Court of Petty Appeals: Virginia Law Review v. Virginia Journal of International Law

Virginia Law Weekly September 22, 2023

Virginia Law Review
v.
Virginia Journal of International Law
76 U.Va 3 (2023)

Allard, J. delivering the opinion of the court.

Background

This case is brought before us on appeal from the District Court of Petty Complaints. At issue is an age-old conflict between the Law School’s second and third most prestigious journals.[1] Defendant-appellant the Virginia Law Review (“VLR”) appeals the lower court’s denial of its motion to dismiss. In turn, plaintiff-appellee the Virginia Journal of International Law (“VJIL”) requests on cross-appeal that the Court review the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

In its complaint to the District Court of Petty Complaints, VJIL alleges that VLR has engaged in a pattern of discrimination and a host of dignitary violations against its members. These alleged violations include, most prominently, the labeling of a water fountain as “VLR Only” and a rule that members of VJIL enter the parties’ shared office space through “the scary door.” VJIL sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring VLR to refrain from excluding VJIL members from these amenities. Urging the court to enjoin this “invidious discrimination,” VJIL cites several persuasive authorities, including Brown v. Board of Education, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title III of the Civil Rights Act, and the dormant collegiality doctrine.

VLR filed a motion to dismiss based on several theories. They have appealed on two of those: that the District Court of Petty Complaints lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and, in the alternative, that VJIL’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. While we reject all of VLR’s arguments, we believe that the trial court should have granted its motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, we think that it would be funnier and more entertaining for everyone else at the Law School if both parties just duked it out.

VLR first contends that VJIL’s complaint falls outside of the jurisdiction of the District Court of Petty Complaints. VLR argues that the offenses alleged by VJIL are far from petty, and are, in fact, heinous offenses to the person, and thus outside of the court’s jurisdiction. At oral argument, VLR’s advocate, a reanimated Alexander Porter Morse, adeptly explained that VJIL’s complaint is better suited for an international human rights tribunal.

Secondly, VLR argues that even if the court has jurisdiction, VJIL has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While conceding that Brown and other binding legal authority forbid the blatant discrimination in which its members are engaged, VLR nonetheless asks the court to “[j]ust be cool and apply separate but equal—for old time’s sake.” VLR also contests VJIL’s reliance on the dormant collegiality doctrine, arguing that the only authority cited in support of that doctrine is dicta. See Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va 12 (2022) (Pazhwak, J., concurring).

While we find VLR’s arguments to be legally sound, we reject them under the canon of uncomical avoidance. It is the well-established practice of this Court to avoid dispositions of a case that are based on legal reasoning rather than humor, and to give Justices wide latitude in pursuit of that goal. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win than it is for them to lose”).

Here, we can think of no outcome funnier than acknowledging VLR’s cruelty while refusing to grant VJIL relief. Indeed, willful blindness to cruelty finds support in the recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. See e.g., Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 492 (2023) (“[T]here is nothing fundamentally surprising about Congress declining to make [the imprisonment of legally innocent persons] remediable in a second or successive collateral attack.”) Furthermore, our decision today is supported by a legal fact which requires no elaboration: Nerd fights are funny. To allow VJIL to proceed with its case would likely foreclose the opportunity for a nerd fight of the highest caliber. In the interest of the Law School’s entertainment, VJIL’s complaint must be dismissed unless they can produce persuasive evidence that it would be funnier for their case to proceed.

Having decided that the lower court must reconsider VLR’s motion to dismiss, we decline to decide whether VJIL was entitled to summary judgment. However, for no other purpose than to add insult to injury, we note that we totally would have granted this motion had we reached the issue.

***

The case is thus remanded to the District Court of Petty Complaints with instructions to issue an order consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Morse, J., Concurring in part.

I write separately to note that while I agree with the majority’s application of the canon of uncomical avoidance, I believe that it fails to identify what would be both the funniest and pettiest outcome to this dispute. As anyone who has been into the new VJIL/VLR office knows, the crown jewel of this office—nay, of the Law School—is the pool table. It is a welcome respite from the cold calls, cite checks, and general hurly-burly of the Law School. The only thing that could improve it would be regular access to fine scotch and a selection of cigars which would make Churchill blush. Because it would be funnier[2] to turn the VJIL/VLR office into an upscale version of Miller’s, but I agree with the rule laid down in this case, I concur in part.

Sandu, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.

The facts of this case have left me speechless, as has my (formerly) esteemed colleague’s lackadaisical approach to legal analysis. I write a separate opinion speaking for all VJIL members, nay, all law students, who have never been to their journal’s office.[3] Whether or not I knew about the layout of the VLR/VJIL office is irrelevant to my ability to express an opinion on the matter. It is not merely a matter of practicality—it is a matter of principle. And we are nothing if not a court of principles. Petty principles, but principles, nonetheless.

First, some may argue that Justices on this Court who are a member of the journals party to this litigation ought to recuse themselves. But this is not a consideration which our Court can entertain, else we would cease to function altogether. Many Justices on this Court belong to at least one of the two journals. Furthermore, this Court’s jurisdiction is over the conflicts and concerns of law students, and what are we if not law students? Must we recuse ourselves entirely from every dispute which reaches our bench? Must every judge in America recuse themselves from issues which impact the lives of Americans? This is clearly an untenable position.[4]

I must also express my concern for Justice Allard’s statement, “Nerd fights are funny,” becoming binding precedent upon this court. This Court’s jurisdiction is over what is funny, as Justice Allard’s opinion correctly identifies. However, it is a generally accepted truth that 1Ls are nerds. If nerd fights are funny, then 1Ls would be permitted to fight amongst themselves on both sides of litigation. In such a scenario, we would be forced to choose a 1L victor in violation of this Court’s most sacred provision: 1Ls always lose. While there is an addendum that they maywin if it is funnier, a “nerd fight” consisting solely of 1Ls will not allow the court the option to decide if finding in favor of a 1L is funnier, because a 1L will always have to win. This cannot happen. However, following the outcome of the present case, any case solely between 1Ls must necessarily be dismissed.

As to the case at hand, whether a student actually uses their journal’s office (or if their preclusion from the facilities is merely theoretical) is irrelevant when faced with VLR’s intentional infliction of emotional distress. Law students are inherently competitive beings with chronic imposter syndrome. Every day, VJIL members are forced to live with the guilt, agonizing over whether memorizing the Bluebook before orientation would have granted them access to that sweet, sweet VLR nectar. Denying VJIL relief now is akin to waiting until the middle of summer to let them know that they didn’t make it onto VLR. This is a cruel and unusual punishment which must not be inflicted.

While I concur with Justice Allard’s finding that VLR’s cruelty cannot be allowed to stand, I disagree with the outcome that VJIL cannot be granted relief. Not only is the behavior in which VLR is engaging plainly unconstitutional, it is also an affront to me personally during my birthday month.[5] For this reason alone, the Court ought to find in favor of VJIL.

Coleman, J., dissenting, joined by Allen, J.

It is a thin line upon which VLR treads. Its appeal simultaneously argues that its behavior with respect to VJIL was so heinous as to put the controversy outside our jurisdiction, and that it gave rise to no claim upon which relief could be granted. Because of their formidable intellects, I find their oxymoronic position consistent, and I disrespectfully dissent in full.

But the majority does not disagree with our brave Law Review students on the merits—as if such a thing were even possible. Instead, they rely on the novel theory of uncomical avoidance, best explained by Chief Justice, emerita, Lake, in Gay Section H, 75 U.Va at 5 (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”)

This doctrine is totally inapplicable beyond 1L disputes or the specific facts of that case. Chief Justice Lake was under duress when she wrote that opinion, having been berated by her staff for routinely confusing the two gay writers. The Law Weekly office was positively mutinous. So, in her darkest hour on this Court, she wrote an overly broad concurrence that is today being exploited by those same mutinous editors. I refuse to condone a shake down of this sort, and therefore refuse to apply the doctrine of uncomical avoidance beyond its original context. I would rule for VLR, as any sane Justice would.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

[1] The Court will refrain from identifying which party is second and which is third, but we note the self-evident fact that the Law Weekly is first.

[2] And serve my own purposes.

[3] To be honest, I’m still not entirely sure where the office is, but I’m sure I’ll find it eventually.

[4] This Court also operates without law clerks, a fundamental deficiency in our current system.

[5] See https://www.horoscope.com/zodiac-signs/virgo (“Virgo is notorious for being type A but that's only because this sign knows that everything good can be made great, and that everything great can be perfect.”) Justice Allard is also a Virgo, so he should know better.

Court of Petty Appeals: Students for Fair Socialization v. Student Bar Association

Virginia Law Weekly September 14, 2023

Students for Fair Socialization
v.
Student Bar Association
76 U.Va 2 (2023)

Coleman, J., delivering the opinion of the court.

We hear this case on appeal after the Governor from the State of SBA issued a halt on bar reviews, the constitutionality of which was affirmed by the lower court. The trial judge cited the dramatic rise in COVID cases among the student population as a sufficient justification for the unprecedented move. However, the trial court did not disturb the many other gatherings that are permitted, from classes to student organization meetings. Because of this inconsistency, we have been able to see the blatant attack on two fundamental rights at the Law School: those of inebriation and socialization. Accordingly, we reverse and issue an injunction that bar reviews must continue in spite of COVID.

Up front, this Court would like to address the standing issue. SBA has not actually restricted bar reviews. However, the apprehension of some students that bar review may be curtailed with the rising COVID numbers is a cognizable injury. SBA poses a credible threat, and for that reason, this Court will entertain the petitioner’s complaint.

Some may know that the words “socialization” and “inebriation” are nowhere to be found in our Academic Policies. This is of no concern, since I choose to include them in my substantive honor analysis. Our constitutional order was fundamentally changed when the Honor System was established in 1842. And with that, the Framers protected some inalienable rights by putting them outside of the Honor Code’s ambit. To an intelligent student in 1842, the Honor Code protected his rights to socialize and drink. This is because these rights were deeply rooted in our school’s history and tradition. After all, Thomas Jefferson himself developed the wine industry in the region. And this Law School has consistently been ranked as the best for quality of life. Those isolated pieces of historical evidence convince me. Accordingly, the rights to inebriation and socialization are codified within substantive honor as if they were explicitly granted rights.

Our precedent informs us that laws may burden these fundamental rights if they are neutral and generally applicable. But this is obviously not the case. The regulations at issue were written with bar reviews in mind, and they do not apply to the many other gatherings that characterize the law-school experience. In sum, it is obvious that classes are being treated more favorably than bar reviews. This is abhorrent from the perspectives of an 1842 student and the modern student alike.

Yet another important consideration is the negative impact this ruling would have on 2Ls and 3Ls, relative to 1Ls. 2Ls and 3Ls are better positioned to enjoy bar review for several reasons. They care less about grades, have more disposable income after summers with firms, and have larger networks of friends to enjoy the night with. A restriction of bar review limits their ability to exploit these blessings as jealous 1Ls look on. Decisions by state actors that fail to privilege 2Ls and 3Ls over 1Ls receive strict scrutiny under this Court’s jurisprudence. I don’t find the respondent’s reasoning compelling, so it fails my version of strict scrutiny, plain and simple.

The State cannot assume the worst when people go to tie one on at bar review and the best when people go to class. Such thinking is antithetical to a society based on disordered libertinism and will find no safe haven in this Court. SBA must continue putting on bar reviews no matter what.

Rice, J., concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment, but I believe that the SBA’s attempt to curtail bar reviews is more aptly evaluated under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. That is, our precedent tells us that government restrictions cannot be neutral or generally applicable, and thus trigger strict scrutiny, whenever they treat any comparable sober activity more favorably than the exercise of public intoxication.

