sue an individual, let alone me, the benevolent overlord, the reason for this suit is as preposterous as thinking student leaders can change national level policies of their parent organizations.[12] Because I don’t dedicate my time to staring at a screen and watching people in tights perform magical acts, I’m in the wrong? Color me jaded, but I’d rather focus on, idk, being outside, sipping some red wine and catching a sunset, or watching Love Island while I cuddle with cats. For this purpose, I concur with the dissent of Justices Bninski and Lake, as there’s so many other good reasons to throw shade my way. Forewarning, I have made Pit Vipers a new part of my brand, so better make sure your shade is good enough to get through.

            The final attempt by the pluralities here to discredit my untarnishable name is to claim I, as Chief Justice of this esteemed Court, should recuse myself from a case about myself. That’s absolute hogwash. The first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure is “We do what we want.”[13] As I convened this Court, was democratically elected to my post, and have nobody to stop me, this need to recuse myself falls short of anything that could be deemed coherent.

            Do better, plurality, you got into UVA Law for a reason. The pedantic arguments you make today are soiling that decision by the Administration.

Bninski, J., and Lake, J., dissenting.

There are so many other reasons to sue the Chief Justice.[14] Have you met him? Lack of Marvel knowledge is the least of his crimes.

J. Wunderli, dissenting. 

I’m not surprised Chief Justice Tonseth doesn’t know the difference between Marvel and Pixar; he is probably paying much more attention to the lady next to him on the couch than any movie. I would’ve sued him for calling full-grown adults “kiddos,” or wearing Pit Vipers and crop-tops to softball, and for that reason I respectfully dissent. Additionally, J. Morse insinuating that 1Ls have actual rights makes the Chief Justices of old roll in their graves. Back in my day, 1Ls were not allowed to even write COPAs, let alone unilaterally grant themselves rights. You will learn one day, young padawan.

---

cpg9jy@virginia.edu
agr5ag@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
amb6ag@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu
nw7cz@virginia.edu

---

[1] AKA “The North Korea of North Grounds”

[2]https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2021/3/3/welcome-to-the-thunderdome-chief-justice-phil-tonseth-takes-the-gavel

[3] And if you don’t watch it, there is pleeeennttyy of room in the basement of Darden for you too.

[4] The Chief Justice’s most recent, timely article he shared: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamiejirak1/which-og-power-ranger-matches-your-personality-3dxnr. My Power Ranger is red.

[5] TRL, Yo! MTV Raps, and Headbangers Ball. Walk a mile in my shoes before passing judgement, my youthful readers.

[6] See Chief Justice Tonseth’s dissent in Students v. Labor, Generally 73 U.Va 4 (2020); the Chief Justice’s opinions in 3LOLs v. Gunners 73 U.Va. 10, 2020 and Entitled Millennials v. Student Affairs 73 U.Va 3 (2020).

[7] Chief Justice Tonseth, Google it. (Chief Justice Tonseth, Google is like an encyclopedia, but on the computer. You’ll love it.)

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse

[9] Chief Justice here. This entire paragraph is just dicta. 1Ls will always lose. Sorry kiddos.

[10] RIP in Power.

[11] Laughing in 3LOL.

[12] This will probably be the only time I openly, however begrudgingly, defend FedSoc. However, students can only do so much.

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

[14] While conceding the existence of abundant reason to sue the Chief Justice, we question whether this Court can, in fact, legitimately exercise authority over the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. This of course has nothing to do with us cherishing the protection of executive privilege.

Hot Bench: Dawn Davison

---

Dawn Davison

Interviewed by Anna Bninksi ‘23

Dawn Davison recently joined the Law School staff as a Director of Public Service, and kindly took the time for a short interrogation by the Law Weekly.

Welcome to the Hot Bench, Dawn! To start off, where are you from? 

I was born in Alabama, and I grew up in New Mexico. I’ve been in Virginia since 2004.

What drew you to study law? 

I first became interested in the law when I participated in a mock trial in fifth grade. A classmate’s father was an attorney for the ACLU and he orchestrated the whole thing. I was selected to be one of the attorneys. At that point, I gave up on my plan to become an astronaut and never looked back!

Before coming here to UVA, you worked at the Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center (VCRRC), a nonprofit that focuses on death penalty cases. What was that work like? How did it feel to see Virginia abolish the death penalty earlier this year? 

When I was hired by VCRRC, I felt like I won the lottery. I had decided I wanted to do death penalty work while I was in law school, and I was thrilled to line up that job after my clerkship. Capital work combines two of the things I love most about the law—intricate legal problems and one-on-one work with clients. It taxes your intellectual abilities and your social abilities. When Virginia abolished the death penalty, it also commuted the death sentences of the two people remaining on death row. Both men were my clients, so when the bill passed I felt a tremendous sense of relief and lightness. We had worked their cases hard enough to keep them alive long enough to benefit from the legislation.  

It's quite a leap from capital representation to working here at the Law School! What are you excited for in your new position? And what are your wildest hopes and dreams for working with students aiming for public service careers? 

I am so excited to be working with law students at the beginning of their careers. I enjoyed my time with interns in my last office—talking to them about their plans for the future, listening to them process what they had learned in our office, and hearing from them after they graduated. This job will allow me to continue those conversations on a much larger scale. For those students working toward careers in public service, my hopes are that they leave UVA Law elated by the prospect of starting their dream jobs and reasonably confident in their abilities to do good work (overconfidence is a curse!). Although, my wildest dream would be to send out a graduating class comprised only of public service attorneys and private attorneys with robust plans for pro bono work!

On to some lighter questions. What's the worst advice you ever heard about law school or getting a legal job? 

Before law school, I worked as a legal assistant at a law firm. One of the attorneys suggested I read One L before I started law school. Truly terrible advice.

How about the best advice? 

My criminal procedure professor told my class, “You may not always be the smartest person in the room, but you can always be the most prepared person in the room.” He meant courtroom, but I think it’s sound advice for any room.

Do you have any pets?

I have two rescue pets—a Schnoodle named Joy and a cat named Charlie.

Since the VCRRC is also in Charlottesville, were you already based here, and if so, for how long? What do you think law students should be sure to do before graduating and leaving?

I’ve lived in Charlottesville for more than thirteen years. Before law students graduate and leave, they should eat pizza at Dr. Ho’s, go for a hayride at Albemarle Ciderworks during the Apple Harvest Festival, and get a gelato at Splendora’s.

If you weren't a lawyer, what would you like to do? 

I would love to narrate audiobooks!

Lightning round! 

What's your favorite movie? 

Legally Blonde

Dessert? 

Peanut butter cheesecake

Charlottesville lunch spot?

Milan Indian Cuisine

Pet peeve? 

The use of unnecessary quotation marks and capital letters

Relaxing activity? 

Spending time with my friends and family

---

ddavison@law.virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle

---

UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle
74 U.Va 9 (2021)

J. Wunderli delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is with a heavy heart that this Court once again has to defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal. In the past, this Court has dealt with a myriad of issues, ranging from the cafeteria to the free food table. In many respects, these issues have been rather mundane and predictable. Occasionally, a change in snack options will draw the ire of the Court. (See e.g., Students v. Small Bag of Goldfish). In other instances, a free food table thief will be brought to our attention and swiftly apprehended (See Students v. 1L Cookie Monster). The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a catastrophic shortage of free food that has threatened the very survival of some of the law school’s most prolific mooches.[1]

            The issue before the Court today transcends many of the bounds of prior cases for one reason: Chipotle is not free. Not only do the students of UVA Law have to spend hard-earned federal loan dollars on their burrito bowls, but Chipotle has consistently and egregiously failed to deliver the promised product. While the pandemic provided a convenient excuse for many of the problems the Barracks Road Chipotle has faced, this Court will no longer tolerate this level of negligence over a year and a half after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. The complaints presented to this Court are as follow:

• Frequent and random closures without prior notice.

• Extremely long and inconsistent wait times for online orders.

• In-store dining closures without notice.

• Failure to stock food items ranging from peppers to black beans, without offering any remedy.

• Charging money for water when they were out of regular water cups.

• COVID-19 guidelines that inexplicably change on a seemingly day-to-day basis.

• General lack of cleanliness and order.

The Complainants have offered compelling and comprehensive evidence backing all of the alleged wrongs. In what has been a largely bipartisan issue, law students from all walks of life have come together to protest, some even venturing to McDonald’s across the street to demonstrate their solidarity. It is common sense that an established chain restaurant must be held to a higher standard than, let’s say, the Dean of Snacks, who has little to gain from catering to all of our idiosyncratic palates. And yet, where the Dean of Snacks consistently delivers, Chipotle does not. Imagine the uproar that occurs when a greedy 1L has to settle for Chex Mix instead of Goldfish? Or when SBA only has one keg at a Spies Garden social? While these actions may constitute ordinary negligence, the actions of the Barracks Road Chipotle rise to the level of gross negligence.

Pictured: Exhibit A. Photo Courtesy of Nate Wunderli '22

            The Respondent argues that if students do not want to go to Chipotle, they have other options and can go somewhere else. Far from offering an apology to students, Chipotle attempts to paint the students as the party at fault for choosing to eat at their restaurant. Just go eat Chick-fil-A, they say. Or eat a McDonald’s $3 bundle, that, as of last week, is now $3.50. Or spend $15 on a burger and fries at Five Guys. This argument has no merit for several reasons. First, students have no way of knowing when the Chipotle is closed. Students might very well choose to eat somewhere else if they knew that Chipotle was closed. But now said student has to walk all the way up to the Chipotle, stare in dismay at the “Store Closed” sign, before plodding back to their car and driving somewhere else. Students also have no way of knowing when the store is out of peppers, beans, or cups until they’ve survived the line and are waiting to order. Some students rely on Chipotle for their daily consumption of vegetables, only to find the vegetables conspicuously missing in action. Respondent also ignores the fact that students often do not have a lot of time, and therefore are confined to the limited options in the Barracks shopping center. If you want something reasonably healthy yet also filling, Chipotle may be the only option.

            As a franchised business, Chipotle owes its customers a certain duty of care. When one enters a franchise, they have certain expectations that arise from reputation and having been to other stores of the same franchise. One of the reasons franchises are able to be so successful is that consistency and familiarity, which in turn breeds loyalty and trust. Through what can only be described as extreme mismanagement or an intentional lack of care, this Chipotle has breached the trust of its most vulnerable customer, debt-ridden UVA Law students, and therefore is liable to the plaintiff students in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, the extent of these damages to be decided by a jury.

Stephens, J. concurring.

I write separately to affirm the Court’s jurisdiction over Chipotle. The majority ignores this essential feature of the brief for the defendant, which spends much of its time insisting that “there must be some mistake” and “this must be some kind of joke.”[2] No, it is not some kind of joke. The Court of Petty Appeals must maintain its dignity and composure, even in light of the insolence of the brief for the defendant. [3]

            The Court of Petty Appeals possesses the power of judicial review for “any and all decisions, conflicts, and disputes that arise involving, either directly, indirectly, or tangentially, the Law School or its Students.”[4] The brief for the defendants argues that it is “not a part of your crazy Law School and you don’t have any authority over us so stop trying to serve us with notice.”[5] While it is true that the Barracks Road Chipotle is, indeed, not part of the esteemed University of Virginia School of Law, it is within the emanations and penumbra of the Tangentiality Clause, which extends to any dispute tangentially involving students of the Law School. Therefore, the Barracks Road Chipotle is within our jurisdiction and subject to our petty whims and rulings. For this and the reasoning adopted by the majority, I respectfully concur. 