The above principle makes clear the outcome in this case. Here, SBA treats some comparable activities more favorably than bar review inebriation—permitting, among other things, face-to-face meetings with professors during office hours to go on. Indeed, this court is aware of no SBA restriction on getting a bit toasted before attending one of these sessions, in order to get the courage to ask the question you’ve been too afraid to ask since the first day of class. Yet, SBA would ban this same transfer of knowledge for the mere reason that the transaction occurs in poorly ventilated bar filled well-over capacity and heated to the ripe temperature of ninety-eight degrees.

Further, the SBA provides no explanation as to why it could not safely permit drunken law students to scream and breathe into the faces of their disinterested peers at a one-inch distance after backing them into a corner at Rapture.

Strict scrutiny requires the State to employ the least restrictive means to advance their interests, and I am unconvinced that the long-employed tactic of 1Ls neglecting personal hygiene in order to maximize their time in the Law Library is insufficient to encourage social distancing in a public setting.

Whereas the State has not carried its heavy burden of demonstrating that the challenged restriction satisfies strict scrutiny, and the tolerance of the student body would be irreparably harmed by the loss of their drinking rights for even a minimal period of time, petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief.

Moore, J., dissenting.

Today's decision is a first: Never before has this Court entered an injunction arguably encouraging the spread of a disease. This Court has always decided simple, petty disputes among members of the student body and against the school administration. Indeed, this Court’s original grant of subject matter jurisdiction is to adjudicate petty disputes over petty matters. Not, as the majority seeks to do here today, to lay down public health policy for the entire Law School. Accordingly, I would issue an injunction pausing bar reviews until further notice.

To be sure, bar review plays an integral part in the Law School experience. Bar review has long been a place where law students come together to unwind, socialize, and watch 1Ls drunkenly try to make out with their sectionmates. Bar review serves as an important source of connection and provides community to a diverse student body. I do not take lightly the decision to pause bar review, but, under the present circumstances my hands are tied.

Some might say this dissent is motivated by the fact I am currently suffering from a bout of COVID that I got from the first bar review. They are correct. But my unease ultimately does not arise out of concern for public health and student safety. Instead, I ground my reasoning in the long-standing history and tradition of FOMO.[1] Indeed, I seek to enjoin future bar reviews until I can once again personally partake in them. Last weekend, my Instagram Stories feed was filled with my fellow BLSA members cutting up at Look Hoos Back. The only thing harder than dealing with that FOMO is breathing through my nose.

Nothing could be more petty than enjoining all future bar reviews out of spite. Therefore, I must (disrespectfully) dissent.

---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
rf4bh@virginia.edu
tqy7zz@virginia.edu

[1] McGinnis v. The Fear of Missing Out, 242 U.S. 320 (2018). ChatGPT assures me this is a real court case.

Hot Bench: Maggie Rossberg '24

Virginia Law Weekly September 14, 2023

Hi Maggie! Let’s start with a little background about yourself. Where are you from, where did you go to undergrad, and how did you end up coming to law school?

I am from Crozet, VA, which is a place, not just a bar on the Corner. I went to UVA for undergrad, so I am a Double Hoo. Well, I like to say that I am a hopeful Double Hoo because I have to graduate law school first.

I actually started off in the nursing school in college but took every chance I could to take classes unrelated to nursing. That was a sign that I should make a change. I ended up majoring in American Studies with the hope of going to law school one day. First, I wanted to get out in the working world and prove to myself that it was a worthwhile endeavor. I worked on the Hill and then for a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. Through both of those experiences, particularly the nonprofit, I got to meet a lot of federal prosecutors and see them do their jobs, which drove home that law school was what I wanted to do.

You clearly love Charlottesville and UVA. What makes this place so special to you?

It is hard to describe why it is special, because it is a feeling. I love Charlottesville for a lot of reasons. It offers many of the benefits of a big city, namely great restaurants and activities, like hiking and wineries. But you don't have the downsides of living in a large place. I guess sometimes the traffic on 29 is bad, but that’s only for an hour each day.

I also think UVA is a really special school. You get a lot of the charm of a southern school with great academics and history. The Lawn and the Rotunda are UNESCO World Heritage sites. The last time I checked, there are only ten UNESCO sites in the whole United States. Charlottesville is a convergence of a lot of wonderful things.

You mentioned loving the restaurants here. What are your top three Charlottesville restaurants?

My top restaurant is Tavola. I love Italian food, and their selection is so good. The ambiance is also great because it is casual yet refined. The wine selection is unbelievable. Go and talk to their sommelier, Caleb. He is knowledgeable, and I’ve learned a lot about wine from him. My favorite dishes are the pomegranate cosmopolitan, the burrata, the bucatini all’amatriciana, the eggplant, and I like an affogato for dessert.
C&O is my second favorite. That is a classic Charlottesville restaurant with delicious French food. My mom worked as the pastry chef there when I was little, so I have a lot of childhood memories of sitting at the secret bar downstairs and drinking Shirley Temples.

Third is Lampo. I love pizza, and the Neapolitan style is the best of them all. Lampo is great because it is affordable and delicious. It feels like you are in a little bistro in Italy with how small and intimate it is.

This is your last year in Charlottesville before you start your career. What are your 3L goals?

Before law school, I got advice from a friend who had just graduated that I shouldn't get involved in any extracurriculars and should just focus on school. I think part of that advice was good. Law school isn’t like undergrad where you need to prove your leadership abilities. I took it to the extreme, however, and didn’t get involved in anything. As a 1L, I just focused on school, made friends, and played on my section softball team. I wasn’t involved in a single club, not even Virginia Law Women.

As a 3L, I am becoming more invested in this community via organizations and things that I care about. I am the president of Agape, a new Christian organization. Agape is an openly affirming and theologically diverse organization. I feel really passionately about it and am excited to be involved. Last year, I did the Innocence Project clinic and am continuing my involvement as a pro bono team leader this year. I am also trying new activities, like Barrister’s United pickup soccer and tennis lessons with friends. I can’t go back and change 1L Maggie, but I’m expanding my horizons to have my finger on the pulse at the Law School. I’m calling it my involved era.

Lightning Round:

Your Go-To Dessert?

The best chocolate chip cookies. I have been browning butter for years.

Favorite Grand Slam Tournament? Wimbledon. I went to the club where it is held this summer and would die to be a member there. It is impossible. You need to know three people who will vouch for you.

Most Interesting Law School Class? Con Law II: Religious Liberty with Professor Schwartzman. The doctrine is complex but very relevant.

Favorite Member of the Royal Family? The Princess of Wales. I will happily engage in a nuanced conversation about Megan and Harry with anyone who wants to discuss it.

Best Taylor Swift Era? 1989, but Lover is a close second.

---
Interviewed by Sally Levin ‘24
ezn3yy@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: 1Ls, 2Ls, 3Ls, et al. v. The Pavilion at North Grounds (aka "Pav")

Virginia Law Weekly September 8, 2023

1Ls, 2Ls, 3Ls, et al.
v.
The Pavilion at North Grounds (aka "Pav")
76 U.Va 1 (2023)

Morse, C.J., delivers the unanimous opinion of the court.

David and Goliath. Erin Brockovich and PG&E. The 1Ls who won Dandelion playing against the NGSL team. History is replete with examples of the little guy struggling mightily against a significantly larger and more powerful foe. Thankfully, in our system of justice there has existed for some time now a means of pooling the resources of a mass of individuals in the hopes that by their consolidated action, they might obtain a measure of justice which would otherwise be inaccessible to them as individuals. It is a hallmark of our American system of justice, that class actions allow the little guy to win against a malicious foe who, by virtue of his size would otherwise evade justice. This is an honorable and commendable pursuit.

That is not the kind of case which we consider today.

Before this Court is a putative class action, brought by a group of plaintiffs comprised of the law students who reside at the Pavilion at North Grounds (hereinafter, “Pav”). The defendant, Pav, is a multi-story apartment building near UVA’s North Grounds. Pav is known to locals by various names, including “The Crown Jewel of Charlottesville,” “The Bellagio on Barracks,” and “The Modern Monticello.” The affection lavished upon this luxury, high-quality apartment complex is well-known and unquestionably justified. Notwithstanding the unimpeachably high character of Pav, the class asserted a variety of actions, sounding in tort, contract, antitrust, and various violations of the Geneva and Hague conventions. Pav challenged class certification, which the district court granted. We review that decision regarding class certification here today. For reasons we will discuss, we will reverse and deny class certification of this group of plainly ungrateful law students.

As background, we will briefly review plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations. The class alleges a litany of complaints against Pav. First, they allege egregious and continued rent increases with no perceptible change in their living accommodations.[1] Indeed, the class representatives have testified at great length that as rent prices have increased, the quality of the facilities has notably decreased. Purported examples from the complaint include the replacement of a “real pool table” in the lobby with “some Hasbro piece of junk made of plastic and cardboard,” the coffee machine in the lobby that never works, and that Pav has what can only be described as an “open-door policy” for thieves who snatch Amazon packages.

Second, plaintiffs charge that Pav has failed to provide even basic services which were stipulated in the lease. Of course, most of these “services” are related to Gen Z’s desire to be able to access TikTok and Uber Eats on demand, and receive luxuries which were unimaginable even ten years ago. For example, plaintiffs allege that the elevator is routinely unavailable and Pav has failed to provide “even the most minimal amount of consistent WiFi or air conditioning.” [2] The temperatures will cool in the near future, but of course these avocado-toast-eating youths cannot bear to wait a few weeks.

Third, and most galling of all, the class members point to a variety of minor aesthetic deficiencies which they lackadaisically label violations of the “warranty of habitability.”[3] The instances which the plaintiffs point to, from water damage, to fire alarms which blare in the middle of the night for no apparent reason, to the fact that the emergency maintenance line is not manned at nighttime, are at best, inconveniences. Try as they might, plaintiffs cannot through legal alchemy transform these petty complaints into actions bearing the force of law.

This Court, for one, is shocked at the betrayal—nay, the treason, which class members have engaged in by filing this brazen lawsuit. We will not stand for it, and for reasons we will discuss, this Court must deny class certification and grant Pav’s motion for sanctions.

Now we turn to the crux of this case: whether the class of plaintiffs meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. These requirements include, among others, sufficient numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of the class representative. The putative class does not meet these requirements and their motion for class certification must fail.

Pav presents several ironclad arguments in support of its position. First, it objects to the class representative, The Artist formerly known as ANG. Pav protests that it “thought we were friends.” Pav points to the common love of dry-cleaning their T-shirts, the New York Yankees, and ping pong as providing the initial spark in their friendship. Pav correctly notes that while being a Yankees fan does not disqualify you from being a friend, it does seriously bring into question ANG’s judgment to the extent that they cannot be considered of sound mind and body, let alone capable of serving as a class representative. We could not agree more.[4]

Second, Pav takes issue with the composition of the class. It correctly points out that, to the extent that this class of plaintiffs includes 1Ls, it must fail for this reason alone. As this Court has said time and time again, 1Ls always lose.[5] So they must here.

Third and finally, we must admit the general proposition that law students are nerds. And as we all learned in Property, landlords do not owe a warranty of habitability to nerds. We have previously recognized that gunners always lose.[6] Since nerds are, arguably a subvariant of gunners, the plaintiffs today must also lose.

III

Above the hallowed halls of this Law School is inscribed: “That those alone may be servants of the law who labor with learning, courage, and devotion to preserve liberty and promote justice.” Today we honor both the solemn mission of this Law School, and the prime directive of this court: to be as petty as possible. We are, and remain, Pav’s most humble and petty servants.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] The plaintiffs notably fail to point out that following a modest 50 percent increase in parking fees, that Pav installed a state-of-the-art, automated gate to the parking garage. As Pav says, “quality ain’t cheap.” We couldn’t agree more.

[2] In my day, we had neither. Kids these days.

[3] This charge is particularly galling to the Court. Air conditioning and freedom from significant water damage are all properly understood as AMENITIES. If you want these niceties, you need to specifically contract for them. And a little fungus is good for the soul, after all.

[4] Go Orioles.

[5] Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY) v. LexisNexis Rewards, 75 U.Va. 23 (2023). See also Class of 2021 v. Davies, 918 U.Va. 34 (2019) (holding that 1Ls have no due process rights to cookies); 1L Gunners And Her Majesty the Queen, 614 P.J.C.P.C. 913, 50 AM. P. APPS. 344 (2019) (holding that 1Ls may not take the seats of 2Ls or 3Ls); Snowman v. Student Admin., 73 U.Va. 15 (2021); (holding that 1Ls have no rights at all); 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019) (holding that 1Ls face a higher pleading standard because of the common-sense presumption that 1Ls will misapply the law); 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021) (holding that 1Ls may sue God for an injunction but still must always lose); 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va 6 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from consuming more than 33.33% of available food at public events).

[6] 2L’s Who Are Way too Eager to Post on LinkedIn vs. Literally Everyone Else in the UVA Law School Community, 75 U.Va 2 (2022).

Hot Bench: Noah Coco '26

Virginia Law Weekly September 8, 2023

Hello Mr. Coco! Welcome to the Hot Bench. And to Charlottesville. Let’s start with the usual—where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what were you doing before Law School?

I grew up in a small rural town north of Philadelphia called Topton, Pennsylvania. I studied Economics and History at the University of Pittsburgh. Before law school, I was working for a financial technology firm that was building a product for debt contract analysis.

Wonderful! I have been to Topton, and we may well be the only two people in Charlottesville that have. How have you been enjoying your first weeks here at the Law School?

The first few weeks have been great! So much anticipation has been building up over the past year through the entire admissions process. It is exciting to finally be on campus, and UVA Law and its community have certainly been delivering so far.

We love to hear that. Hopefully that feeling won’t fade after you’re forced to read Pennoyer. What would you be doing if you weren’t in law school?

I played trumpet when I was younger, and at one point in high school I thought I was going to go to school for musical performance. I used to dream about being a performer on cruise ships or being a studio musician.

Lucky for you, there’s plenty of opportunities to face the music here in law school. What’s your favorite class so far?

I think Civil Procedure is my favorite class at the moment. The material so far has just seemed to click, and I am really fortunate to have Professor Frost, who has been excellent so far.

What are you doing outside of class that you’re most excited about?

I am really looking forward to getting involved in more outdoors activities around Charlottesville. I've gone on a few hikes in the area, and I'd like to keep discovering new places. I'm excited that being in close proximity to Shenandoah will finally give me a good justification for getting a National Parks Pass.

What’s your hottest take, law school-related or otherwise?

I am an unashamed Android user.

We have that in common—almost, anyway. Sadly, iPhone-using friends have succeeded in instilling a bit of shame in me. Have you done anything fun recently in Charlottesville that you would recommend to the Law School community?

I have not had a lot of time to go out exploring yet, but I did just go on my first late-night run to Cook Out on Emmett Street. It's cheap and indulgent, and it hit all the right marks.

Late-night Cook Out is definitely a formative experience. For 2Ls and 3Ls not in the know, they’ve recently reopened their doors for dining in.

Okay—lightning round!

What’s your favorite piece of art?

Caravaggio's The Calling of Saint Matthew. It's one of those pieces that I could probably spend an embarrassing amount of time viewing.

Wouldn’t have guessed you were a Baroque man, but I respect it. Favorite snack from Student Affairs?

Clif Bars. I've only seen a few, so it's like striking gold.

Yeah, those are hard to come by. I assume they’re constantly being swiped by 3L truants for hiking purposes. How do you take your coffee?

Black, as God intended.

Very brave if you’re drinking library coffee that way. Which wild animal should be domesticated next?

Assuming they aren't the international cabal discovered by Rick and Morty, squirrels would be fun to domesticate.

---
Interviewed by Andrew Allard ’25
tya2us@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: UVA Law Class of 2023, et al., v. The Forum Hotel, the Darden Foundation, & UVA Law Communications

Virginia Law Weekly April 27, 2023

UVA Law Class of 2023, et al.,
v.
The Forum Hotel, the Darden Foundation, & UVA Law Com- munications
75 U.Va. 24 (2023)

Bninski, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Facts and Posture of the Case

This case comes to us on expedited review. The Class of 2023 et al., having suffered through the construction of the Forum Hotel and its incessant BEEPING, once again sought relief from the District Court of Petty Complaints against the Forum Hotel and its parent entity, the Darden Foundation.

The litigants filed suit on April 14, immediately after receiving a UVA Law email (“The Docket”) with the subject line, “Forum Hotel Will Offer UVA Law Community a Place to Gather.”[1] The perpetually aggrieved Class of 2023, now on its way out the door of the Law School, felt that the email was a personal affront.

This litany of alleged future benefits, coupled with the hearsay report that Darden students receive a 20 percent discount at the Forum Hotel bar, prompted the Class of 2023 to peer pressure other students and alumni into joining their suit. The Plaintiffs seek an injunction that requires equal protection under the law of student discounts, and also places a duty on Defendants to provide a pleasant garden tour for returning alumni once the “green” space behind the Forum Hotel has produced substantial greenery. The relief sought from UVA Law Communications is merely that COVID-era students and alumni be spared glowing accounts of pleasant experiences they did not experience, so as not to further embitter a truly grouchy class of plaintiffs.

We must note that the Darden Foundation has a history of disregarding this Court’s very serious decrees. It persisted in building the Forum Hotel (formerly known as “the new Inn at Darden”), despite being enjoined.[2] To add insult to injury, the following year, the Foundation disregarded this Court’s very reasonable requirement that it cough up money for extra safety personnel rather than relying on loud, frequent beeps.[3]

The UVA Law Communications division had no prior part in these disputes, and its petition to be dismissed from the suit is one of the issues before us today.

With graduation impending, we took this case on emergency review. While we embrace the concept of the “shadow docket” because it aligns closely with the petty and capricious tenets of this Court, we decline to hide behind the screen of unsigned opinions and vague majorities.

Analysis

Does this really need stating? In this Court, law students are absolutely a protected class, and equal discount protection is constitutionally mandated. The injunction on the Forum Hotel and the Darden Foundation is granted. Why did they even appeal? The Court has questions about the competence of the legal counsel who filed this overtly futile petition for review. Of course the Plaintiffs get a discount and a tour.

UVA Law Communications’ petition presents a more nuanced issue. Should it be obliged to avoid telling a swath of alumni about positive news? Granting the injunction would infringe on freedom of speech to a degree which, this Court concludes, would be unwarranted.

The record is not fully developed as to whether Plaintiffs would actually suffer irreparable injury[4]from emails about positive developments at the Law School.[5] However, we take judicial notice of the fact that students whose law school experiences were dominated by COVID are a fragile class. We also deem that UVA Law Communications is a respectable entity, unlike the Darden Foundation, and hence is unlikely to flagrantly abuse the rights and feelings of others. We therefore remand the question of the injunction on UVA Law Communications for further development.

Conclusion

The injunction on the Forum Hotel and the Darden Foundation is upheld; UVA Law Communications has the opportunity on remand to argue that the Plaintiffs are fully capable of getting over themselves.

Lake, C.J. Emerita, concurring.

Justice need not be a nebulous, poorly defined thing requiring whole classes dedicated to its different theories and facets, whatever the Law School might try to tell you. Justice can be something as simple as a discount at a bar that was clearly built with the expectation that law students and faculty would be popping in for a $17 glass of wine or two.

While this Court rarely bothers to oversee real discovery (we’re busy people, ok?), word of a Darden discount at Birch and Bloom was too juicy a rumor—and too good of an excuse to grab a drink with friends after class—not to pursue. A simple student ID is not enough; the very nice bartender interrogated for this investigation confirmed there is a specific email that Darden students must present to receive their discount. I therefore concur with the order enjoining Communications from sending further laudatory messages to students and alumni alike about the Forum Hotel and its affiliated gardens and bars until such time as this school gets its act together and secures a discount for law students.

The gargantuan (some would say tacky) scale of the Forum and its multiple bars were clearly built with law student, faculty, and alumni use in mind. The built-in captive audience Darden has by virtue of its dangerously accessible location is already fully in effect—from softball teams stumbling in from across the street after losing their playoff games at Copeley, to the several Deans this Justice bumped into during her outing. If the Forum really wants to become a beloved gathering place for the Law School community and engender some good will, extending the same discount Darden students receive to law students is the least they could do.

Brown, J., concurring.

As a gesture of good faith to my elders, I concur in the judgment placing an injunction on the Forum Hotel and the Darden Foundation on behalf of Plaintiffs. It is deeply prejudicial for the hotel, the Darden Foundation, and UVA Law Communications to laud the privileges of the new hotel to graduating 3Ls who have but four weeks to enjoy its splendors. A garden tour is the bare minimum of what is owed to these brave souls.

However, as a member of the UVA Law Class of 2025 who hopes to enjoy many more cocktails at the Forum Hotel during my remaining two years on North Grounds— in addition to the several I have already imbibed—I concur in Justice Bninski’s opinion with the utmost respect for the Kimpton Hotel chain.[6]Specifically, I write separately to provide context for just how wonderful the Forum Hotel’s lobby bar—Birch and Bloom—will be for students at the Law School, and to emphasize my sympathy for Plaintiffs’ inability to enjoy the premises for a healthy portion of their time in Charlottesville.

Birch and Bloom is fantastic. Before its opening a week or so ago, where was a law student to go if they wanted a drink within walking distance of the Law School? Say it with me: Sedona Taphouse. No shade to Sedona, which was home to many wonderful memories during my 1L fall, but the establishment is hardly anything special. The opening of the Forum Hotel changes the game. To have an espresso martini within a two-minute walk of my locker in Slaughter is revolutionary, albeit dangerous—and I cannot fathom the loss Plaintiffs must feel in having only a single calendar month to indulge in such joys before leaving to do bar prep, or whatever it is 3Ls do when they go to a farm upstate and “graduate.”

So, due to the crassness with which both the Darden Foundation and UVA Law Communications dangled the carrot of the Forum Hotel’s opening to our graduating 3Ls, I concur in the judgment. And I wholeheartedly endorse extending any Darden student discount, if one exists, to law students as a matter of equal protection, but not for me or anything because that would be super selfish.[7]

---
amb6ag@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu
jwb4bb@virginia.edu

[1] The benefits of the Forum Hotel include, reportedly, “Rooms With a View”; “A Variety of Dining Options”; “Expansive Event Spaces”; “A Garden Walk That Builds Connections”; and “The Main Lobby, Plus a Cozy Spot.”

[2] Students v. Construction, 73 U.Va. 17 (2021).

[3] Literally All Law School People v. The Darden Foundation, 75 U.Va. 9 (2022).

[4] Apologies, Professor Laycock, for prolonging the zombie life of the irreparable injury rule.

[5] We note particularly that Plaintiffs failed to address their ability to unsubscribe from emails.

[6] Move over, Justice Thomas—there’s a new ethics scandal in town. I have no qualms weaponizing my lofty position as a Justice on this Court to serve as a corporate shill for this massive hotel conglomerate.

[7] Pls <3

Hot Bench: Will Holt '23, Outgoing Opinions Editor

Virginia Law Weekly April 27, 2023

Hello, Will! First, can you start off by telling us (1) where you’re from, (2) where you went to undergrad, and (3) if you had any cool experiences in between college and law school?

Hi everybody! Growing up, I lived in a variety of places, but since I was in middle school, my home of homes has been Washington, D.C. (and yes, actually D.C., not Maryland or Virginia!) As far as college goes, I started out by attending Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA, but after my freshman year, I transferred to Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. I came to law school straight out of undergrad.

What types of things have you been involved with at the Law School besides the esteemed Law Weekly?