Pazhwak J., concurring.

For many Americans, particularly those in the broke and busy student demographic, Chipotle has become a dietary staple. Their longstanding track record of quick service, affordable pricing, tasty food, and quality ingredients has created reliance on the franchise by many across the country to meet their nutritional needs. The Barracks Road Chipotle, and its relationship with UVA Law students, provides an excellent example of this, with students who are primarily nourished on cheese pizza, packages of snacks, and whatever else they can scavenge from clubs, journals, and events, receiving critical infusions of protein and vegetables from their Chipotle bowls. All while these students, at the same time, not being forced to sacrifice inordinate amounts of precious time to get their food, nor unduly increase their crushing debt loads while doing so.

            Based on these established facts, an alternative theory of the case is better applied, namely the principle of promissory estoppel. Complainants argue that they have relied on Chipotle for “fast casual” dining at an affordable price and have now had the proverbial rug pulled out from under them with the substandard performance they have encountered in recent months at the Barracks Road location. It is clear there was no formal consideration between Chipotle and complainants; however promissory estoppel is implicated if Chipotle made a promise that UVA Law students relied on to their detriment. This presents the question of whether such a promise existed. In examining Chipotle’s past behavior in the aggregate, including, but not limited to, stable business hours, availability of ingredients, and adequate staffing, one can find an implied promise that such behavior would exist in the future in a substantially similar manner. Indeed, such a promise is the main reason one would go to Chipotle in the first place, and not to another bowl-based restaurants such as Cava, Roots, or the very similar but just not-quite-there Qdoba. It is clear, based on the facts before this Court, that this promise was not met based on the conditions complainants have been consistently met with in recent months at the Barracks Road location. It is also clear that UVA Law students suffered substantial loss from this broken promise as Justice Wunderli has described. While the case has been decided on a theory of tort law, I add this concurring opinion to show that the nearly limitless power of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and its ability to throw the principles of contract law out of the proverbial window when a judge so decides, provides the proper legal approach to this case. With it, the Court can correct this gravely petty wrong that has been done to complainants and make them as well off as they would have been if they had guacamole and their order fifteen minutes earlier on a given day or had not been forced to defect to the nearby, and very inviting, Taco Bell drive-thru.

Tonseth, C.J., dissenting.

Straight up, Associate Justice Wunderli is just plain wrong in this case. However, as my boi threw me two touchdown passes in our flag football league this week, I’ll spare roasting his lack of any legal reasoning skills to go on my own personal diatribe. I mean, who reads the dissents anyway?

            First, this dissent serves to put Student Affairs on notice. The past two Fridays, there has not been cookies out for students to enjoy. This cannot stand. We the Court have previously enjoined Student Affairs from revoking Free Cookie Fridays, and I am not afraid to revive Associate Justice Stievater’s opinion. Be warned.

            Second, buy your tickets to Fauxfield. Nobody needs an excuse to Darty, but a Darty that has endless pizza? Sign me up, yesterday. Plus, there will be pumpkins, hay bales, and all of the other cute stuff to make your Insta glow-up for the weekend. If you’re claiming “you have class on Fridays,” remember, the ABA only requires eighty percent attendance. If you’re still worried about skipping class and missing “important information,” hit me up and I’ll get you an outline for the class.

            Third, buy your tickets to PILA and buy cool stuff from their silent auction. Will you ever really need fly fishing lessons in front of the Law School? Absolutely not. Will buying softball lessons from me help you hit the ball into the construction zone? Also no, but my services are for hire for the playoffs to the highest bidder. Will buying things from the auction help your fellow classmates have a livable summer experience while you sit at a kush firm job? 1,000 percent. Buy your ticket, bid on things, dress up pretty, and don’t claim that it’s too close to finals and you need to study. You’re at UVA Law. I’ve made it this far with only going to the library 6 times my entire 3 years. You can skip one Saturday night of studying.

            In conclusion, Associate Justice Wunderli’s analysis is as lacking as his ability to show up to anything on time, his ability to hit an open receiver in flag football, and the current COVID protocols to prevent a bad spread right before fall break. For these reasons, I dissent.

---

nw7cz@virginia.edu
cs8ws@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] Ari Anderson ’22, Nate Kresh ’22. Oh yeah, and me.

[2] Brief for Defendant at 2, UVA Law v. Barracks Chipotle, 74 U. Va. 9 (2021)

[3] We have already been lenient with the defendant in even considering their “brief” which took the form of an irate email. It is within our discretion to consider when we will waive our own rules of procedure in the pursuit of justice.

[4] See, the COPA heading that’s literally above every opinion.

[5] Defendant, supra note 1.

Hot Bench: Duncan Morrow '22

---

Duncan Morrow ‘22

Hi, Duncan! Welcome to the Hot Bench. To start off—where are you from?

I’m originally from just outside of Oakland, California: a town called “Pleasanton,” which is, in retrospect, a hilarious name for a suburb. Right at the end of high school, my parents moved up to Portland, Oregon, so I’ve spent a lot of time up there as well. When I go “home” for the holidays, I’m going to Portland. It’s a really great city; I’m a huge fan of the Pacific Northwest in general.

What are you involved in at UVA Law?

I’m a fellow in the Law and Public Service Program and in the Employment Law Clinic with LAJC (the Legal Aid Justice Center), which I suppose are the big things for me. I’m also in the National Lawyers Guild, and of course, the standard journal stuff (Law and Social Policy!).

What drove you to UVA Law (why law school, and why UVA)?

After college, I worked briefly at a labor union, which I really enjoyed. I worked pretty often with the union’s legal department, working on wage-and-hour enforcement and alongside lawyers who were advising the organizers. It was work I really, really enjoyed, and it kinda convinced me that I’m actually interested in how the law works.

What type of law are you planning to practice after law school?

I’m definitely on the public service track — love not having a job in my 3L year — it doesn’t fill me with a sense of impending doom at all. I’m primarily interested in labor and employment. I would love to do something either on the union side or for the government.

What are your favorite hobbies?

Probably the things I spend the most of my free time doing are either watching movies, thinking about movies, and hiking. My dad is much more outdoorsy than I am, but he used to bring me on overnight backpacking trips, climbing mountains in the Sierra Nevada once or twice a year. I’ve tried to carry that outdoorsy vibe with me since, although I’m not doing anything impressive. I’ve also gotten exceptionally into Microsoft Flight Simulator lately, but no one wants to hear about that. Film is the big thing.

How many movies would you estimate you’ve seen, and what are a couple of your favorites?

During quarantine, I started keeping track of everything I’ve watched, and I pretty easily hit 200 last year alone. I think I may have breached that a few times in undergrad, so you can do the math if you want! As for my favorites, I really love Chungking Express, this weird little love story that functions as a great portrait of Hong Kong in the ’90s. It’s so full of energy and noise and life; I just love it. I also really love High and Low, which is this epic Japanese crime story from the 1960s that was pretty obviously a huge influence on Parasite. And, since it’s spooky season, John Carpenter’s The Thing rules and is the absolute best.

If you didn’t go to law school, what would you want to do instead?

I’d like to think it would be something artistic! Writing, filmmaking, anything like that. Something involving telling stories.

Lightning Round!

Favorite pizza topping?

Mushrooms.

Favorite fruit?

Blackberries.

Favorite Charlottesville restaurant?

Really love Maru; Korean food’s my fav.

What place in the world would you most like to visit?

Hong Kong.

---

dkm8m@virginia.edu

Barristers United Match Report: October 3

---

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor

While most of the Law School was embracing WASP culture at Foxfield this past Sunday, the men and women of Barrister’s United were out there doing battle with the fearsome Tigres squad. Having tied the week before, the Barristers came out with something to prove and ended the day with a hard fought 10-1 win to extend their unbeaten streak to 13 games in a row.

A total team effort, the excellence began at the back with the debut of shot stopper Rambert Tyree. A series of acrobatic one-on-one saves helped keep the scoreline manageable and pundits are in agreement that the team has done well finding talent to stand in between the uprights.  While he was denied a clean sheet by a garbage time goal, this was mostly due to a low work rate demonstrated by some of the centerbacks.

The biggest story of this game were the four introductions to the outfield, all of whom scored. Aziz Rashidzada made the most of his outfield start, bagging a brace and hitting the upright as he was agonizingly close to starting his season off with a hat-trick. There were no signs of rust on the veteran as he helped the team pressure the Tigres’ back line and commanded attention every time he came forward with the ball.

In the midfield, Barristers United received a lot of help from the LLM program thanks to the massive contributions of Jose Beliz, Jose Miguel Poblete, and Jose Antonio Onandia Osores. All three scored and provided constant pressure in the midfield, along with opening up to help the Barristers really make use of their short passing game.

Jose Miguel Poblete got his goal early in the first half. Well-known as an unselfish playmaker, he proved himself to have a deadly right foot when the ball fell to him on the edge of the 18 yard box, and he slotted it right past the keeper. He later drew a penalty that he deferred to Captain Day Robins who scored easily from the spot.

The other two LLM students got their moments in the second half. Jose Beliz capitalized on a long buildup sequence to get the ball in the six yard box and calmly slid it past the keeper. Aside from his goal, he along with the other LLM players made very good use of backheels to bamboozle the other team and keep the Barrister’s faithful entertained.

Antonio Osores was the last debutant to score for Barristers. After proving needed physicality and poise in the midfield, he was able to get through on goal as the Tigres defense fell apart in the second half. All in all, the showing from the LLM players was exceptional and validates the funds Barristers expended on scouting international talent.

Another standout performance on the day was Kathryn Peters, who locked down the flanks as she had an amazing showing at fullback. Slide tackles, perfectly timed challenges and at one point a disgustingly disrespectful demonstration of step overs dropped the Tigres winger to the ground in front of his family, as Kathryn helped get the ball out of pressure.

Thanks to the effort by the entire team, center backs Ardi Khalafi and Ray Roesler were able to get some minutes farther up the field than usual. With his first touch at striker, Ardi played the team through and led to the fifth goal of the match. Afterwards he was quoted as saying “look what happens when I go up top, I touch the ball and we score.”

Not to be outdone, Ray made multiple bounding runs up the field in the hunt for his own goal. Despite not getting a look for either of the PKs drawn by Barristers United, and having the distraction of his dog Zona barking frantically whenever he got the ball, Ray was able to preserve and get a goal near the end of the game to take some pressure off the team by making the scoreline 9-0.

There are so many other standout performances that we unfortunately don’t have time to go too in depth. Sam’s calmly taken penalty, Day’s numerous skills that brought Tigres players to the ground, Mustapha’s technique that confounded the defense, Tyler’s work rate to help control the midfield, and Tom Schnoor’s versatility filling in for every position in the back line. All in all, it was an impressive team effort despite being short staffed due to Foxfield.

The final noteworthy performance of the day came from the referee, who, unlike other officials, seemed to have a decent understanding of the offsides rule, was not openly drunk, and didn’t curse out the other team at any point. While it makes for a less entertaining read, the quality game management on display today was noted by all in attendance.

Be sure to tune in next week as the team takes on the fearsome team Spare Parts in what will no doubt be an incredible clash!