I served as Membership Editor for the Virginia Tax Review, but starting during COVID, I spent many weekends at home in D.C., where my family and girlfriend are. Spending more time on Grounds would definitely be a priority for me if I were to do it all over again. But I have enjoyed Charlottesville quite a bit. I am a big fan of the outdoors, and there are so many more outdoorsy things to do around here than there were in Nashville or Pittsburgh.

That makes a lot of sense. I’m sure everyone in the Class of 2023 feels their time in law school was marked significantly by COVID—do you have any particularly special memories of your COVID-y 1L year?

My favorite memory of law school during COVID was Friday Torts with Professor White. It really became a meme amongst Section A, and we even had some merch—coffee mugs—made to commemorate the class. Humble brag alert, but it also helped that on the last day of class, I was the first person in White’s career to successfully note what was wrong with a particular hypothetical (I won’t spoil it, but hint, wolves are afraid of people.)

Wolves and I have that in common. And what’s next for you after graduating next month?

After law school, I will be moving up north to Boston to work at a firm there.

Boston slaps, so congratulations. Time for our lightning round: What’s your favorite day of the week?

My favorite day of the week has to be Friday. Even though the weekend has not formally started, I have always found the anticipation of fun things ahead to be intoxicating.

Wrong answer—Thursday is correct—but I respect the hustle. Lucky numbers?

My lucky numbers are 23 and 42. I have no idea why!

What’s your relationship with citrus fruit like?

I have had an on-again, off-again relationship with citrus fruit. As a small child, I was terrified of them, as I found their acidic nature to be very disconcerting. I eventually got over that, but to this day, I still cannot get on board with the whole grapefruit thing. I couldn’t tell you why.

If you could distill your life into one candle scent, what would it be? And how much would it cost at Anthropologie?

Wow. What would my candle scent be? Um, I have always had this weird affinity for the smell of freshly poured concrete, and sandalwood seems to be in everything these days, so I guess my scent would be fresh concrete and sandalwood. I reckon it wouldn’t sell for much, but I have no idea what the going rate for candles at Anthropologie is. I’ll just stick with an MSRP of twenty-five cents.

When’s the last time you laughed so hard it hurt, and what were you laughing at?

The last time I laughed so hard it hurt was when I tripped down the stairs last week. I was carrying cookies, so I didn’t grasp the railing. When someone pointed out the silliness of that, I laughed. It hurt because my ribs were kind of banged up.

What would you be doing right now if you hadn’t come to law school?

If I hadn't come to law school, I would probably be working at an educational organization right now. I have always liked museums and the natural world, so I hope it would have been National Geographic or the Smithsonian, or something like that.

---
Interviewed by Ethan Brown '25
bw2jcw@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY) v. LexisNexis Rewards

Virginia Law Weekly April 24, 2023

Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY)
v.
LexisNexis Rewards
75 U.Va. 23 (2023)

Morse, C.J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiffs are Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY), an informal coalition of 1Ls who filed a complaint, published in last week’s edition of the Virginia Law Weekly, on the present case. The defendant is LexisNexis (“Lexis”), a legal research services provider who has, from time to time, provided rewards points designed to encourage engagement with Lexis’s platform. These points are redeemable for a variety of items, including food, which is the focus of the present case. The plaintiffs allege that they relied upon the Lexis rewards to their detriment when the points became less valuable, leading them and the broader Law School to suffer various harms. Despite the manifold deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ basic understanding of contract theory, standing, and requested remedies, we will not dismiss this case as improvidently granted, though such a decision would be laudable and certainly simpler. Rather, because this case presents a question which cuts to the very heart of this Court’s jurisprudence, we will resolve the question on which we granted certiorari: Is there any situation in which 1Ls can win? We answer—emphatically and decisively—no, and dismiss this case with prejudice.[1]

Before delving into the heart of today’s case, the cause of action and injuries by Plaintiffs bear some consideration. While the insufficiency of both the legal theories upon which Plaintiffs’ case rests and the paucity of actual injuries might itself be grounds for dismissal, we will dispatch this 1L jiggery-pokery before addressing the more pressing constitutional question.

While they do not explicitly state as much, Plaintiffs’ claims appear to sound in contract. At first glance, the 1Ls’ claim is reminiscent of Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc.[2] In both cases, the plaintiffs were uppity students (in this case, hungry 1Ls; in Leonard, a college student with too much time and unearned confidence on his hands), and they brought suit on a specious legal theory. But assuming that even the most distracted of 1Ls have read to the end of their casebooks’ Leonard opinion excerpt, this Court will politely decline to perform a full judicial smackdown a la Judge Kimba Wood.

The other legal theory which can plausibly be inferred from the complaint is that SOHUNGRY claims detrimental reliance on the availability and use of Lexis’s rewards points. It should surprise no one that SOHUNGRY came before this Court with that most famous hobby horse of excitable 1Ls everywhere: promissory estoppel. Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, this Court is not as indulgent of 1Ls’ legal fever dreams as their Contracts professor.[3] While it is not the basis for our decision today, it is worth our time to note that just because we are a Court of Petty Appeals, it does not mean these petty disputes can be brought without even the thinnest veneer of law.

The plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are, to quote the most sarcastic Supreme Court Justice,[4] “so transparently false that professing to believe [them] demeans this institution.”[5] Which, for a Court that has upheld injunctions on Paw Review,[6] free fruit stands,[7] and any number of parking tickets, is really saying something. The primary injury that SOHUNGRY alleges is that they are now forced to pay for their own food, leaving them with the choice of going hungry or… paying for their own food. Like big kids. Even if Plaintiffs did not want to pay for food, the variety of other available sources of food renders their injuries speculative in the extreme. Plaintiffs could go to the Snack Office, the free food table, a journal office, or even the Law Weekly office, where free pizza is served (earned) every Monday at 5:30 p.m. While this Court is more than willing to entertain meritless claims, the flaccidity of this injury is beyond even our highly nebulous standards.

Yet Plaintiffs do not content themselves with sitting in a veritable ocean of free food and demanding that they be brought their food on a silver platter. In what must surely be the boldest mixture of sophistry and intimidation ever seen in this nation’s courts, SOHUNGRY suggests, in their pursuit of other free food, that the 2L and 3L classes would suffer comparatively less food. With all the feigned casualness of a mafioso complimenting your family’s store and noting, “What a shame it would be if anything happened to it,” Plaintiffs attempt to turn a threat into an injury. Beyond the obvious standing issue presented, this Court will not be intimidated by anyone, least of all 1Ls.

II.

We come now to the crux of this case, the question which we granted certiorari on: whether there is ever a situation in which 1Ls can win, falls within our oldest and most-esteemed body jurisprudence. This Court has held that 1Ls, inter alia, have no due process rights to cookies,[8] may not take the seats of 2Ls or 3Ls,[9] have no rights generally,[10]face a higher pleading standard because of the common-sense presumption that 1Ls will misapply the law,[11] may sue even God for an injunction but still must always lose,[12] and (relevant here) are enjoined from consuming anything more than 33.33% of available food at public events.[13] Against the overwhelming weight of our Court’s precedent, the plaintiffs armed themselves with scatterings of dicta and the plucky optimism that can only come from those who have not yet taken a Property final. First, Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs[14] is misplaced. There, the Court held merely that the quality of food at events open to 2Ls and 3Ls must meet the standard appropriate for 2Ls and 3Ls, notwithstanding the (regrettably unavoidable) presence of 1Ls. This is a far cry from what Plaintiffs appear to urge: that this Court bootstrap 1Ls’ claims to the entirely hypothetical injuries of 2Ls and 3Ls. Needless to say, if this action had been brought by 2Ls, 3Ls, the administration, or even Darden students, we would be in a very different place.

Seemingly recognizing that the guns in their hands had turned to sausages, the 1Ls attempt to come for this Court with love.[15] The plaintiffs phrase the question presented so as to appeal to this Court’s abundant sympathy and soft spot for beleaguered law students. Try as they might, no amount of syntactic alchemy can change this illustrious Court’s 1L jurisprudence. Our traditions, history, and common sense dictate that we rule against the 1Ls, no matter the parties, facts, or pettiness of the action.

III.

The combination of specious legal theories, threats disguised as injuries, and—most damning of all—a plaintiff class composed entirely of 1Ls renders the plaintiffs’ complaint nothing short of ludicrous and thus it fails to pass even the most gullible standard of scrutiny. Today, we lay down a bright-line rule: 1Ls must always lose, no matter what. This obligation is undergirded by decades of CoPA jurisprudence, the best works of our brightest philosophers and ethicists, and the sagacity and wisdom of this Court. In so doing, we definitively overrule a stray piece of dicta from our decision in 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, suggesting that we “may rule for 1Ls.” We may not. As surely as states have sovereign immunity from suits in law or equity under the Eleventh Amendment, 1Ls have an inverse and equally powerful constraint crucial to the rule of law. Since 1Ls must always lose, they lose today. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] Because of the unique ultra-pettiness of this case, the Court of Petty Appeals has deigned to exercise its original jurisdiction over this matter.

[2] 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

[3] Unless you had Professor Gulati, in which this judicial shellacking should be familiar from your cold calls.

[4] See Richard L. Hasen, Essay: The Most Sarcastic Justice 215 (U.C. Irvine Sch. L., Rsch. Paper No. 2015-11, 2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2550923.

[5] Erwin Chemerinsky, A Failure to Communicate, 2012 BYU L. Rev. 1705, 1715 (2012) (citations omitted).

[6] See Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society, 912 U.Va. 16 (2019) (Coughlin II); Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society, 90 U.Va. 403 (2017) (Coughlin I).

[7] City of Charlottesville v. Student Affairs, 74 U.Va 20 (2022).

[8] Class of 2021 v. Davies, 918 U.Va. 34 (2019).

[9] 1L Gunners and Her Majesty the Queen, 614 P.J.C.P.C. 913, 50 Am. P. Apps. 344 (2019).

[10] Snowman v. Student Admin., 73 U.Va. 15 (2021).

[11] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).

[12] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021).

[13] 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).

[14] 75 U.Va. 12 (2022).

[15] See Succession, Episode 9, Season 3 (Dec. 12, 2021).

Hot Bench: Jack Brown '23, Outgoing Sports Editor

Virginia Law Weekly April 24, 2023

Jack, good to see you again. Tell me a little bit about yourself. Where are you from?

I was born in Chicago, but I am originally from Alexandria, Virginia. I went to James Madison University for undergrad, where I studied political science and philosophy. From there, I came straight here to UVA, so I’m a straight-through KJD.

What brought you to UVA?

My dad is a lawyer, so law school was always in the back of my mind. I knew I’d do well in a small college town, with a mix of nature and city stuff. Growing up, UVA was the school to go to. When the pandemic hit, I felt the best chance for me to meet people and hang out wouldn’t be at a city school. It would be somewhere where I could go hiking and play sports.

What’s your favorite childhood memory?

I went to camp growing up, so I did a lot of hiking and caving, stuff like that. I played paintball for the first time. That was always really fun and helped me get out of my shell and become more of an outdoorsy kid.

Speaking of childhood, who was your first childhood crush?

Claire V. I remember her from elementary school. I had a huge crush on her, but then we went to different middle schools, and I never talked to her again.

What does she do now?

No idea. I just remember the name and that she was the only blonde in our class.

Is your current girlfriend blonde?

Yes. [Laughing] I didn’t put that together until just now.

What is a conspiracy theory you actually believe?

I think the “flat earth” stuff is really funny. Also, the theory that one of the Congressional bunkers is built under the UVA Lawn.

Wait, seriously?

Yeah, [a fellow student] explained it to me. In the 1980s or 1990s, they expanded the Charlottesville airport so 747 airliners could land there. 747s never land at the Charlottesville airport. And then there was work on Grounds to expand the UVA Library. They dug about 500 feet underground, but the library is not allowed to use all the new development. Also, the Bodo’s Bagels on the Corner was being renovated for about ten years. Charlottesville makes sense as a location for Congress to evacuate to, since it’s so close to D.C.