---

jwb4bb@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: 1Ls v. Socrates

---

1Ls v. Socrates
74 U.Va 8 (2021)

Kulkarni J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Once again, this Court is faced with a case brought by 1Ls against someone with higher authority than themselves. Today, these affected students have brought suit against the great philosopher himself, Socrates.[1] They allege a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and are asking for a remedy in the form of an injunction against use of the Socratic Method within their classrooms. In effect, these students are calling for the end of the “cold call” system as we know it. They take issue with this essential feature of the Law School experience and are suing the creator of the system to gain some measure of compensation for their alleged loss.

            The 1Ls allege that this very system causes their harm. The fear destroys their mental health. The embarrassment faced in the case of a ruined cold call is humiliating, they say. They point to stories of professors telling students to leave the class if they get the question wrong. They argue that the reputational hit taken by someone who messes up is career-ending. They go so far as to say that their stress-induced mistake will prevent them from getting the recommendation letter of their choice for a clerkship. In sum, these students are alleging a lot of harm after being in law school for seven weeks.

            Before addressing these arguments and issuing a ruling, it is important to note some background. As is often the case in such contentious issues, I am sure that avid observers of the Court take clear notice of who is writing the opinion, what their past decisions on such issues have been, and adjust their expectations accordingly. For many such observers, they are astonished that I am writing the majority opinion in this case. Perhaps any 1L worth their salt who did the research and understood my past position on such matters may even be feeling hope at this very moment. I regret to inform you that such hope, like all hope in law school, is misplaced. This court has a categorical rule.  It is simple. 1Ls always lose.[2] In past cases, I have argued against such a rule. Today, I do something that judges rarely do: admit my mistake.

            My associate, the Chief Justice, often pointed out that I was biased, and I am here to admit that this criticism was appropriate.[3] I was a member of the very group that was repeatedly suing for expanded rights. We, on this Court, should be paragons of truth, justice, and the Law School way. It is incorrect for me to adjust my opinions based upon my status. I only hope that my newest colleague, Associate Justice Morse, may one day be able to see his own error in this matter.

            With all of that out of the way, it is now time to address the merits of the case: absolutely nothing. The 1Ls of the Class of 2024 have chosen a terrible case substantively to combat the lack of rights that they have. They offer stories and rumors to substantiate their claims of emotional harm. “The truth will set you free” is a common expression. Well here, the truth is simple. These students fail to understand the importance of the Socratic Method. These students will not do their readings unless forced.[4] Their professors are using this tool to impose the habit of reading upon them. More than the benefit itself, the loss is minimal. The truth is that amici, in the form of 2Ls and 3Ls,  remind us that no one in their classes remember any cold calls of their classmates. Thus, any of the cited “scary stories” the 1Ls provide to aid their case are undermined by this similarly circumstantial evidence.

            These 1Ls have no standing to sue: they are always guaranteed to lose. Yet, they still filed this action, which can only be called frivolous. There is no true harm here other than a little discomfort to these students. The decision we are faced with, then, is no decision at all. These 1Ls must continue to “suffer” under the yoke of the Socratic method. Furthermore, the students have sued the wrong person; they should have sued their professors instead. Also, you can’t sue a dead person.[5] Here, the wrong group of people is suing the wrong person. It leads to a very clear conclusion.

Injunction denied.

Morse, J., dissenting.

 “I know that I know nothing[6].” Arguably Socrates’ most honest utterance, this statement is often interpreted as Socrates’ humbly deferential response to the Oracle of Delphi calling him the wisest man living. A more reasonable reading of this statement would be its plain meaning: Socrates had no earthly idea what he was doing. Recognizing that the reasonable response to someone who admits to total cluelessness is awkward silence followed by a polite change of subject, the 1L class of the Law School has brought suit against the obsequious employment of the “Socratic Method” in their legal education. I dissent from the majority’s errant view in this case and applaud the 1Ls for seeking to abandon this pedagogical god who has pointed out his own feet of clay. I concur with the majority’s admission that they have made a mistake. I dissent on all else.

            One would be forgiven for having difficulty in following the logic of the majority’s opinion, but no one should be surprised that the defense of such an untenable and intentionally obfuscatory teaching method requires Simone Biles-level mental gymnastics. I will endeavor to clarify the tortured logic put forward by this Court, in the hopes that the shortcomings of the status quo will pave the way for future, more enlightened minds.

            The majority’s reasoning (such as it is) appears to proceed along three prongs. First, that 1Ls have insufficient experience with which to appropriately evaluate the efficacy of the Socratic method. Second, that ruling in the 1Ls’ favor would violate a supposed categorical rule barring 1Ls from any victory. Third, that the 1Ls fail to grasp the true purpose and ultimate benefit supposedly conferred by the Socratic method. Finally, my esteemed colleague Associate Justice Kulkarni seems to have some quibbles about “standing” and “suing the right party.” I must admit that these objections sound reasonable but unfortunately, these concepts haven’t been brought up yet in my free-for-all education under the Socratic method. As such, I will confine myself to the first three semi-substantive points.

            The first point begs the question – at what point will 1Ls have enough experience to decide for themselves that they can trust their own faculties when they conclude a painful and confusing experience is best avoided? Assume for example, that each day, as I wait for the bus, a man walks up and slaps me in the face with a day-old slice of deli ham. How many ham-slaps do I need to tolerate before Justice Kulkarni is satisfied that I really know that I don’t want to be slapped in the face with old ham? Perhaps just more than seven weeks of ham-slapping? The truth is, the harms alleged by the plaintiffs are ones that any reasonable person would want to avoid – and some might even reasonably prefer a slap in the face from a lukewarm slice of ham than being subject to the reign of terror which is a Friday morning 8:30am cold call in Criminal Law.[7]

            The majority then argues that no matter what the facts or common sense should imply, Plaintiffs lose because “1Ls always lose.” I would like to applaud Justice Kulkarni from the sheer chutzpah displayed in borrowing a page from classic 1950’s parenting methods, and basically telling 1Ls to shut up “because I say so.” Okay, Dad. Perhaps all us 1Ls should just go grab the collective 2L and 3Ls another beer from the cooler and be just grateful to be here.

            Lastly, the majority’s argument that “1Ls fail to understand the importance of the Socratic method” is so faulty and forced that it gives me flashbacks of the sadness and mild embarrassment of listening to any of Kanye’s last three albums.[8] The argument fails in two respects: 1) it assumes that 1Ls are not taking into account the relative value of an otherwise painful teaching method and 2) it ignores the other reasons 1Ls would have to complete assigned reading. The second point is particularly interesting, since there are so many obvious reasons that 1Ls would not want to waste their time by going to law school without doing any readings (some might even say hundreds of thousands of reasons).[9]

            And this bring us to the crux of the plaintiff’s argument: that students, professors, and the Law School community as a whole have precious little time and the Socratic method has been shown by research[10] to be an inferior method of teaching (not to mention yes, super stressful) and should thus be abandoned for everyone’s sake. The majority opinion argues that this Court should be a paragon of truth, justice, and the Law School way. It is self-evident that a prerequisite for these conditions is that logic exists—and logic demands that when you can’t come up with any good reasons for torturing 1Ls other than the intellectual equivalent of a half-hearted shrug, then you should probably abandon that torture pedagogy.

---

omk6cg@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1] Ed: pronounced səʊkreɪts for all of you uncultured philistines

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

[3] Chief Justice here, just wanted to say, “I told you so.”

[4] Evidence of that comes from the fact that 2Ls and 3Ls refuse to do their readings.

[5] I think this is true but honestly, this is a fake court and I can just make that the rule now. So I guess we are creating a new categorical rule if it doesn’t exist: you can’t sue dead people.

[6] As quoted in Plato’s account of Socrates’ teachings. Not a great look.

[7] Just an example. Definitely no need to read into this.

[8] To save you the Google, those would be Ye, Jesus is King, Donda. I just mean, woof.

[9] https://www.law.virginia.edu/financialaid/annual-cost-attendance-budget.

[10] This one you are going to have to Google. But I swear it's probably true.

Hot Bench: Kiera Callahan '22

---

Kiera Callahan ‘22, President of UVA Law’s Advocates for Disability Rights

Hi Kiera! Welcome to the Hot Bench. To start off—where are you from?

I grew up all over the U.S., so I don’t have a specific hometown! I was born in Wisconsin, and my family spent time in Pennsylvania. But I primarily grew up in Illinois, and then I went to Southern California where I did later schooling and went to college.

What are you involved in at UVA Law?

I’m President for Advocates for Disability Rights—the only student organization for disability rights at UVA Law. Our mission is advocacy and raising awareness around disability. It affects our life and can create limitations, but our goals are still achievable. I am also a fellow with the Law and Public Service Program, and a mentor for PILA.

What made you start thinking about law school, and what drove you to UVA in particular?

When I was 18, I got sick out of nowhere and had a growing list of symptoms. I began a long journey of trying to figure out what was wrong with me. I was sick for around two years, getting worse. I had to drop out of college. I was pretty confident that I had a brain tumor that was creating a condition called Cushing’s Disease. I had several doctors who confirmed my suspicions, but when we went to bigger institutions for treatment and surgery, no one believed me. I was told I was depressed, hysterical—the usual things said to women with health issues. This was a hard 180 in perspective from when I previously had confidence in the medical system.

I found a nearby surgeon who immediately recognized the signs and symptoms. He was UVA trained. I went through a series of brain surgeries, and the last one was successful. I lost most of my pituitary gland, which controls all hormone functions in your body. It changed my whole life trajectory. Before, I was thinking about being an actor and going to Los Angeles or NYC. After surgery, I thought I wanted to do something in the medical field because other people shouldn't have to undergo what I went through. When you have a malicious tumor, you shouldn’t have to fight to get treatment over something that causes so much harm.

I went back to college and took different classes to figure out my route. I considered med school or an M.P.H. In undergrad, I majored in medical anthropology. After my first year at University of California-Irvine, I had an “aha” moment that law school would be a good fit. I was watching a legal procedural and thought that maybe law school would be where I could make the impact I wanted to. There were no lawyers in my family, but my parents were supportive and thought I’d make a good lawyer.

I decided to prepare for the LSAT and within eight months I got into UVA. It was my first choice because of my surgeon. With more research, I found out UVA Law was unique as a top ten school with an emphasis on student wellbeing and collegiality. I liked that it was in a small town with nearby medical systems, unlike some other top law schools.

Is there a type of law you’d like to practice after Law School?

Being in public service, I’m not totally sure yet. I made the recent decision to get an M.P.H after Law School. I would like to go into health law ideally. I’ve done stuff in disability law which was interesting, but health law is where my heart lies, especially incorporating my undergrad connections and medical anthropology background. I’ve also thought about teaching. I want to see where life takes me. My family has a saying that goes “Man prepares and God laughs.” But, right now, I feel this is the direction I’m being led.

I love your Instagram account (@thewillowrunlife)!. Can you tell me a little more about it?

I started Insta at the beginning of my recovery journey after surgery. I wanted to raise awareness about Cushing’s because most people don’t know about it. It’s common in the veterinary world, but not for humans. What doctors know is outdated, which is how I got stuck in the outdated system and idea of women’s health. One of the big symptoms of Cushing’s is dramatic, quick weight gain, so I documented returning to feeling like myself again. I traced my recovery via my interests in things like makeup and fashion and showcased that in my account.

After getting into UVA, I found that the account no longer spoke to my interests. I touched upon my chronic illness but hadn’t talked about it with full force or opened up the floor to talk about disability, identity, faith, positivity, and recognizing grief as your body changes. I realized I wanted to change direction. I know there’s not a lot of people in the legal field with chronic disability and recovering from Cushing’s specifically. Instagram allowed me to express what I was going through and gave me opportunities to post and discuss, especially with the stories feature. I just wanted to talk about being a lawyer with chronic illness.