I’m speechless. You might have actually convinced me.

Yeah, the theory is that the entrance to the bunker is in Bodo’s. Because why else would it have taken ten years to build?

Changing subjects now. Can you fold a fitted sheet?

Probably? I haven’t done it in a few years.

What we’ve learned here is that Jack doesn’t wash his sheets.

I do wash my sheets! But I don’t fold them up. I wash them, and I put them right back on. I don’t have two things of sheets.

What are you proud of but never have an excuse to talk about?

Of all the softball stuff I’ve done, I’m the most proud that my section was able to host practices our first semester, during Covid-19. We did it with no support: NGSL was inactive, we didn’t have access to the shed, we didn’t have any PAs or organized games. But we really wanted to make softball happen. I was super proud we were able to hold bi-weekly practices and get people to meet. The vibe of the Law School during Covid-19 is so hard to explain to those who weren’t here that 1L year.

What is the craziest thing you have seen happen during law school?

Uh…

Well, whatever you can publicly say.

It was my Criminal Law class 1L year. I won’t name them, but they got cold called. Their camera was off. But we could hear “splashing” going on because they were answering the cold call from the bathtub. That was the exact way to do the Zoom School of Law. Just the image of having your big criminal law textbook and notes floating in the tub with you.

My class missed out on this, being in person.

The Zoom moments were always the best. If you didn’t do the readings, you’d text in the GroupMe, “Help.” Then you would stall the professor as you “pulled up” your “notes,” but actually, your section mates would crowdsource the answer for you.

Lightning round!

What’s an overrated superpower?

Mind reading. People think it would help them way more, but you don’t need it a lot of the time. It’s pretty obvious what people are thinking if you pay attention to them.

How do you feel about Daylight Savings Time?

Oof. I was really against it, but then I did some more reading about it. In the 1970s, we did go away from it, but it led to a lot of people being more sad. It is annoying to switch, but there are emotional benefits we don’t talk about.

What do you think the world needs the most right now?

Desalination. Water will be a huge point of conflict in the future. Think of the Middle East, think of Syria. Huge population booms that lead to resource conflicts.

Any parting messages for the 3Ls?

We did it, and we should be really grateful, despite our experience starting off strangely due to Covid-19. The whole world went through a tough period, but we still got to do a lot of really cool things. Be proud of what we did.

---
Interviewed by Ryan Moore '25
tqy7zz@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY) v. LexisNexis Rewards

Virginia Law Weekly April 13, 2023

Brief for Appellants in:

Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY)
v.
LexisNexis Rewards
75 U.Va. 22 (2023)

Prepared by Duncan Hardiman ’25, counsel for Appellants.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

As the 2022–23 academic year began, the fresh, innocent, beaming faces of a new class of 1Ls filled the halls of UVA Law. As they took the first steps of their new legal careers, they faced the choice of which legal research database to use. To facilitate their decision, LexisNexis, one of the two major research platforms, offered a rewards system where students received points for their engagement with the platform to incentivize them to use it. These points could then be redeemed on the Lexis Rewards website for a variety of prizes, including gift cards, donations to charities, or even cryptocurrency. The points-to-dollars exchange rate for gift cards is 70 points per dollar. Throughout the course of the fall semester, students could receive 350 points for a visit to the Lexis Lab during “Office Hours” in the Library and 10 points for a search on Lexis. Other opportunities to earn points included attending seminars and table events and answering questions on the Lexis website. The points values for these varied from 100 to 700 points.

For many poor and hungry 1Ls, Lexis’s rewards program was a beacon of hope, whose promise of gift cards in exchange for points served as a salvation from impending starvation. 1Ls would visit the Lexis Lab daily to earn points and cash them in for gift cards to places like Chipotle, Taco Bell, Starbucks, and other chain eateries in the Barracks Road Shopping Center. One visit to Office Hours earned a student enough points for a Taco Bell Cravings Trio®, and two visits could afford a student a chicken burrito at Chipotle. Both meal options provide up to 1,000 calories—half the required daily nutrition for a student. The Lexis Rewards system became an integral part of how many 1Ls would budget their weekly meals.

Then, Lexis got cold feet. In late October, Lexis lowered the number of points for a visit to Office Hours from 350 to 100. This lowered the potential amount for a student to earn in a week from $20 to $5.71. Students complained, but with crafty budgeting, students were able to ration their remaining points in hopes that things would return to normal in the spring. But Lexis refused to stop. In January, the research platform again restricted a student’s ability to earn points. As the spring semester began, the points were limited to one visit to Office Hours per week, worth 200 points, cutting potential earnings down to just $2.85 per week. It would now take students seven weeks to earn what they had previously earned in just one. A glimmer of hope came in early February when Lexis increased the points for a weekly visit to 700. However, students were then informed that they could only receive the 700 points up to six times. Finally, after students returned from spring break, they were informed that there would be no more points for students at all for visiting Office Hours. There have since been no updates, and students continue to be left not only with empty hands, but with empty stomachs too.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Court of Petty Appeals can find it in their hearts to take sympathy for the 1Ls who have developed a reliance on the Lexis Rewards points for sustenance and can formally recognize the wrongs committed against them.

SHORT ANSWER

While the Court is unable to offer any form of equitable relief to 1Ls and rarely finds in favor of 1Ls in any capacity, the Court has the opportunity to do so here, as the harm done to the 1Ls impacts the entire student body and community at large. It forces the 1Ls who developed a reliance on these points to look for other sources of free food at the cost of the greater Law School student body, causes more complaining from 1Ls that the whole school has to deal with, and deprives future 1Ls of the ability to receive nourishment from local fast food chains.

ARGUMENT

It is well-established precedent that it is the duty of this Court to “defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal.”[1] So, if there is any infraction on the quantity or quality of food supplied to the students of UVA Law, or on “the rights of Law School students to use food as one of the few pleasures left to us in this cruel world,”[2] it falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Court. The present case is no different. This is an infraction on students’ right to receive food as some petty recompense for their sacrifices at law school.

The Court might, of course, construe this action as merely 1Ls complaining, in which case, “1Ls always lose.”[3] However, in Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, the Court held that in similar free food situations, the quality of food-providing events must be acceptable under the standard applied to 2Ls and 3Ls, even if 1Ls are disproportionately harmed.[4] Since the opportunities to receive Lexis Rewards—and thus the food benefits from them—are open to 2Ls and 3Ls, the Lexis Rewards changes are an infraction on their ability to receive free food as well. The mere fact that 1L students tend to rely on these points more does not preclude judgment in their favor.

Next, we turn to the impact on the broader Law School community as a result of the 1Ls’ injury. Without the ability to feed themselves via Lexis, 1Ls will be forced to turn to food enjoyed by 2Ls and 3Ls. Specifically, 1Ls will turn to ravaging the already depleted resources at the free food table and events.[5] In October 2022, this Court highlighted the woes of UVA Law’s current state of free food and enjoined the 1Ls from consuming more than one-third of the free food at student org events.[6] 1Ls, at this time, had few other food options. This class entered UVA Law with Graduate PLUS loans having an interest rate of 7.54%. This is an increase from 6.28% last year, and 5.30% the year before. With rising inflation and no fat summer associate checks, 1Ls have been forced to spend an unconscionable amount of money on food. Like manna sent from heaven, Lexis points offered these students the ability to purchase a burrito that they would not be paying off at a 7.54% interest rate for the next decade.

Finally, this brief is an indicator of the damage caused by the discontinuation of the Office Hours points. Who in their right mind would write a brief like this? Who would go to these lengths to complain? Sadly, me. I spent four hours writing this. I took time out of my day, at the expense of preparing for Con Law, because I am disappointed and hungry. I am broke. And I have no idea how to use any other research platform because of my reliance on Lexis Rewards. This is a clear act of desperation, and the moaning and whining will only continue.

CONCLUSION

Please, I am so hungry.

---
snr3wx@virginia.edu

[1] UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021).

[2] Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va. 12 (2022).

[3] Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022).

[4] Hungry People, 75 U.Va. 12.

[5] See Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022).

[6] 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).

Hot Bench: Devon Chenelle '23, Prose Style Editor

Virginia Law Weekly April 13, 2023

Devon, Devon, Devon. Congrats on (nearly) having made it through law school! I’m sure your tenure on the Law Weekly has been one of your many keys to success, which we’d all like to hear about. How does it feel to be almost done?

Yes, my time with the Law Weekly has been one of the absolute highlights of my time at the law school. It’s such a fantastic group of people that has maintained a great culture over my entire time here. It feels pretty wild to be almost done with law school, and by extension, my schooling as a whole. I worked for two years between graduating college and law school, but at this point, that really feels like a blip. It’s basically been twenty years of continuous schooling, and as the last month of that arrives, it feels a little overwhelming, but I’m also very ready to fully launch into the professional world.

You worked as a summer associate in Chicago last year, which is near where you grew up, right?

Yep, I did! And that’s right, the office was only thirty minutes from my mom’s house. I actually took advantage of that in a pretty funny way. After college, I lived for two years in the city’s standard “young professional” neighborhood, so I felt like I wanted to try out some new neighborhoods in the city. I wound up alternating between an Airbnb in a new neighborhood for a week or two and then back in my mom’s basement for another two weeks to control costs, and I continued that rotation for the whole summer. It was a really awesome way to explore the city.

Ah, Chicago: The City of Lights. I love their croissants and fancy cheeses. Do you have any plans for a Bar Trip, or other things you’d like to do before you begin working?

Actually, no plans for a Bar Trip. I did an extravagant two-and-a-half-week trip to Europe with my girlfriend right after my summer associate program ended, so that was really my Bar Trip. In terms of other things I’d like to do before I start working, ideally, I’ll read a couple books I’ve been meaning to get to for some time. Nothing too crazy!

That sounds terrific. What originally brought you to UVA Law? Was law school always part of the plan?

I was attracted to UVA Law for a couple reasons, besides it being a great school. My father did his medical residency at UVA Hospital, and my parents always spoke of Charlottesville as being one of the most wonderful places in America, so that had put UVA on my radar. And I grew up, went to college, and worked in the Midwest, so I felt like it was important to finally try another part of the country. Law school was pretty much always my plan, even when I was a little kid. The only other things I seriously considered were journalism or getting a Ph.D. in History. I knew journalism wasn’t going to be a long-term fit when, while doing a little work as a freelance writer in college, I had a long fight with an editor over the phone about getting a raise from $10 per article to $12 per article. I did the math and realized that, with my raise, I was making approximately $2.50 per hour. At that point, I had already interned in a law office and really enjoyed it, and so I think I then realized a legal career was the right move.

Something folks might not realize about you is that you’re in the J.D.-.M.A. Program in History. How did you decide on pursuing that path?

Yeah, the J.D.-M.A. Program in History was actually one of the main things that attracted me to UVA Law. I’ve been obsessed with history ever since I was little, and I wanted to go a little further with it than just an undergraduate major. So it was such a delight to be able to participate in the J.D.-M.A. program.

Has it been challenging to manage the courseloads for both a J.D. and a Master’s in History? Do you have any time-management tips you can share?

Surprise, surprise, it turns out that graduate coursework in history is just as big of a jump in difficulty as law school courses were relative to undergraduate classes, so yes, for me at least, it has definitely been a challenge to manage both degrees simultaneously. But I absolutely love it and am thankful for the opportunity to even participate in the history department, so I really can’t complain. I’m really happy with my choice, and I am so grateful to Professor Barzun for both admitting me into the program and guiding me through my coursework and research efforts the whole time. In terms of time-management tips, personally, I am a huge proponent of setting timers. For me, it’s enormously helpful to set a, say, forty-five-minute timer, work until it goes off, then check my phone, take a lap around the Law School, and then set another timer and get back into it.

What is your thesis for the M.A. in History on?

So the Constitution bans something called “bills of attainder,” which are basically laws that single out an individual person for punishment without any judicial process. In the research process for my thesis, I’ve found that the Constitutional ban on the bills was inspired by similar legal practices in ancient history, and that comes with a number of consequences. The new understanding of attainder for which I’m arguing means executive nonjudicial punishments, such as the No Fly List, could potentially implicate the attainder ban.

Fascinating! Almost as fascinating as your review of Succession in this week’s edition of the Law Weekly. Speaking of, do you have a favorite article you have written during your time with the Law Weekly?

Yes! My favorite article was actually my first, “Words of Wisdom from a World Traveller.” I interviewed a man named Ali Muhammad, who used to work as a security guard at the Law School. He arrived in Charlottesville as a refugee from Iraq. He was a wonderfully thoughtful and introspective man, and, unsurprisingly—given his life experiences—had a lot of interesting things to say and a marked perspective. I actually think back on our conversation a lot.

That is a great one. Well, do you have any parting thoughts or words of advice for the 1Ls and 2Ls who still have some time left at UVA Law?

Really lean in and know that, while there will be frustrations and annoyances during your time here, three years at UVA Law offers you an incredible opportunity for personal and professional development most of us will not have again. You will sometimes get stressed out at the competition here, and you will sometimes come up short for things you really wanted. That’s just life, and I think it’s so important to accept and even embrace that. But the flip side of that coin is that, if you just take the time and effort to look, you will find that there are so many wonderful opportunities lurking around every corner here. Just from being a student here, I’ve gotten to do things that would have seemed like wild dreams as an undergraduate. I truly think everyone here can find something for themselves that makes their time here really special.

Amazing. Now, it’s time for the Lightning Round.

Pet peeve?

The cost of parking at the Law School.

Favorite movie?

Goodfellas.

Favorite pet (assuming you have any pets)?

I love black labs!

Favorite professor(s)?

Tough one, they’ve honestly all been great. Non-exclusive list: Professors Bamzai, Armacost, and Collins.

Favorite spot in the Law School?

The Law Weekly office, of course!

Favorite kind of food?

Mexican!

Favorite place to hang out in Charlottesville?

Driving out to the Sugar Hollow reservoir and just walking around is just about the most zen thing you can do around here.

---
Interviewed by Nikolai Morse '24
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: 3Ls v. Graduation Requirements

Virginia Law Weekly March 30, 2023

3Ls
v.
Graduation Requirements
75 U.Va. 20 (2023)

Kulkarni, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

During this past term, this Court has dealt with issues that have divided its members, the student body, and interested parties. It is high time, then, that we return to our roots as a forum for adjudicating the disputes between the students of the University of Virginia School of Law and the administration of this institution. Throughout my three years on this Court, we have gotten lost in petty disputes over the reputations of our members, suits against parties outside our jurisdiction, and other nonsensical subjects. Oftentimes, I myself would be the one falling prey to such temptation. Here, however, we return again to an issue over procedure—a field that traditional appellate courts (which we claim to be a part of) deal with most frequently. Today, we are faced with a complaint from 3Ls at the Law School who brought suit against the administration for the numerous burdens placed in their path to graduation. The burdens alleged in the complaint are three-fold: (1) having to care about classes in their final semester; (2) the existence of required coursework after 1L; and (3) the sheer amount of administrative tasks that must be completed prior to graduation.

II.

The first prong of the complaint is easy to comprehend. These 3Ls are trying to exercise their right to relax, as embodied in the vaunted legal term “3LOL.” As countless students have in the past, these students seek to enjoy their remaining six weeks of semi-childhood before being forced to face the elements of a “real job.” This claim, however, can be dismissed out of hand. There is no need to even discuss the rebuttal from the administration. There is a complete lack of standing for such a claim. Standing has three elements: (1) injury in fact; (2) causation; and (3) redressability.[1] There is no injury suffered here. No one is stopping the 3Ls from enjoying their last bit of joyful times but themselves. They need to simply have the self-awareness to admit that this is the end of law school and that no one is stopping them from taking it easy and smelling the roses. Grades don’t matter now—even SCOTUS clerkships have largely been decided. If we had the power, I would order any 3Ls not resting and relaxing to do so. Stressing out now does nothing to help anyone.

The second claim the 3Ls present is that the graduation requirements—particularly the number of skills credits required, total credits required, and the upper-level writing requirement—are especially cumbersome. Here, the students in question claim that they learned all that they needed in the first year with the standardized curriculum and should be able to graduate based on “vibes” alone. The administration responded by stating clearly that they are simply trying to comply with ABA requirements and doing their best to produce well-rounded graduates. The Court disagrees with both parties. Vibes alone are not enough. Even though law school doesn’t really teach you the content you need to work at a firm, the administration can fairly argue that 2L and 3L are intended to teach students how to deal with content they don’t care about and how to develop load-management skills—important components to success in the legal field. But the administration is also wrong that courses are the only way to develop well-rounded law students. Skills courses are great and all, but until they add a requirement to attend a certain number of social events (either school-sponsored or *wink, wink* school-sponsored) in order to graduate, this falls on deaf ears. As such, this claim is remanded to the lower courts to conduct a more detailed analysis on whether all students are truly developing the thinking and social/networking skills that are required for success in the legal field.

Finally, the most meritorious of the three claims comes at the end of the 3Ls’ complaint. They argue that with such requirements as the OPP graduation survey, random things from Dean Dugas, and who knows how many forms on SIS, there are simply too many administrative tasks for students to perform in order to graduate. Between attempts to 3LOL and half-hearted focusing on studies, such things can fall by the wayside. No student should be prevented from graduating because of a simple form. There is already so much stress, these 3Ls argue, with signing up for the Bar, the MPRE, and finding a place to live next year. More tasks create undue stress, in their words. I completely agree with these students.

III.

There is no doubt that the administration could take a cue from law firms on such subjects. In the first week, at least at my firm, summer associates are shown a number of videos, sit and fill out forms together, and participate in many activities, similar to college orientations. By the end of the first Friday on the job, these new recruits are ready for proper indoctrination I mean training. What stops the administration from taking a few days to sit the whole class down and do the same? Thus, the best solution is for the administration to reduce their own headache of tracking down delinquent students, putting all the 3Ls in Caplin Auditorium on the first day of the spring semester, and knocking this all out. For the sake of sanity, IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. Morse, writing in dissent.

There was a time in which an opinion from my esteemed colleague, J. Kulkarni, was sure to slap. But my goodness, 3LOL has hit hard. While I am fully in favor of this Court being openly biased, J. Kulkarni ought to remember that even though the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure is “we do what we want,” we still need to do it in style. But, out of an abundance of respect and affection for my esteemed colleague, I will do my best to play along with J. Kulkarni’s “full send” of a majority opinion.

As I understand it, the harms alleged by the 3L class consist generally of the “numerous burdens placed in their path to graduation.” So, the harms are…graduation requirements? While I could just stop here and note that if there were no requirements to graduate law school, the credibility of our profession would be obliterated, and the practice of law would be exposed as an elaborate façade designed to insulate people who can’t do math, have limited social skills, and an inability to do manual labor, from having to face the broader job market…but that would be too revealing. Since the majority opinion appears to falsely conflate pettiness (the primary virtue of any successful litigant before this Court) with abject laziness, I respectfully dissent. I will address each of the claims which J. Kulkarni did not dismiss outright, in turn.

The second claim is the most laughable on its face: namely, that the Class of 2024 doesn’t think there should be any requirements for total credit-hours, upper-level writing requirements, or professional skills courses, to graduate. Look, I’m just as disillusioned as anyone about what an extractive industry law school (and higher education in general) has become. But, even for the Court of Petty Appeals, this is a stretch. Furthermore, the remedy ordered by the Court, further discovery to determine whether students are “truly developing” the skills “required for success in the legal field”, sounds like a TON of work. If the 3L class wants to avoid doing more work, and the Court of Petty Appeals DEFINITELY wants to avoid doing further work, this surely must be the worst of all possible outcomes.

The third claim attacks “such requirements as the OPP graduation survey, random things from Dean Dugas, and who knows how many forms on SIS.” I have to sigh. I mean, I’m sure you can all imagine me sighing, and heck, maybe you are sighing audibly yourself, but it is important to me that you know that my contempt has physically manifested itself. So, just so we are all absolutely clear: the 3Ls’ third claim is that they shouldn’t have to fill out forms, because…it’s kind of hard? The only profession that I can think of for which filling out boring forms is a core competency is that of tax accountants, and not by a significant margin. Accordingly, the only form of relief this Court should be willing to grant petitioners is an offer of an LL.M in Tax Law. Anything else is more than this Court should be willing to dispense.

---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginiaedu

[1] I truly have no idea what to cite here. Leg Reg? Con Law? Civ Pro? Admin? Who even knows where I picked this up. All I can say is that it is proof that I learned something in law school.

Hot Bench: Caleb Stephens '23, Technology Editor

Virginia Law Weekly March 30, 2023

Caleb, congrats on (almost) having made it through law school. To start off, where are you from?

I’m from a small, rural town called Quincy in North Florida, just outside Tallahassee.

Why and how did you find yourself at UVA Law?

I spent a while in undergrad trying to figure out what I wanted to do. I had a year-and-a-half-long flirtation with pre-med, but then I decided to double-major in economics and marketing. After that, law school felt like the right choice; I had enjoyed debate in high school and tended to be interested in legal subject matter whenever it intersected with one of my other classes. UVA was one of the few law schools I managed to visit pre-Covid, and I just fell in love with it and the area (visiting in early spring, right when the air had that mountain coolness, was a huge selling point). Admissions let me in, the finances worked out reasonably, and the decision was made.

What is your favorite place in Charlottesville, and why?

Not really in Charlottesville, but I love the Bearfence Mountain summit. Bearfence is one of my favorite trails and somewhere I frequently revisit. Watching sunset from the summit is really spectacular, although the hike back down in the dark is not something I would recommend for the unprepared.

You’re stranded on a desert island. You get to pick three UVA Law professors to be your companions. Who are they, and why?

Hard question. I suspect law school professors would be some of the worst people to be on a desert island with in terms of survivability, but I think for great discussions, I’d have to go with Harrison, Kordana, and Johnston, so we could have a long talk about Admin Law.

Can you tell me about your worst or best classroom experience at UVA Law?

Probably one of the best and worst experiences was in 1L Torts over Zoom in fall 2020. The class met from 3:30–5 p.m., if I recall correctly, and my WiFi always crashed and had to restart at 4:45. Inevitably, I would get cold-called at 4:43, panic, start talking, talk for the next five minutes about the torts case, and then realize everyone was frozen and my WiFi had gone out. Fortunately, Professor Armacost was very understanding, and the third time it happened (according to my friends), she just went, “Oh, right, it’s 4:45, his WiFi is out again,” and moved on. It really illustrated how a professor could be both terrifying and understanding at the same time.

What is your favorite bar or restaurant in the Charlottesville area?

Afghan Kebab, probably followed by Martin’s. I’m very fond of Mediterranean cuisine, but I’m also sometimes in the mood for a solid burger.

Is a hot dog a sandwich?

Yes, technically true, so I have to uphold it, although I would caution against relying upon that definition. I would, however, argue that champagne doesn’t have to be from a region of France, and “oat milk,” while enjoyable, really should be called oat juice. Also, the items at the business formerly known as “Dunkin’ Donuts” are not doughnuts by any stretch of the imagination.

What’s your favorite piece that you worked on while at Law Weekly?

I always love working on the COPAs, but I think my favorite is the article I wrote on How to Avoid Studying to Study Better. I really loved deliberately rethinking the way I did my readings, and I’ve found several more tools since that really are beginning to look like a sequel.

What is your favorite law school memory?