My first year of Law School, I got sick with more conditions, which further changed my trajectory. It’s believed I have a genetic disease that was triggered with Cushing’s recovery. During 1L year, my symptoms changed dramatically, which forced me into the disability space. Suddenly I wasn’t dealing with my symptoms from brain surgery but also other new symptoms. I leaned into talking about disability more than in the past.

I understand you also post vlogs on YouTube! How did you start doing that?

At first, I didn’t want to do YouTube because of fear of unkind comments. Then during 1L, I went to the Mayo Clinic to figure out my other symptoms, and my family encouraged me to document my journey there. At that point, I created my YouTube account. I hadn’t been able to find on YouTube someone who was a lawyer with chronic illness. My approach to success on these platforms is finding gaps and providing content for these people.

I applied for my service dog Bonnie at the beginning of Law School. The waitlist for service dogs in VA is about one to two years. I waited about 1.5 years and got her in October 2020. It was a big change to adapt to having a service animal and bonding as a team, and I stepped off a bit from YouTube engagement. People with chronic illness live two lives -- professional and personal. One can encroach on the other, so it’s always a balance between the two. Right now, I’m finding my balance. After getting more diagnoses, I’d like to talk on Youtube about having a service animal, finishing law school, and jobs for after. 

Lightning Round!

Favorite place to eat in Cville? Doma. 

Favorite Movie or TV Show? I love period pieces, like Sandition on Masterpiece, Pride and Prejudice, and Northanger Abbey. I also love book adaptions, like Shadow and Bone. I love Bones, Castle, anything murder mystery. For movies, anything Marvel. I’m very much a nerd. I love Star Wars and action movies. 

Favorite word? I really like “effervescent.” I had a close friend in high school who was blind, and I really admired them. That friend said I was effervescent. It was one of the most kind compliments I’ve received. 

Favorite law school course? I really loved Con Law. Other than that, probably bioethics. We studied different areas and collaborated with the M.P.H. school, so right up my alley. I love any class with Professors Riley and Shepherd.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: Short Shorts

---

Phil Tonseth ‘23
Editor-in-Chief

Skies Out, Thighs Out

If you’ve got it, flaunt it. For all of those peeps lucky enough to know me, or be on my close friends list on Insta, you know I am a huge fan of leg day. Both because of that, and due to everything coming back into fashion, I consistently wear short shorts. I’m not talking shorts that tickle the top of your kneecaps. I mean short shorts. This is one time where 5 inches[1] is something to be proud of.

            This article is supposed to convince you of why my side of this argument is right. I don’t think I really need to try that hard to do so. Did Michael Jordan wear short shorts when he became the greatest basketball player of all time? You bet. Did your dad rock the short shorts both to spit game at the beach and then go home and mow the lawn after? You’re alive and reading this now, aren’t you? Do I spend way too much time doing absolutely vain leg exercises in the hopes that someone compliments my tree trunks? Jury is still out on that one.

            If that hasn’t convinced you to update your wardrobe, let me try my last trick. Legs are the new abs. I prefer to call this past summer ‘Thigh Guy Summer,’ not ‘Hot Vax Summer.’ . After so long of being inside due to COVID, not everyone has that same tight tummy we may have rocked back in 2019. But you bet men are excited to show off all of that work they did from home. Don’t take it from me, but The Guardian even said that showing off the thighs shows “the qualities of a soft lad. They are sporty, useful, athletic, deeply revealing, lightly erogenous, [and] ultimately unthreatening.”[2] Plus, strong legs generally means a nicer backside. Don’t neglect leg day boys, build that bum and show the world that you’re a “soft lad.”

Mason Pazhwak ‘23
Events Editor

In Defense of the KneeLength, or Just Above the Knee-Length, at the Very Shortest, Shorts 

It seemed to me, when I was younger, that the debate between shorts and short shorts had been resolved in conventional men’s fashion. Just like liberal democracy smashed authoritarian communism, so too had shorts falling to at least right above the knee[3] left short shorts of any lesser inseams consigned to the dustbin of history. You can imagine the alarm I felt when, as an undergrad, I first saw packs of fraternity members walking around in blazers, sunglasses, Sperrys, and….Chubbies. From what deranged place had these men, with their sickeningly colored, pastel assortment of short shorts that so blatantly exposed their quadriceps for all the world to see, come from?  Little did I know, this was only observing a harbinger of things to come, and in subsequent years the short shorts not only grew more pervasive, but the inseams slowly creeped up farther and farther. Now, Gen Z, with their vapes, TikTok, and broccoli-style haircuts, seem to have deigned to adopt a trend set by a very misguided set of Millennials, and embraced the return of the male short shorts. It is just another layer of instability in deeply uncertain times, but all us knee-lengthers can do is just get up, look at the day’s weather, step into our trusty shorts, and steel ourselves for another day of confronting hairy thighs at each turn.

Why my obstinate, seemingly irrational dissent from this trend you might ask? Some might attack me and say I am just not confident in my own thighs, attempting to thigh-shame me out of the argument. Others might dismiss me as an errant anachronism unable to keep up with the times, a hopelessly unfashionable Luddite who missed the memo that the mantra of “less is more” now pervades all parts of our lives.  Even others might call me out on utilitarian grounds, claiming that I am failing to recognize the superiority of short shorts as objectively cooler clothing in a warming world. To all of them I could simply retort that short shorts just aren’t cool, please leave me and my thighs alone thank-you-very-much. But I want to engage more deeply than that. The erosion of short length in our society is, at least in my mind, part of a wider erosion of the virtue of modesty. When I step into my knee-length to just above the knee shorts, I am saying “Hey, of course there is more to see, but you know what, I don’t need to show it.” There is a humble, quiet confidence to the wearers of knee length shorts, a comfort with not needing to be at the center of attention, a joy at the thigh covered against the harsh glare of the relentless sun. In an era where extremes seem to be growing and society vacillates between them amidst the turbulence, the knee to just above knee length short wearer is a bastion of stability, a rock amidst the raging storm, the moderate that ensures we all get through to calmer days. Stay strong, fellow long shorts wearers.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu

---

[1] Read “inseam”, and keep your dirty mind out of this.

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/jun/20/thigh-society-why-mens-shorts-are-getting-shorter

[3] There was a time, sometime in the mid to late 2000s, when even shorts falling to right above the knee might have been a source of derision and mockery, or at least a healthy dose of skepticism, but even I have evolved enough to find them acceptable to wear. I should also note that perhaps the trend of long shorts also got out of hand at some points, but that is another argument for another day.

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Student Records Office

---

Students v. Student Records Office
74 U.Va 7 (2021)

Smith, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case stands for one proposition: we do not like to read. Plaintiffs, defendants, and amici expect too much if they want us to actually peruse their lengthy briefs. Fortunately, a core principle of our jurisprudence decides this case.

I

            Last year, due to the COVID pandemic, the law school decided to plan a twenty-minute cushion between classes, instead of the previous ten-minute cushion. In theory, the twenty-minute cushion would allow law students from one class to leave before students from the other class showed up, preventing clogged aisles and hallways. In part to allow for the twenty-minute cushion, the law school’s Student Records Office planned course sessions that were only seventy minutes long. In past years, classes were generally eighty minutes long, and they have returned to that length this year.

Plaintiffs strongly object to that extra ten minutes of class. The students, a mix of 2Ls and 3Ls, challenged it on a host of grounds. Student Records responded with a motion to dismiss. The lower court converted it to a motion for summary judgment because Student Records included affidavits asserting that the shorter classes “were no longer necessary,” and that the students are “just a bunch of lazy bums.” The students responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court also allowed a few overzealous 1Ls and professors who feared losing extra class time to intervene. In the end, the court granted judgment for Student Records on all plaintiffs’ claims. The students appealed.

II

The Table of Contents of the students’ brief starts with the claim that the change was “arbitrary,” “capricious,” and “an abuse of discretion” under the Administrative Procedure Act.[1] The students seem to be correct at first glance. The privilege of acting arbitrarily and capriciously belongs exclusively to this Court. And like the defendants in a recent Supreme Court case, Student Records did not consider students’ reliance interests in keeping an existing policy—in this case, the seventy-minute class length.[2] Unfortunately, Professor Aditya Bamzai wrote a fifty-four-page amicus brief challenging our jurisdiction over this claim, and we don’t like to read. So we refrain from deciding the case on administrative law grounds.

The students also point to last year as course-of-performance evidence that Student Records has waived its right to force students to endure that extra ten agonizing minutes of class. [3] This argument also seems on-point. Regrettably, at oral argument counsel for the defendant responded to this argument with the (magic?) words “boilerplate, boilerplate, boilerplate,” and wheeled several boxes of paper over to our Bench. We are not sure what is in any of the boxes, but we sure don’t want to find out, so we will pass on that argument too.

The students fall back on a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim. They allege that the increased class time violates their right to “liberty.” The obvious and crushing rejoinder is that the plaintiffs are LAW STUDENTS. The plaintiffs have already mortgaged their future, forfeited their happiness, sold their souls, and pledged their liberty in exchange for the promise of mountains and mountains of cold hard cash. If plaintiffs feel “trapped” or “imprisoned,” it is because they are. Student Records is right to point out that we generally give prison officials broad discretion,[4] though we need not hold that law students are prisoners to decide that they have lost any liberty interest in not attending class.

III

As a last resort, the students ask us to create a new categorical rule. Pointing to our “founding doctrine” that “1Ls always lose,”[5] and last week’s (wholly unnecessary) holding that “journals also always lose,”[6] the students want us to declare that Student Records always loses. This is totally pointless, because the first of our categorical rules already decides this case quite neatly. A few 1Ls have intervened in support of longer classes; 1Ls always lose; therefore, the longer classes must go. We suggest that 1Ls think twice before intervening in future cases.

IV

The intervening 1Ls and professors argue that today’s outcome must be prevented lest Student Records compensate by taking away fall break or spring break. Similarly, Student Records claims that it must be permitted to make up the time by cutting out breaks. However, this Court has already ruled that “[a] mid-semester break is absolutely necessary.”[7] Student Records is hereby ORDERED to cut all eighty-minute classes down to seventy minutes while leaving fall and spring break intact.

REVERSED.

Tonseth., C.J. dissenting because I’m a 3L.

            Show me a 3L that regularly goes to class, and I’ll show you a liar.[8] This base fact, strongly supported by my own personal penchant for spending class time at the golf course or pool, is enough to eliminate standing for most of the classes present. However, as Associate Justice Smith points out, 1Ls always lose too.[9] I’m pretty conflicted, as I’m also fully in support of a categorical rule that Student Records should be included under the umbrella of “always losing”. Therefore, as I think both sides to this case have weak arguments, I would dismiss this complaint for failing to satisfy the case and controversy requirement.

            Are 70-minute classes overall better than their 80-minute counterparts? Maybe. It’s 10 more minutes for me to spend online shopping for another crop top or pit vipers, but also another 10 minutes that I can’t have a sip of water. Plus, it’s whimsical to believe that my attention span lasts past the review each professor gives at the beginning of class.[10] What am I really arguing for here? The 10 minutes makes no difference. The funny thing about the liberty argument that Justice Smith forgets is that law students can just leave class when there’s 10 minutes left! Don’t want to hear rambling hypotheticals? Bounce. Ready to start happy hour 7 hours early, after your Monday morning PR class? Come find me and let me join. Just want to go home and have another existential crisis? Be our guest. Law school is what you make of it, and I’ve spent a lot of it learning by the pool and on the golf course. Don’t let the man keep you down. Viva la liberty.