As far as direct memories directly related to the Law School, I think probably walking out of class with my friends and arguing about administrative law and executive power. I don’t know that I have a specific instance to point to, but that’s been something I’ve had a lot of fun doing, and it felt like a quintessential law school experience. Other than that, just the friendships I’ve made over my three years here are really what I’m going to take away from my time at UVA.

Where will you be after graduation?

I’ll be clerking in Washington, D.C. on the Court of Federal Claims for Judge Somers. After that, I don’t have “firm” plans.

Lightning Round!

Favorite Florida Man Headline?

Florida Man Runs Over Self With Car (there’s a video of that one, and it’s hilarious).

Pineapple on pizza?

Sometimes—nowhere near the first choice, though.

Favorite song right now?

“Riverside” by James Spaite.

Parallel parking efficacy?

Bad. Like I said, I’m from rural North Florida.

Student Affairs snack of choice?

Tax Review beverages.

Favorite zoo animal?

I feel like it’s got to be a zebra, because they’re just enough like a horse to tempt me to try and ride them but different enough that they’d probably kill me. Either that or giraffes, because they’ll occasionally surprise everyone by eating rabbits.

How do you take your coffee?

Lucky Goat’s Lucky 7 Espresso Blend through an AeroPress (sometimes a French press) with three teaspoons of turbinado sugar and a splash of half and half.

---
Interviewed by Stephen Foss '25
css7aj@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students for Early Spring v. Punxsutawny Phil

Virginia Law Weekly March 23, 2023

Students for Early Spring
v.
Punxsutawny Phil
75 U.Va. 19 (2023)

Allard, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Background

This action was brought by law students in response to recent inclement weather. Plaintiffs appeal from a ruling by the infamous Court of Public Opinion, holding inter alia “Aw, don’t sue the groundhog, he’s so cute” and “Hey wait, didn’t he die?” Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that Punxsutawney Phil, along with numerous other marmot meteorologists, have conspired to delay the arrival of spring. Members of the so-called “Inner Circle”—the secretive organization that communicates on behalf of Mr. Phil—intervened to contest Mr. Phil’s capacity to be sued.

The material facts of the case are not in dispute. Mr. Phil is a groundhog residing in Young Township, Pennsylvania. Mr. Phil is a meteorologist by profession who forecasts using the ancient art of sciomancy. Each year, on February 2, Mr. Phil emerges at Gobbler’s Knob, where he is charged with searching for his shadow and communicating his findings to the Inner Circle. The result of Mr. Phil’s inspection determines whether spring will come early or winter weather will persist for an additional six weeks. This year, Mr. Phil, having seen his shadow, predicted a long winter. Several other groundhog meteorologists who forecasted a long winter are joined in Plaintiffs’ complaint.[1]

Plaintiffs argue that because Mr. Phil claims 100% accuracy, his predictions are in effect proclamations of future weather for which Mr. Phil is liable. Plaintiffs thus seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief for a recent Sunday snowfall. Because Plaintiffs are desperate to dawn their spring outfits and the snow was not “not even . . . the fun kind that you can play in,” Plaintiffs seek damages for serious emotional harm. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin Mr. Phil from engaging in future forecasting that is likely to cause them “irreparable inconvenience.”

Apparently in protest, Defendant gnawed on the Court’s benches and squeaked at the Justices.[2] Due to Mr. Phil’s apparent inability to communicate with the Court, the Inner Circle was allowed to intervene in the case. They then insisted that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, we are asked to answer two questions: Can Mr. Phil be brought before this Court as a defendant in a civil suit? And, if so, can Mr. Phil be held liable for inclement weather in light of his persistent claim of 100% meteorological accuracy? We hold that although Plaintiffs may sue Mr. Phil, the sugere id doctrine requires Plaintiffs to accept the hardship of an extended winter.

The Inner Circle, as Intervenor, argues that Mr. Phil cannot be haled into this Court. Intervenor, noting that Mr. Phil speaks only Groundhogese, argues that it would violate his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights to conduct a civil proceeding against him which he is incapable of comprehending. In response, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Phil communicates through the president of the Inner Circle, Tom Dunkel. During cross examination, Mr. Dunkel admitted that he acts as an interpreter for Mr. Phil. But Mr. Dunkel insisted that Mr. Phil’s language is exceedingly complex and that they only discuss “simpler topics.” Mr. Dunkel thus concluded that he could not effectively communicate the court proceedings in Groundhogese.

While we are sympathetic to Intervenor’s arguments, we are skeptical of their truthfulness. The Inner Circle indicates on their website that, in his spare time, Mr. Phil enjoys “reading the daily newspaper.”[3] We are aware of no daily publication in Groundhogese. It thus appears that Mr. Phil is capable of reading English and can comprehend this Court’s proceedings—to the extent that they are comprehensible.

Intervenor next argues that suits against animals are a long-abandoned and inhumane practice of ancient law. But this Court has recently expressed its commitment to originalism.[4] We thus find that it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to exercise our jurisdiction here. If anything, our decision shows comparative restraint. Prosecutors in other jurisdictions have thought it lawful to seek the death penalty in criminal charges against Mr. Phil.[5] Such extravagant barbarism is, of course, beneath the Court of Petty Appeals. But here, Plaintiffs seek only to coerce funds from Mr. Phil’s vast riches and to dictate his professional conduct. It is well within our authority to order such relief.

We now turn to the question of whether Mr. Phil can be held liable for inclement weather. Plaintiffs essentially argue that because Mr. Phil’s forecasts are 100% accurate, Mr. Phil functionally controls the weather. In response, Intervenor objects that: (1) Mr. Phil uses a sciomantic forecasting methodology, so his forecasts are not some arbitrary decision, but rather a matter-of-fact divination of future weather; and (2) Even if Mr. Phil’s forecasting could be correctly described as controlling the weather, the proper target of a suit for such conduct is the Inner Circle, as they bear ultimate responsibility for communicating Mr. Phil’s forecasts.

Counsel on both sides make compelling arguments. But we need not decide them here because Plaintiffs have done the unthinkable: They have made a complaint too petty even for the Court of Petty Appeals. We thus brush the dust off the all-but-forgotten sugere id doctrine and require Plaintiffs to endure the hardship of a long winter. The nearly imperceptible dusting of snow that touched Charlottesville last Sunday, though perhaps unusual, was of such little consequence that I sort of forgot that that’s why I was even writing this thing in the first place. This ruling should not be construed to prevent a judgment against Mr. Phil should a blizzard be visited upon Charlottesville in future years as a result of his forecasting. But, in the present case, we hold that Plaintiffs’ suit cannot proceed, because they must simply get over it.

Pazhwak, J., dissenting

There is much to object to in the majority opinion. Never before has this Court entertained the notion that there is a “complaint too petty even for the Court of Petty Appeals,” and the majority makes a mockery of its supposed “commitment to originalism” in even suggesting such a ludicrous idea. This Court must decide even the most petty and insignificant of matters, or else leave the billions who rely on our august jurisprudence adrift in a sea of uncertainty.[6] For those sleep deprived, indebted, huddled masses of law students longing for relief from their trivial concerns, do not pay too much heed to their errant, bizarre holding. The Court of Petty Appeals sees you, it hears you, and it will certainly deliver justice against a groundhog on your behalf.

Moreover, the majority evinces a great callousness in discussing this case without reference to the recent death of Fred la marmotte. At least a footnote would have in some measure paid tribute to the amazing life and untimely death of this faithful Québécois groundhog, who did not have the opportunity to carry out his duty this year like his counterpart Mr. Phil. While this omission admittedly does not play a great part in deciding the issues in this case, and was indeed never raised by the contending parties, the sole mention of Punxsutawney Phil nevertheless seems t0 indicate a preferencing of the Anglophonic world by Justice Allard and company. I can only caution my colleagues at the dangers of generating indignation in le monde francophone, and mutter a quiet “sacré bleu!” to myself at their oversight.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu

[1] On behalf of Mr. Phil, the Inner Circle insists that all other groundhogs are imposters and should thus be dismissed from this case. While we share Intervenor’s skepticism as to the veracity of other groundhogs’ predictions, that question need not be decided in the present case.

[2] Mr. Phil also insolently failed to rise when the Justices entered the courtroom. The Inner Circle explained that Mr. Phil understands only Groundhogese and could not understand the bailiff’s instruction. While we appreciate such reassurances, the prestige and authority of the Court of Petty Appeals is universally recognized. All living creatures know to rise for us. The bailiff’s instruction is a mere formality.

[3] Phil FAQ, The Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, https://www.groundhog.org/phil-faq.

[4] See 1L Students v. Virginia Law Review et al., 75 U.Va. 18 (2023) (Coleman, J., concurring) (“[O]riginalist methodology . . . is obviously correct.”).

[5] Jason Samenow, Ohio Prosecutor Seeks Death Penalty for Punxsutawney Phil After Bad Forecast, Wash. Post (Mar. 21, 2013).

[6] See ANG v. Scott (ANG III) 28 U.Va. 12 (1997) (discussing how the opinions issued by the COPA are closely followed and studied by a wide-ranging group consisting of prospective UVA Law students, current law students, alumni, law students at every other U.S. law school, certain non-human sentient beings residing within the boundaries of North Grounds, and other people across the globe likely numbering in the billions).

Hot Bench: Sarah Walsh '23, Editing Editor

Virginia Law Weekly March 23, 2023

In this issue's Hot Bench, we say hi to Sarah Walsh ’23, our outgoing editing editor. Two questions to start us off: First, how are you doing; and second, can you please tell me the origin story of your utterly ridiculous colophon title?

I’m doing alright! I’m probably (definitely) not 3LOL-ing as hard as I should be, but I’ve made my peace with that. I’m also a little sad to be leaving the Law Weekly colophon life behind, but the sadness mostly comes from the knowledge that I won’t be passing the Editing Editor title along to anyone. I do appreciate that someone noticed the title, though, which was inspired by Mason Pazhwak ’23 and his “Hand of the EIC” title. By the time I worked my way onto the colophon, all the standard “____ Editor” titles were already taken, so when asked what I wanted my position to be, I decided that it should be something ridiculous but also appropriately descriptive of my role on the paper—resulting in Editing Editor.

Can you tell us where you’re from and why you ended up at UVA Law?

I grew up in Atlanta, Georgia and attended UC Berkley for undergrad (go Bears) before coming to UVA Law. One of the reasons I wanted to attend UVA Law was the baseball J-term class, which I mentioned in my admissions interview. I passed it off as a joke, but it wasn’t a joke.

I know you're very involved across UVA Law, but I have to shout out of your involvements here because it's so close: The Libel Show! How are you involved with Libel, and can you give us any sneak peeks into what we can expect to see later this week?

We appreciate the publicity! I am a director (along with Ruby Cherian ’23) and a head writer (along with Jack Brown ’23) for the show, as well as an actor in it. While I don’t want to spoil any of the surprises that Libel has in store, I will say that this year’s show has something for everyone: a murder mystery, Real Housewives-inspired intros, fake babies named after various Law School locations—you want it, we’ve got it.

How long have you been working at the Law Weekly? What drew you to it?

I first started working at the Law Weekly during the spring semester of my 2L year (proof that it’s never too late to join), beginning with my first-ever article, “Balls to the Wall: Softball at UVA.” I’ve always loved writing, especially as a creative outlet, but “creative” isn’t exactly the word that I would use to describe legal writing. While writing for Libel during fall of 2L helped provide that kind of outlet, I wanted more, and lo and behold, there was the Law Weekly to give me exactly that.

Tell me either the favorite piece you've written during your time here, or your favorite types of stories to edit.