---

js3hp@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

[2] See Dep’t Homeland Sec. v. Regents Univ. Cal., 410 S. Ct. 1891 (2020).

[3] See UCC § 1-303.

[4] See, e.g., Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989).

[5] See, e.g., Snowman v. Student Administration, 73 U.Va. 15 (2021) (Tonseth, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

[6] Jilted Students v. Journals, 74 U.Va. 6 (2021)

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

[8] Look, it’s me.

[9] Supra nt. 5. Don’t ask me if I did that citation right, I already said journals lose too so their opinions and comments aren’t valid on the Court.

[10] Shoutout Professor Coughlin, I appreciate you.

Hot Bench: Amanda "Mandy" Marie Brock

---

Amanda "Mandy" Marie Brock, offers this advice to first-year students, "believe in yourself and don't ever give up!"This reporter would add "buy more coffee (preferably from Mandy)!"

Interviewed by Nikolai Morse ‘24

Hello, Mandy! Thank you for taking the time to sit down with us. Could you start off by telling us a little bit about yourself?

I am from Orange County originally, but grew up in Charlottesville after moving here when I was 13. I’ve been at UVA Law for 15 years now.

Everyone calls you Mandy–what’s your full name?

Amanda Marie Brock.

That’s a lovely name–family name?

Yes, my cousin picked it.

I am always amazed at how many people’s names you seem to know. How do you remember them all?

I just try to focus on the unique things about people, and if they have unique names it makes it easier.

Another thing I love about coming to grab coffee from you, is that you always have excellent music playing. Who are some of your favorite artists?

I like the classics. Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Al Green, and music like that. I don’t like a lot of new music.

Any favorite spots or recommendations in Charlottesville?

Well, I’m pretty busy with work and family so I don’t go out to eat a lot, but there is a lot to do in Charlottesville especially with all of the nature in the area. I love Mel’s Café.

What do you do for fun? You work hard and deserve a break!

I love to travel. We take a lot of trips to North Carolina and other weekend trips around the region.

And how do you like Charlottesville and UVA?

Oh yes, I love it. The students and people I work with are wonderful and make me so happy.

I think every student feels that way about you. You’re a staple of this school and actually, I had heard of you even before my first day. Do you have any favorite memories of your time here at the Law School?

I do. I remember this one year, there was this student who was in her first year. I would see her around and had gotten to know her. Around finals time, she actually came to me and broke down. I talked with her and she told me that she didn’t think she could do it, and wanted to drop out. I told her she had made it here and could do it. Years later when she had graduated and was a lawyer, she came back to the Law School and said maybe I didn’t remember her, but that I was the reason she stayed in law school. I said I remembered her, and I still do. That has always meant so much to me and stayed with me.

That’s incredible. Thank you for sharing that story. Alright, let’s do a lightning round. Ready?

Alright!

Favorite color?

Blue.

Favorite food or dessert?

I love chocolate cake. We used to have some in the café here!

Favorite holiday?

Thanksgiving. It isn’t stressful, and it’s so nice to be with all my family.

Zodiac sign?

Gemini.

Favorite movies?

The Halloween movies. The original ones.

The originals are great. Are you a big horror movie fan?

Yes, I am. I would always watch them with my mother growing up.

Thanks so much, Mandy. This has been terrific.

Of course. Thank you and I will see you around!

Barristers United Match Report: Sept. 26

---

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor

A perfect late September day served as the ideal backdrop for a top-of-the-table Sunday league clash as Barristers United tied 1-1 against a fearsome squad only known as “UNU.” While a tie is not a loss, it is the first time in almost a year that the Barristers squad has not walked away from a game the clear winners, a sign of the heightened competition the team finds itself in.

This match was a story of determination, desire, and disregard on the part of the referee towards punishing dangerous conduct. Late tackles, aggressive pushes, and accusations of officiating the game drunk were all fair game as Sunday league soccer continues to offend norms of common sporting decency. Still, even with a shorter bench than normal, the Barristers held strong and kept calm to extend the team’s unbeaten run.

An unsung hero who has helped keep this dream alive is converted keeper Aziz Rashidzada, who was called on more than ever before to save several near goals. Although he shifted into the role out of necessity, he has quickly blossomed into a premiere shot stopper.

Another fan favorite who has thrived this season is new dog owner Daniel Choi, who created several good chances that the team just couldn’t capitalize on and is always a threat playing either centrally or out wide.

A final shoutout has to go to the newly-signed Sopranos fan, Zach Pierce, who was responsible both for the only goal scored by Barristers on Sunday, and the questionable red card[1] that forced the team to dig deep to hold on for the last twenty-five minutes.

With the team almost halfway through the regular season, pundits and fans alike are confident that this team will be able to continue to excel in this new league. While results have started to tighten up compared to the 4-0 win that opened the season, the team has exceptional potential to grow. Between the influx of untapped 1L talent, the addition of dogs to the sidelines, and the possibility of a return by the perpetually controversial Doyle Tuvesson, this team’s season is just getting started.

---

jwb4bb@virginia.edu

---

[1] Let the record show the other team also believed that when the whistle was blown, that their player was going to get sent off, and that the team would be willing to testify under oath that Zach was not the aggressor

Court of Petty Appeals: Jilted Students v. Journals

---

Jilted Students v. Journals
74 U.Va 6 (2021)

Tonseth, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

TL:DR

            I’m not going to lie to you, today’s legal analysis is groundbreaking for a few reasons. First, I attempt to learn, reason through, and apply the regulatory takings doctrine, much to the chagrin of my Property professor.[1] Second, I acknowledge that student journals actually possess some useful qualities. But, most importantly, this Court today establishes a categorical rule, as concrete as our holding in 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019)[2] that journals also always lose. They cannot pass “Go,” cannot collect $200, and will never earn the “get out of jail free” card.

Background

            So what had happened was, I received a text from a friend. This unnamed friend wished to submit a cert petition with this Court for a class of jilted students. Initially, the Court was inclined to deny this cert petition, both due to the fact that one case a week is a lot of work for 3Ls to write an opinion on, but also because the concerned class of jilted students was composed of 3Ls and obnoxiously smart law students. These students already get “prestigious” clerkships, higher bonuses to big name firms, and specially ordered hats for graduation solely due to how much the administration blows smoke up their you-know-whats. And yet, here we are. What case could be so pressing as to change this esteemed Court’s mind, you ask? Journals potentially violating the Takings Clause. By that, I mean journals, and especially the ‘prestigious’ Virginia Law Review, devaluing student submissions to a level that blatantly violates the Constitutional text of our dearly beloved Fifth Amendment.[3] While this Court values working smarter, not harder, the allure of being published for high quality work and the reward for the intellectual stimulation that these student pieces add to the field is something this Court needs to protect. Let’s get down to business, to defeat the Huns/Journals.

Pseudo-Analysis

            As the judicial offspring of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, with a sprinkling of RBG’s pizzazz, let me do you an educate on the Takings Clause. Although UVA Law is a separately licensed entity from Main Grounds, and thus private, that doesn’t fit with how I plan to rule in this case, so we’re going to ignore that fact. Therefore, UVA Law, through its affiliation with the public university that is UVA, is a public government entity and must act under the color and guidance of the U.S. Constitution. Since the Law School finances and supports its “illustrious” journals, it also applies to them.

            What is the Taking’s Clause, you may ask? Apparently, it states that the government is required to pay compensation for the taking of property from its citizens. The Supreme Court has generally interpreted this clause in one of two ways: first, the dynamic changing of society and its associated property means the value and interests of property are to evolve as we do; second, property in itself is sacrosanct and should be immune from government interference.  As the unfailing textualist/originalist on this Court, I must first analyze the actual Takings Clause to see what it means. SURPRISE! There is no additional information provided in the Fifth Amendment, meaning I can make up whatever textual original argument that supports my end goal![4] However, and I am aggrieved in saying this, this Court will not support nor advance the judicial Takings Doctrine, as an overactive Court is not the proper role we are to assume.

            What does all of this mean for the present case? Well, as you already know, the journals and ‘vaunted’ VLR lose. But how do we traverse Rainbow Road to get there? Through the transitive property, VLR is a government entity. Therefore the Takings Clause applies with full force. Because of this, VLR has to compensate those students who submit their labors of love[5] in a just manner, or they violate the Constitution they claim to so dearly love. This inference chain is supported both by the fact that this Court will not advance a judicial Takings Doctrine, combined with the fact that I believe in the other Court’s (read SCOTUS) analysis of the dynamic doctrine of property. In earlier years, students may have been willing to write off any illegitimate takings by journals simply because the student was “happy to be here.” Hogwash. Today’s students know their worth and they want credit where it is due. Solely because I want to one day attend oral arguments in my aforementioned friend’s private box at SCOTUS, I’m agreeing with him and on his side.

Ruling

            The dissent is quick to point out that this case should be moot, as VLR rejected all of the submissions by the class of Jilted Students before us. Sounds pretty elitist, but what else would you expect from an actual member of VLR? Whether the students have or will be published isn’t a material fact in this case. The fact that VLR solicited contributions, accepted the submissions, and could only send a rejection email with poorly concocted excuses for why the piece didn’t meet their “arbitrary” criteria is enough to decide this case on its face. And yet, I don’t even have to resort to my standard pettiness to do so, as today’s case is a clear and violative taking. What’s the remedy? TBD. I think my buddy owes me a few pitchers at the next Bar Review since I don’t have enough influence to make VLR publish the piece in question, but the next best option is to start publishing student notes in the Law Weekly. Talk about exciting your readers.

Birch J., concurring.

I fully agree with the precedent established by my colleague that “journals also always lose,” but my concurrence in this case comes from a different understanding of a governmental entity. Echoing the Chief Justice’s apologies to our Property professor, I would also like to extend this court’s apologies to our Constitutional Law professor.[6] Before beginning my opinion, this Justice notes personal concerns about violation of child labor laws for a few of the K-JDs that make up membership of the Jilted Students class.

Requiring and absconding with labor and energy from students who don’t know any better, Journals represent everything wrong with an administrative body taking private property and rights without just compensation.

While my holding stems from the Takings Clause as well, the Chief Justice made several leaps to establish a governmental relationship when none of them were necessary. It is a clear and obvious fact to anyone that has ever attempted to join a selective group within the Law School that VLR is a governmental body, albeit, a shadowy one. The only reason the organization does not fully come into the light is to allow the actual Law School administration the ability to turn a blind eye to the actions of this rogue organization. While I would never indulge them with comparisons to Kanye’s former shadow government, the cold, self-interested hand of VLR can be felt by anyone not listed on the tacked-up sheet of paper across from SRO.

Now you may ask the question, “If VLR is not a United States governmental entity, why would they have to respect the Constitution?” That is an apt legal query, but it misses the larger game of chess the public side of the journal must face. If it is not to be beholden to the Constitution, one of the most prestigious journals in the country would have to outright claim in this petty court that “The Constitution of the United States does not matter to us.” If this happens, I will readily reverse my ruling and happily expel our sovereign-citizen of an uncle from this university.

Should you think this Justice has gone off a deep-end and looks a lot like Charlie Day trying to find Pepe Silvia, remember that I go senior status come the end of May.[7] Journals also always lose. As the primary culprit and self-assessed “best journal” at the Law School, VLR proves to be the “best defendant” for constitutional grievances raised by students. Through the taking of hope, time, energy, effort, and the will to live from its members, VLR must provide some form of just compensation.[8]

Peterson J., dissenting.

While I would tell you my allegiances lay solely with the Law Weekly, I am sure to now be deemed a turncoat despite my disproportionate time spent writing articles as opposed to notes.

Accordingly, it is not changed allegiances that drive this dissent. It is logic and a devotion to the Constitution, a devotion which the esteemed Justice Birch calls into question. First, while property rights are certainly some of the most important protected by the Constitution, freedom of contract is another essential constitutional principle on which journals generally, but certainly VLR with its multitude of cite checks, are founded upon. Jilted Students, sorry, not sorry. Take what you want but eat what you take—don’t come complaining to the Court when two sophisticated parties make a contract and you don’t read all of the terms.

Further, and finally, VLR is decidedly not a governmental entity. As my clearly median-or-below colleagues point out, yet seem to not appreciate, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to governmental entities. If there is one thing I learned in my VLR orientation,[9] it is that VLR is an independent foundation, a separate entity from UVA, and therefore exempt from any attack through the Takings Clause.

Due to the above, I pedantically dissent.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

---

[1] Professor Nicoletti, if you’re reading this, I’m going to apologize before I get any further. Please let me into your class next semester <3.

[2] Ergo, 1Ls always lose.

[3] I was today years old when I learned the Fifth Amendment covered more things than just “pleading the Fifth”. Crim investigations is going really well, thank you for asking.

[4] And that’s how originalists justify their positions. You’re welcome 1Ls, I just passed ConLaw for you.

[5] I.e., the intellectual property of their thoughts, and the physical property of the paper they pay for when they submit their notes.

[6] Professor Nachbar, thank you for your patience, and I blame Phil.

[7] Dean Goluboff and whoever is the EIC of Virginia Law Review at the time, willing.

[8] This compensation must be more than “exposure and connections” that every Instagram baddie swears will help a starving artist more than money.

[9] Besides having my love of free food reaffirmed.

Hot Bench: Marc Kilani '22

---

Marc Kilani ‘22

Interviewed by Will McDermott ‘22

Where are you from?

Well, that’s always been a hard question to answer, but at this point in my life I claim that I’m from New York City. I was born and raised in NYC until I was 9, when my parents divorced, and then moved to Arkansas with my mom. I always spent summers and holidays in NYC with my dad, and then I finally moved back for grad school, so all in all, I’ve spent the biggest chunk of my life in the City, and I’ll be headed back next year.

When did you start thinking about law school?

Ha, that’s a long story. When I first started undergrad (back in the Stone Age), I was actually very interested in law, politics, and international relations and planned to have some kind of career in that area. However, in the course of studying the underlying theories, I became super fascinated with philosophy and ended up feeling the need to go all the way down the rabbit hole. I went to grad school for philosophy and ended up working as a professor for 8 years. At some point in there, I sort of exhausted my interest in abstract theoretical questions and found myself returning to more practical concerns like economics and politics (and maybe a better wage than a philosophy professor). So law school just seemed like a natural path for me.

What student orgs have you been involved with at UVA Law?

When I got here, I didn’t know the first thing about business, finance, or economics, but I knew I wanted to learn these things, so I leaned in pretty hard to Rivanna Investments. I was really intimidated coming in, knowing that many of my colleagues would be business or finance majors, but Rivanna was so welcoming and really made me feel like I could pick up the concepts and language I needed. I’m now the Chief Investment Officer and I’m thrilled to see the huge 1L interest in Rivanna, and very proud of the 2L leadership team that weathered investment club Zoom meetings during COVID.

As a 2L, I was VP of MENA – the Middle Eastern and North African Law Student Association – the sheer existence of which is really meaningful to me. My dad is a Palestinian refugee, and one of the things that I really appreciate about UVA Law is its recognition of Middle Eastern and North African ethnic and cultural identities. For most of my life, those “check the box” ethnicity questionnaires have never included this option, so it was a pleasant surprise to see this on the application to UVA Law and to have a group of colleagues with similar cultural heritage and experiences.

How are you making the most of 3L after COVID?

You know, it's kind of a truism around here that UVA Law is the most collegial law school – but as a 1L I really felt this to be true. COVID unfortunately forced us all apart and into our various bubbles and groups of 5 that we were allowed to hang out with. I’m really excited to be back on campus, running into friends in ScoCo and reconnecting, meeting new students, playing tons of softball, and just in general trying to do my part to bring back that culture of collegiality and inclusion. I’m also stoked to be bringing the Law School band tradition back with Torts Illustrated, and really looking forward to our first show!

Lightning Round!

Favorite place to eat in Cville? Definitely Alley Light.

What do you do to de-stress? I love tennis, watching and playing (though I’m not very good). Go Roger!

Favorite Movie or TV Show? Right now I’m obsessed with The White Lotus, I’ve already binged it 3 times.

Favorite Professor? Mitchell, highly recommend.

 ---

mak4ch@virginia.edu

Barristers United Match Report: Sept. 19

---

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor

Under a blistering Sunday sky, Barristers United suited up against Lampo’s Wild Boar Hunt for a titanic clash that ended 4-3, with the Law School coming out on top in a thrilling second game of what is shaping up to be a very exciting season!

Thanks to the success of last week, the team started off prioritizing possession in order to tire the short-staffed opponents out and to give its rapid front line the opportunity to receive the ball into space. Moving the ball quickly also minimized the chances for this very energetic team to make hard tackles that most refs would call fouls.The Barristers persevered to end up taking the game with no long-term injuries.

Several debutants made their mark this week as it became apparent that the team’s strength is in its numbers. Erin Hwang was able to fill in at the last minute for Tyler Demetriou, who is battling knee soreness, while Jack French, not to be confused with the author, excelled in putting pressure on the opposing defenders throughout the game. Ian Murdoch’s addition to the center back rotation was necessary in the blistering Virgina fall heat, along with Nadia Doherty’s introduction at right wing; she was responsible for numerous chances late in the game.

The other stars of the show were the ref and a member of the opposing team who expressed his strong displeasure with the fact that some players on the team were wearing watches. After loudly stating that the team was breaking the rules by having Fitbits on, he stormed off to an unknown location for 10 minutes before coming back into the game. He had already earned the attention of the ref for complaining about the Law School subbing at incorrect times, to which the ref responded by amending the game rules to allow for rapid subs owing to the hot weather. It was a classic Sunday league interaction.

The opening goal was courtesy of Sam Gerstemeier, who made his hotly anticipated return to the Sunday league side. After an unfortunate goal, despite the heroic efforts of keeper Aziz Rashidzada, tied the game 1-1, central midfielder Mustapha Yoosuf-Akinlaja continued his hot start to the season with an incredible assist near the half. Receiving the ball at the edge of the 18 yard box, he dribbled cleanly past three dumbfounded defenders before unselfishly passing the ball to the waiting foot of Drew Flanagan, who opened his scoring account with Barristers to give the squad the advantage at the break.

At halftime, the team gathered itself and adjusted their tactics to move the ball more quickly out of the midfield and to take turns giving Daniel Choi’s dog, Berkeley, treats whenever they could. The second half was a very physical one as the ref took a very hands off approach to challenges. Yet throughout this adversity, the team remained cool, calm, and collegial as late hits continued to be ignored.

Finally the hard fouls caught up to Lampo’s Wild Boar Hunt, who took out the legs of Drew Flanagan who was through on goal. Stepping up to take the PK was Sam Mirzai, who looked unphased by his upcoming moot court semi-final and easily slotted the ball past the keeper.

Soon after that, chaos ensued in the box when target man Nathan Sheeley was knocked over by a zealous off-ball tackle, which gave space for captain Day Robins to ice the game with a clinical strike into the bottom right corner. With a super sub in the form of alumnus Zach Turk helping steady the team to close the game out, the result was never in doubt, despite the 4-3 scoreline.

Next week, the team is at Charlottesville High School again to face UNU.[1] Only time will tell if this unprecedented run of perfection will continue. Please tune back in every week to catch all the drama as the team continues its journey!

---

jwb4bb@virginia.edu

---

[1] The Author does not know what this acronym stands for.

Court of Petty Appeals: OGI Applicants v. Law School Classrooms

---

OGI Applicants v. Law School Classrooms
74 U.Va 5 (2021)

Kulkarni, S. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Today’s case concerns an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim by a large number of 2L students. Specifically, they allege that the Law School has harmed them by naming classrooms and hallways after the firms that have rejected them during the OGI process. Although I am sure that there are 3Ls who have similar concerns, their claims were dismissed because they are no longer in the zone of danger.[1] No 1L has dared join this case, for they know that we will dismiss such claims with extreme prejudice.

Background

First, some context. Within the Law School, there are a number of hallways named after alumni.[2] However, there is one specific hallway named after a firm: Hunton Andrews Kurth. Similarly, there are a number of classrooms and seminar rooms named after alumni with others named after firms like King & Spalding or Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.[3] Some of these classrooms named after firms are the most commonly used for mid-size elective classes. This is all without mentioning the vaunted McGuireWoods Corner.[4] Since 2Ls still tend to show up to their classes, and take only electives, they are the students who actually end up in these classrooms the most. Most lockers are either near one of these classrooms or close enough to the sign for the Hunton Hallway. It is clear that these students are within the zone of danger.[5]

Analysis

These 2Ls have used this proximity to the offending signs and classroom labels to bring this claim. They go on to assert that they had to endure a month-long (or more) process known as On Grounds Interviews (OGI), after months of networking, and are now triggered simply by hearing these firm names. Furthermore, they argue, after all that hard work, all they got was a series of automated rejection emails from these firms or worse—no word back at all. Is it any wonder then, they claim, that they are triggered every time they see those signs? This Court, at least those of us with hearts,[6] certainly feel sympathy for these students. It was a stressful time to be going through OGI and it is no wonder that they feel triggered every time they see the names of their alleged tormentors.

A problem arises, however, when these students make too broad a claim. The students who are suing the Law School, in its capacity of operating these classrooms, allege that all of these firm names have caused them harm. They do not provide any proof that they have applied to all of the named firms. Rejections are hard and are cause for relief, but harm to one student is not, in fact, harm to all in such cases. Without a majority of claimants showing that these specific firms have caused them harm, there cannot be an indiscriminate removal of their names from Law School classrooms.

Furthermore, there has to be a balancing of the equities. The Law School alleges that these firms give a lot of money to the school and hire many of our students. Let’s work through this backwards. First of all, the firms that hire many UVA students are in fact good partners. They are upholding their side of the bargain: get marketing, hire students. These firm names cannot be removed as a result of today’s claims. The money given, however, is not an excuse. These firms likely get a tax break from their donations; thus, they get their benefit already. The added marketing bonus from their names on classrooms cannot be applied simply for the money.

Conclusion and Order

These 2Ls have suffered real harm. They are constantly faced by the names of the firms that have hurt them so deeply. But this Court cannot order an indiscriminate removal of firm names from Law School classrooms. Rather, we focus on the argument made by the Law School. These firms get marketing to students based on the idea that they will hire some of those students. Thus, it is fair to penalize the firms that have broken that contract.[7] The firms that did not hire any students from this august Law School hereby lose their privileges to have their names on classrooms, hallways, and corners. Further, upon future such showings of lack of hiring, the Court will order the same for other firms. While we are sympathetic to other, individual claims, those students will simply have to fight through their distress as students from past years have done.

Bninski, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I write to concur with the outcome reached by my esteemed colleagues, my holding is a more narrow one. I do not take issue with a law firm’s right to reject vast fields of hopeful candidates. That is the nature of the business, and firms are legally free to determine their preferred candidates so long as they avoid practices or criteria which discriminate against individuals based on protected characteristics, or which, while neutral on their face, result in a disparate impact on minority groups.[8] Within that broad liberty, law firms can indulge in caprice. One can even argue, as do appellees in this case, that the firms should be free to constantly remind law students that, while they may enter the firm’s eponymous halls, classroom, foyers, etc., the halls of the firms themselves will remain zealously guarded. This nation does, after all, prioritize liberty of expression.

            The behavior that I would censure lies at the heart of this Court’s jurisdiction: the profoundly petty. To wit, I take issue with firms solely for sending rejection emails that, rather than owning up to their own decision-making process, include weak verbiage claiming that they “are unable”[9] to continue a candidate’s journey through interviewing toward employment “at this time.”[10] Further insult is added by the inclusion of statements that the decision “does not reflect”[11] upon the candidate. Were this the matter before the Court today, I would enjoin firms to make a “short and plain”[12] statement that the candidate is not entitled to employment.  Such a statement might be, “We interviewed you. We decided not to hire you.”

            In the absence of an opportunity to enjoin firms from sending disingenuous emails, I will take petty revenge by joining in this opinion to censure their product placement in this school.

Tonseth, C.J., dissenting like I’m Clarence Thomas.

Blatant hypocrisy. I apparently forgot to include a reason in my dissent last week, again concerning an opinion issued by Associate Justice Kulkarni, for why I always disagree with his legal analysis, in that he’s just plain damn wrong sometimes.[13] In appointing members to this Court, I forgot that some 2Ls want a glass of milk after you give them a cookie. You see, the apparent victorious party, to which Justice Kulkarni is a party to,[14] both wants a job with these respective firms that he decries and uses his attendance at the prestigious University that he attends to get his foot in the door.

            While I’m not truly appalled at the lack of legal analysis and aforethought by Justice Kulkarni, his voodoo magic of pulling Justice Bninski to the dark side hurts deeply. Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is prescient,[15] but in this Court, “we do what we want.”[16] Ergo, we cite our own precedent that is unmoored from the shackling laws made by an unrepresentative body that is the U.S. Congress. If they can actively skirt the rules and precedent,[17]so can I. I just wish J. Bninski would do the same.

            I need not say J. Kulkarni is soft, but there’s no other real way to describe his generation. The lack of true textual analysis, wanting his cake and wanting to eat it too, all the while decrying the “process”, is enough for me to discard this opinion to the trash heap of history, just like Texas’ independence.

Birch, J., dissenting.

Much like many dissents, my opinion was not asked for, expected, or appreciated by my colleagues when received, but it will be published. My dissent is based solely on one phrase used by my junior colleague on the bench, Justice Kulkarni: "Rejections are hard and are cause for relief." What the Justice does not take into account in coming to this conclusion is the benefits of certain rejections. While I recognize having an offer from a firm is a benefit, expecting offers from every firm is ludacris. I know this can be a shock to many 2Ls, but rejection is a part of life and none of you are perfect. The relationship between firms that will pay to put their name on Law School property and firms that will actively laugh at your weekend plans is one-to-one. Rejections from those firms should not always be met with sorrow or discouragement, but if a single other offer meets your needs then a celebration may be in order. Work-life balance may be attainable in four years instead of retirement!

            The legal industry itself is a Zone of Danger, and any attempts to temper that are met with opinions just like that of our Chief Justice. As a part of the legal industrial complex, the Law School is just playing its part with sponsorships to remind students that had never received a grade below an A- in undergraduate that they have willingly walked into hell. This lawsuit is much like suing a haunted house for scaring you when you paid for a ticket to get scared. 

            I must separately give recognition and credit to the reasoning displayed by my colleague Justice Bninski. While her conclusion in this matter before us comes out wholly twisted by self-interest and personal whim, her wish to enjoin firms' weak communications in the future has my foundational support.

 ---

omk6cg@virginia.edu
amb6ag@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu

---

[1] Sorry Professor White, this phrase is all I remember about IIED claims. Luckily this is a made-up court and I don’t have to remember all of the precedent.

[2] This court appreciates the school removing the Withers name from the hall, perhaps removing it from the classroom labels should be expedited.

[3] I think the fact that I remembered the full name without looking it up deserves kudos.

[4] Ten points to any reader who finds this sign, it is hidden well.

[5] I’m definitely not using this phrase correctly.

[6] Everyone except my venerated colleague the Chief Justice.

[7] Look Rip! I paid enough attention in your class to know that breaking a contract is bad.

[8] See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in case you need legal reasons not to be racist or sexist.

[9] If they wanted to, they could. They are only “unable” to want to.

[10] There is literally no reason to say this.

[11] While the firm’s need for summer associates must also play a role in the number of offers extended, it strikes this justice as absurd that hiring decisions would not reflect on the candidates who were interviewed. Their credentials and self-presentation are a substantial portion of the data that a potential employer has to work with. Why pretend otherwise?

[12] See Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies here not procedurally but in its general vibe.

[13] Law Students v. Bar Review 74 U.Va 4 (2021), (Tonseth C.J., dissenting).

[14] Conflict of interest much????

[15] TBH, I don’t know what this means, but Justice Thomas always uses big words and nobody really reads the 4th dissent in a case that you’re assigned in ConLaw, so I am surprised if you even got this far.

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

[17] See generally, the failed country that is Texas.

Hot Bench: T Rowan Adams '24

---

T Rowan Adams ‘24

Interviewed by Phil Tonseth ‘22

Hey Rowan, welcome to the Hot Bench! I’m excited for the Law School to get the chance to know you better. First off, where are you from and where’d you go to undergrad?

I’m from Cincinnati, Ohio. I went to DePauw University (in Indiana), but I spent the past two years before law school in NYC!

What made you start thinking about law school, and what drove you to UVA in particular?

I was obsessed with Judge Judy and other crime shows growing up, so law school has kind of always been part of the plan. I chose UVA specifically because of the culture. Every lawyer or law student I talked to throughout the whole application process said how much law school sucked EXCEPT UVA folks. While current students and alums didn’t try to downplay how hard or stressful it was, they also were very enthusiastic about how much fun it can be. That is something unique to UVA, which made the choice to attend here very easy.

I know it’s early in your legal career, but do you have an idea of what work you’d like to get into?

I worked the last two years as a paralegal at the Manhattan DA’s Office so currently I am very much interested in prosecution work. Specifically, federal prosecution. Criminal Law is my favorite class so far, so we’ll see how the rest of law school goes! That said, I am also interested in pursuing LGBTQ+ rights work. Very different fields!

How’d you get into working with the Manhattan DA’s Office? What was your coolest experience in that office?

I used to want to be a public defender, but then I interned at a public defender’s office in college. I have the utmost respect for public defenders and am still a huge proponent of the work they do and the reasons they do it, I just don’t think it’s necessarily for me. The criminal justice field still interested me, though, and after graduating from DePauw, I knew I was moving to NYC no matter what. I applied at the Manhattan DA’s Office and thankfully got a paralegal position in their Vehicular Crimes Unit.

So I wouldn’t classify this as “cool,” but probably the most interesting experience at the office was sitting in the courtroom and watching Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault trial. I worked in the same hallway as the lead prosecutors on the case so leading up the trial I overheard a lot of the trial preparation. Being able to witness the very publicized trial firsthand was an educational experience I don’t think I’ll ever forget.

I’ve heard from the grapevine that you’re the 1L FYC President. What drove you towards that role, and what do you hope to get out of it?

Yes, I am! I have been involved with student government since the 8th grade—it’s something I am naturally very passionate about. I enjoy serving as a liaison between students and the administration, listening to students’ concerns, and advocating for positive change. This year I hope to keep many of the UVA Law traditions alive that may have faltered a bit during the past COVID year. UVA Law is known for our sense of community, so I hope to ensure that we live up to our reputation!

Do y’all on FYC have any fun plans for 1Ls for the upcoming year?

SO MANY! We have the standard events planned, such as Foxfield, Halloween Carnival, and, of course, Bar Review every Friday night. But we also hope to host a 1L social sometime in October. Right now we’re thinking about hosting a huge Halloween bash and/or (hopefully and) a Pavilion “around-the-world” night where anyone in Pav that wants to, can open up their apartment for folks. The idea is that 1Ls could hop from apartment to apartment, or “country to country,” and enjoy food and drinks of that respective country. Lots of ideas being thrown around for fun 1L events this semester and next!

So I know SBA and FYC is a lot of work, but what other clubs are you involved with so far? 

Yes, I am involved with Lambda Law Alliance. I identify as non-binary so joining a LGBTQ+ student organization at UVA was really important to me. I am excited to work with the organization this year!

Lets do a lightning round!

Favorite food? 

Peanut butter. I kid you not, I go through a jar a week.

Anti-Stress Hobby? 

Working out! Either lifting weights or playing basketball.

Pet peeve?

People who make fun of others in the gym! Let them be!

Big headphones in the gym, earbuds, or the dreaded no headphone gym-goer?

AirPods all the way.

Favorite word? 

Nefarious.

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

Not Afraid by Eminem. A HYPE song.

What’s your spirit animal? 

Tiger. Tigers were my undergrad’s mascot and also happen to be my favorite animal.

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

Greece!

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

Don’t wear flip-flops with jeans. I’m sorry y’all, I just can’t.

---

vva4qk@virginia.edu

Barristers United Match Report: Week 1

---

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor

The Barristers opened up their season on a sweltering Sunday morning against Champions FC with a clinical four to zero win, with the squad making an unmistakable statement that their promotion to the SOCA unrestricted 11v11 league was not a fluke. Despite the other team’s greater experience, gender homogeneity, and matching kits, they were no match for the students of UVA Law, who thrashed them for the entire 90 minutes.

The game began very tensely with Barrister’s captain and dog-owner Stephen “anti-shirt” Wald imploring the team to hold possession and use their team’s greater numbers to tire the opposition out. This strategy worked well, as the Barristers were able to minimize Champion FC’s chances through intense pressing in the midfield, along with a sturdy defense anchored by Ardi “enjoying his 3L retirement” Khalafi and Ray “would die for his dog” Roesler, whose new partnership is already one of the best in Barrister’s history.

Right before halftime, the deadlock was broken thanks to a brilliant assist by Nathan “the Juggernaut” Sheeley, who was able to overpower the defender and slide the ball across the goal to Barrister’s mainstay Sam “sprinted literally all 45 minutes” Mirzai, who is in pursuit of the Barristers all-time goal scoring record in his 3L year. Soon after the goal, the visibly annoyed referee signaled for the start of halftime. Sam then had to leave, but the team was strengthened by the halftime introduction of John “was late because he ran a 5k that morning” Lawrence. After a stirring halftime speech, the team entered the second half with confidence.

Three goals followed in quick succession as the team put a dagger in whatever hope Champions FC had. Scoring on their debuts, Mustapha “almost got kicked in the back of the head trying to win the ball” Yoosuf-Akinlaja and Tyler “former Mark Clattenburg of SOCA soccer” Demetriou both were able to capitalize on amazing buildup play to slide the ball past the keeper. Then to cap off the run, John “yes he seriously drove to Richmond to run a 5k the morning of a soccer game” Lawrence scored an early contender for goal of the season, as he blasted a shot over the keeper from the edge of the 18-yard box. 

Aside from the goal scorers, there were many notable performances from new additions to the squad. 1Ls Keith “turn and shoot!” Stone and Jacob “didn’t turn and shoot” Baltzegar energized the squad with their passion. Zachary “was promised and did not receive a starting spot at CAM” Pierce was a dependable outlet the entire game along with Drew “pacy winger” Flanagan, who terrorized the opposing fullbacks with his youthful runs.

All in all, it was a perfect start to what will be a stellar season for Barrister’s United. If you would ever like to play in the weekend league games, or are interested in playing pickup during the week, please email the author who would be happy to add you to the GroupMe. Also, make sure to tune back in next week to keep up with all of the action as the Barristers continue their journey to the illustrious SOCA Championship.

---

jwb4bb@virginia.edu

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: Bojangles v. Raising Canes

---

Bojangles: Best Chicken in Town

Phil Tonseth ‘23
Editor-in-Chief

Bojangles. It would be easy enough to say that it’s God’s gift to mankind, but the EIC of Law Weekly said this article had to be 400 words at least, so buckle up. Whether it’s their Cajun filet biscuit with eggs and cheese for breakfast, their chicken supreme box with Cajun fries for lunch, the tailgate box for dinner, or bo-berry biscuits for dessert, you won’t be disappointed. Shoot, even if you want to be ‘healthy,’ their green beans and mac-n-cheese also slap.

            Bojangles isn’t as popular as Chick-fil-A because they don’t take generally unpopular political stances,[1] nor as Popeyes because they don’t advertise with years-old TikToks. Bojangles grows their fan base through tried and true taste tests. Located either both Abbey Road and Seminole Trail, there are two locations within Cville to explore their sumptuous flavors.[2] Law students are generally early risers.[3] Bojangles isn’t the only chicken place, but you won’t see old people show up to Raising Canes or Chick-fil-A at 5 a.m. to have a biscuit and coffee, only to sit there for a few hours and chat over the local news of the day. I get it, Shenandoah Joe may have some dope coffee. But do they have biscuits? Probably not, but I cannot confirm as I don’t drink coffee. Conversely, Shenandoah Joe doesn’t have some of the best sweet tea you’ll find south of the Mason-Dixon line. Bojangles does. The combo of Bojangles’ sweet tea and biscuits for breakfast? It might as well be renamed heaven.

            If you haven’t followed my articles so far this year,[4] I play a fair share of golf. Unfortunately, a lot of people look down on consuming alcohol before 10 a.m. I mean, it’s generally illegal and frowned upon to sell liquor before 10 a.m.. Ergo, rolling up to an early morning tee time with a sweet tea is a great intermediary.[5] Say you like a black coffee instead. Your Bojangles equivalent would be just an ordinary biscuit. However, and I cannot recommend this enough, get a gravy biscuit.[6]

            To be completely frank, I haven’t addressed how good Chick-fil-A and Raising Canes are. To be honest, I don’t need to.[7] Bojangles doesn’t have any negatives. Bojangles just slaps. There isn’t a bad meal. There’s a ready supply of quality chicken, dope Cajun fries, and biscuits that would make your grandma self-conscious. Trust me, take a trip there and you’ll enjoy it. Then, come talk to me after and we’ll enjoy some sweet tea over a round of golf.

Raising Canes: the Only Choice

Jack Brown ‘23
Staff Editor

Go take a drive down Barracks Road right now and you are guaranteed to see a line of cars stretching dangerously out of the Cane’s parking lot, while Popeyes and KFC lay empty right next door. The good people of Charlottesville have made a decisive choice. 

            Founded in 1996, following a business plan that earned its founder Todd Graves a C minus, the chain has quickly exploded because of the undeniable quality of its chicken and the simplicity of the menu. In a world where we need to make hundreds of choices every day, it is refreshing to be limited to five primary combos, all of which are hearty meals that can brighten any day.

            Canes’ juicy tenders, creamy coleslaw and mouth-watering Texas toast would be incredible options on their own, making Raising Canes a top-tier chicken choice in a saturated market, but the sauce takes the experience beyond anything you could conceive of a priori.[8]

            I could stay here for years, writing as prolifically and passionately as Samuel Alito did when Bostock v. Clayton County made it so you couldn’t fire someone on account of their sexual orientation, and never be able to fully explain the perfection that is Raising Canes’ signature sauce. No other sauce, not the Chick-fil-A sauce that it was inspired by, nor whatever you get at Bojangles, even comes  close to this meal-perfecting addition.

            What can be said about the other chicken options in this week’s Tweedle? Between Chick-fil-A's unavailability on the Lord’s day, and the distinct lack of value in any Bojangles’s meal,[9] determining this contest’s winner is a self-evident truth. Trust the tastebuds of the Charlottesville townies and choose Raising Canes next time you are hankering for some chicken.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
jwb4bb@virginia.edu

---

[1] Sorry FedSoc, we all come to your meetings for the substance, not the sandwiches.

[2] And yes, Bo knows.

[3] See 1Ls, not anyone with a choice.

[4] See https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2021/8/17/bde-rises-to-the-top; and https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2021/8/31/complete-and-accurate-ranking-of-local-golf-courses.

[5] Plus, sweet tea and a few airplane bottles mix great together.

[6] TBH, their jelly on a biscuit is also delicious.

[7] Yes, Bojangles’ chicken is crunchy, but at least their chicken has flavor. Sorry not sorry, Canes.

[8] This is a fancy way of saying “before experience”, I will always take any opportunity to flex my philosophy degree

[9] Seriously their tenders are like 5% chicken 95% unsatisfying crunch.

Court of Petty Appeals: Law Students v. Bar Review

Law Students v. Bar Review
74 U.Va 4 (2021)

Kulkarni, S. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Background 

If you look at any article published by the esteemed newspaper the Virginia Law Weekly in the last year, or see any opinion published by this court in the same timeframe, you are likely to find a mention of the event known as Bar Review. Traditionally, students from all three years come together once a week to celebrate another seven-day cycle of challenging classes at a venue decided on by a certain person and hosted by a kind local watering hole. This weekly event was missing from the past year’s social calendar for reasons I am sure we can all appreciate. However, the event’s return was meant to provide a venue for 2Ls to behave like fools in public rather than wait for stories of their stupidity to circulate through the grapevine. It was meant to provide 1Ls with a proper introduction to the law school culture. It was meant to provide 3Ls the opportunity to meet old friends and have their debauchery be socially appropriate once a week.

Unfortunately, the students bringing this case allege that the esteemed host, Crozet Pizza, failed to provide the appropriate venue for all of these ideas at the first Bar Review. These students claim that the live band, lack of access to drink specials, and the greatest of unholy curses (undergrads) so affected their experience as to prevent them from understanding the true nature of Bar Review. As usual, the majority of plaintiffs are from the Class of 2023, who are quickly becoming joint claimants in front of this Court for their issues with every aspect of law school culture that they believe they were denied in the previous year.  Let’s review these individual allegations one at a time.

Analysis

First, the live band. The students were given the opportunity to enjoy such premium performance art, but still found reason to complain. The Court is not unsympathetic to the concerns of the law students. The live band took up space that could have been used for dancing, and the music was limited by the setlist. Live performance is a gift and true art. But at times, expediency must take precedent. Crozet Pizza cannot hold two major events at once: live music is an event, a true experience; yet so is Bar Review. They have the option to host either, but they must choose one. It is important to note, however, that the stage space taken up by the DJs on other nights is not too dissimilar from the space that claimants allege is used by the live band. Unfortunately for the law students, this consideration makes this claim null and void.

Next, the lack of access to drink specials. On this, the students bring with them the best evidence. Many of them spent most of the two-hour-long window for drink specials simply waiting in line. Some students allege that upon reaching the front, they were not even given the reduced prices they were promised. This is certainly an affront, but this Court must balance the equities. Crozet only had two main bartenders who were managing the large crowd. Those wonderful people are not to blame for this high-stress situation, where mistakes are inevitable. The blame lies with their business overlord who did not plan ahead for such an occasion. Since the esteemed justices on this Court will one day defend businesses, it is important to take this sacred time on the Court to protect individuals when we can. This claim has merit, and the Court would also refer those unfortunate bartenders to any of the future lawyers at this law school for any help they might need.

Finally, the undergrads. The students allege that this law school event was plagued with the atrocity known as undergraduate students. The Court is appalled. Is Crozet not interested in its own pocketbooks? Allowing such deviants into their event, with the simple phrase “We’re with Bar Review” (that they can easily overhear and use) hurts their own bottom line. There was no space to stand and dance, according to the plaintiffs. The experience was ruined, they allege. On this, the Court completely understands. In allowing this flood of non-law students to enter, the contract of Bar Review hosting was broken. This claim is certainly meritorious and would ordinarily demand relief. For reasons discussed below, however, that relief will not be granted at this time.

Conclusion and Order

Crozet did fail in some aspects of hosting Bar Review. Drink specials are what draws law students to the event. Undergrads ruined the experience. With all of that said, this Court will stay its hand. Since the original claim was filed, a second Bar Review occurred at Crozet Pizza. This event was less congested, provided easier access to drink specials, and included fewer undergrads. We will issue only a warning to Crozet and any other future host of Bar Review. Consider wristbands and better preparations for future events—don’t overburden your own bartenders. We will hold ourselves back this time but will grant cert to future claims about inadequate Bar Reviews. In other words, you are on thin ice.

Tonseth, C.J. nonchalantly dissenting.

            It has become due matter of course that when I assign my Associate Justice Kulkarni to write an opinion, I must dissent. This dissent may stem from the fact that I disagree with his analysis, that we believe in alternative facts that are dispositive to the case, that his conclusion is entirely based on substantive due process,[1] or that I just feel like being petty. Today, I am choosing the latter reason for dissenting.

            First, J. Kulkarni makes some argument about venue.[2] Yet, he also supports keeping Bar Review at Crozet. I have major qualms about this decision. I’ve personally become highly preferential to Bilt. Is this because I now finally have a cool party trick where I can walk up to my favorite bartender, raise a hand and the number of fingers I hold up indicates how many Bud Lights I want? You bet. Plus, Bilt is usually less crowded, does a two form of ID check to keep undergrads out,[3]  and has a nice pergola for when unforeseen rain showers pop up.

            Second, J. Kulkarni keeps attempting to give 2Ls additional rights that they haven’t earned.[4] This opinion again reads like a “bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery.”[5] Granted, all of those who attended Bar Review were deprived of their constitutional right to a speedy drink delivery from plentiful bartenders. But, as a wise member of the Class of 2022 suggested in their Groupme, why didn’t we just make 1Ls be bartenders?

            Third, I think J. Kulkarni and his fellow complainants just need to learn to order better. Every time I went to the bar, I simply ordered a six-pack of PBR. It allowed me to stay cheap, share a few with friends, and always have two drinks in hand while I waited in line again. Win, win, win. Work smarter, not harder, kids.

---

omk6cg@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] Which, once the 1Ls take ConLaw, they’ll also learn is a farce. Just like my perceived power on this Court.

[2] I’m not going to lie, I skimmed the majority opinion while on the golf course, similar to my PR reading for this week.

[3] I watched them snatch 6 fake IDs last week, it was dope

[4] See 2Ls v. 1Ls, 74 U.Va 2 (2021), Tonseth., C.J. vehemently dissenting.

[5] King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 506 (2015) (Scalia, J. dissenting).