I know you asked for either, but I’m going to hit you with answers to both. My favorite piece that I’ve written during my time here is “C Them Run: Cold Callers Win Crown” about this year’s 1L Softball Tournament. If I weren’t doing this whole law school thing, I would probably want to pursue some kind of career in sports journalism, so writing the article gave me the chance to live out that dream for a little bit. I also had a great time covering the games (although my notes from them were absolutely unhinged, since I didn’t really know any 1Ls at the time and thus knew barely any players’ names).

Meanwhile, my favorite types of stories to edit are Jon Peterson ’23’s animal articles. They’re not really stories per se, but they are excellently written, informative, and—this is key—almost completely error-free, which makes editing them way easier. I also love animals, so getting to learn about them while I’m editing is a huge plus for me.

What's next for you after law school? What non-law-related thing are you most excited for in this next chapter?

After law school, I’ll be working in white collar investigations at a firm in San Francisco, and I’m definitely excited to be going back to the Bay Area—I went to UC Berkeley for undergrad and miss the area dearly. What I’m most excited for, though, is a Minor League road trip that a couple of my friends and I are planning on doing right after graduation. I’m a huge baseball fan, and Minor League Baseball games are especially entertaining (if you’d like to learn more, look up the Lehigh Valley IronPigs and their “Whack-an-Intern” promo). Driving around and going to those games with some of my closest friends is about as perfect of a law school wrap-up as I can imagine.

What is your favorite memory from Law School?

Either winning the NGSL Spring 2022 Tournament with §A & Pals or driving down to watch Game 5 of the 2021 World Series in Atlanta with Jack Brown ’23 and Parker Kelly ’23.

Lightning round:

Describe your relationship with your parents using a cream cheese flavor.

Herb (specifically the Bodo’s herb) cream cheese. I will not be elaborating further.

Dream vacation.

Anything involving a beach.

Favorite font.

Georgia—I love a good serif font, and I’m partial to this one, having grown up in Atlanta.

If you woke up and you had been magically transformed overnight into a fully sentient, literate aardvark—so you retain all of your knowledge and human intuition—would you drop out of UVA Law and try to lead your fellow aardvarks to rise up against humankind? Or would you prefer to become the first aardvark to graduate law school, with the trials and tribulations that entails?

Aardvark revolution, no question. I’m barely willing to endure the trials and tribulations of doing law school as a human, plus an aardvark uprising sounds like a pretty exciting time.

---
Interviewed by Ethan Brown '25
bwj2cw@virginia.edu

1L Students v. Virginia Law Review et al.

Virginia Law Weekly March 15, 2023

1L Students
v.
Virginia Law Review et al.
75 U.Va 18 (2023)

Allen, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The case before this Court concerns one of the quintessential facets of the law school experience—journals. 1L students have recently completed the Unified Journal Tryout, submitting their personal statements, along with their editing and writing components, to be judged against one another in a process much akin to law school admissions. Several 1L students, as representatives of their class, have filed an emergency application alleging multiple procedural defects which combine to deprive them of their due process. Petitioners seek to prevent grading of their submitted materials, along with an injunction requiring changes to the tryout process. We granted a temporary stay in order to consider arguments on the merits.

II. Discussion

The first question is an issue of standing. Students allege a harm based on the inconsistency of dates listed in communications on personal statement prompts, resulting in the deadline for these statements being pushed back. Additionally, those running the journal tryouts originally indicated that no physical copies would be produced, with students left on their own to print nearly two-hundred pages of material if they desired. They eventually changed course, providing hard copies which had to be picked up and returned at specified times. In both these behaviors, Petitioners allege they suffered harm insofar as their ability to complete the requirements of the journal process was impaired due to uncertainty and changing circumstances, forcing them to change plans.

Defendants counter that no harm actually occurred, as all changes or uncertainty were eventually resolved in Petitioners’ favor. Further, even conceding a harm, no remedy is available from the Court to redress the harm, as forcing students to engage in another round of journal tryouts would surely inflict more harm to the class.

These objections are well-taken and would likely prevail in a lesser court. However, the Court of Petty Appeals derives its jurisdiction from pettiness. What complaints are pettier than those which lack a reasonable solution? As such, these standing objections only strengthen Petitioners’ case and reinforce the authority of the Court to hear the dispute.

Having considered the positions of the parties at argument, the Court sua sponte raises the issue of the originalist understanding of due process requirements for journal tryouts. The earliest law review was founded in 1852,[1] and journals were thus known at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s passage in 1868. Some argue that due process requirements are not fixed to those existing at the time of passage, either evolving over time or allowing for limited changes that reflect longstanding historical practice. While these concessions square with reality and allow for the functioning of society, we must reject them and insist on a return to the procedures known in 1868.[2] I do not know what these procedures were—I am no historian. I presume it would require handwritten editing and writing components, as computers are a modern invention. Students probably wrote in cursive back then, so that will be required as well.

The Court recognizes that such a requirement is backwards, obnoxious, and unreasonable. Unfortunately, our hands are tied by the interpretive methodology we have chosen to accept and apply, which compels this outcome. Accordingly, we hold that in all future journal tryouts, the procedures need to conform to those employed in 1868, leaving to journal administrators the task of discovering what such procedures were. Additionally, we require the administrators to do a better job proofreading the materials and information provided to 1Ls to ensure dates are correct. Given the emphasis on editing and accuracy which the tryout process demands, and which journals expect from their staff, we can require nothing less.

Coleman, J., concurring in part.

The originalist methodology employed by my Brother Allen is obviously correct. But I am forced to write separately, as I would never defer to historians. Instead, it is the duty of this Court to clearly state what the law was in 1868.

The lens through which we look is this: the plain meaning of the due process clause to an educated reader in 1868. The next step is to determine who you would like to win. As I regularly dine with 1Ls and have yet to be invited to the Virginia Law Review, I choose Petitioners. Finally, I now choose which historical documents support my preferred outcome.

But Brother Allen’s deference to historians makes this methodology unpredictable. For example, there is debate among historians as to what powers the Presidency was actually delegated. If I were to come to a measured conclusion based on the weight of that evidence, then it would destroy my ability to pick between various Federalist Papers or dictionaries based on the political views of the sitting President. This is an untenable state of affairs because historians are far too squishy in their conclusions, and the law needs bright-line rules.

While imposing the standards of 1868 onto present-day journal tryouts is well and good, as it redounds to the benefit of Petitioners, one must never forget that it is the Justice who is empowered with that insight into the past.

Morse, C.J., dissenting.

All that is old, is new again. So it is, that once again the burden falls upon the more experienced members of this Court to explain to both 1L petitioners and 1L members of this Court the error of their ways. In both instances the result, as always, is that 1Ls lose. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

First, concerning Petitioners’ claims of pain and suffering of which they so loudly protest, is simply a fact of life at a reputable law school, not some malicious torture targeted solely at this newest crop of aspiring lawyers. For one thing, every single thing that Petitioners misdiagnose as a harm was experienced by the current 2Ls. Confused and sometimes contradictory communications? Check. Having to pick up and return printed materials at specified times and locations? (Gasp). Check. But again, all of this is mere tautology since Petitioners are 1Ls, and under this Court’s precedent they must lose.

Second, the Majority’s analysis errs in two respects. First, the majority considers an argument not raised in briefing or at oral argument. As heartening as it is to know the 1Ls of this Court have heard the words sua sponte, have access to Google, and a tenuous grasp of the English language, they mistakenly conflate what this Court may consider sua sponte with what prudence and precedence command. Prudentially, this Court, in recognizing a more appropriate basis for a challenge, should dismiss the suit as improvidently granted. Thereby, 1Ls lose and we have to do less work. Precedentially, the majority (this is what happens when you let 1Ls write opinions) neglect this Court’s most important, and oft-repeated precedent: 1L’s always lose.[3] I don’t know how many times we need to say this.[4] So, just to be as clear as possible: 1L’s always lose. Any other result is irreconcilable with the very foundation of liberty.

---
guj9fn@virginia.edu
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] It was only Penn, but it still counts. https://www.pennlawreview.com/about-the-law-review/.

[2] See Thomas, J., dissenting (citing Thomas, J., dissenting).

[3] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).

[4] 1L Section D v. Virginia Law Weekly 75 U.Va 5 (2022).

Hot Bench: Dana Lake '23, Deposed Tyrant

Virginia Law Weekly March 15, 2023

Dana, it is my honor to be interviewing you for your first issue as Editor in Chief (“EIC”) Emeritus. Let me remind you, you no longer have any editorial immunity, and the Court of Petty Appeals (“COPA”) is always looking for fresh defendants. Now, let’s get down to business. Where are you from and why did you come to UVA Law?

I’m from Jupiter, Florida. I lived in South Florida pretty much my whole life before law school, including for undergrad (go Gators). I worked in publishing for a few years and hit a professional ceiling, where my choices were to really double down on publishing or make a pivot into something else. As much as I loved publishing, it’s an industry with pretty low salary caps. Transactional work is a lot of the same skill set with a much better compensation scale, and a law degree really gives you a lot of freedom in the career choices you can make.

You’ve been part of the Virginia Law Weekly since you were a 1L. When did you start plotting your coup d’état thinking about running for EIC?

Oh, from day one. When I told [’20-’21 Law Weekly EIC] Christina I had InDesign experience, the gleam in her eye told me I was going to be more involved, whether I wanted to be or not (lol). I really enjoyed being Production Editor on the ’21-’22 editorial board, and I used that time to mine the previous EIC for all the insider tips he had on the job. I have zero desire to litigate or become a judge, so I had to at least seize the opportunity to be Chief Justice of the Court of Petty Appeals.

Each EIC brings their own personality, style, and priorities to their reign atop the Law Weekly. You were definitely known for your efficiency. What would you say was your biggest priority or the impact you are most proud of?

Efficiency is a legacy I can be happy with! My biggest priority was to recruit a larger editor pool to replace the big group of 3Ls leaving this year. Other org leaders know the pressure of keeping the pipeline flowing and how far-reaching the impact of a bad recruiting year is. I keep saying it, but only because it’s true: The Law Weekly needs a wide variety of voices to really capture the Law School experience. A small, tight-knit group is a lot of fun to work with, but a lot of different contributors ultimately makes the paper better.

Of the many articles you wrote over the last three years, I have two favorites. The first is your very first COPA majority, Loiterers v. The Powers that Be, 73 U.Va. 14 (2021), and the second was not an article at all, but an heroic effort to fill unexpected blank space in the October 19, 2022 edition, titled “The End of the Line.” What is your favorite article that you’ve written?

That COPA is a real throwback! It was written passionately, directly from the heart of someone who basically lived in Brown 121 during 1L fall. That was one of the roughest springs of my life, and losing out on that little bit of community was a disproportionately tough blow to weather.

My favorite piece has to be “Ode to Tiny Door,” which (unlike that COPA, which took me days and days) I wrote all in one shot in probably fifteen minutes while in a total fugue state. Those thoughts had been bouncing around my head for months by the time I was ready to put them to paper and send them out into the world.

A close runner up would be a financial advice article I wrote with the help of Dean Hulvey. She was so welcoming of me going and pestering her with questions. Anyone who is unsure about the massive amounts of money they will be making after law school, or the massive amounts of debt they are in, should definitely talk with the Office of Financial Aid.

The last year has had some notable ups and downs, and you had a unique perspective as EIC of the most powerful publication at UVA Law. What was the most surprising aspect of your time as EIC?

The most surprising thing to me, over and over again, was that people read the paper. There is a total dissociation in my head between writing and designing and printing and putting the paper out, and the fact that people will then read (and enjoy!) this thing we have created. Seeing students with copies of the paper in the hallway, receiving emails from former EICs about current editions, Student Affairs playing along with COPA orders, hearing about professors angling to get into the quotes box—it never fails to make me really happy.

You wrote several articles advising students on how to live their best lives, including how to fully embrace home-cooking, how to be financially responsible with your summer associate money, and when it is time in November to “get it together.” Are you an eldest sibling, or are you just a natural purveyor of wisdom?

I’m a younger sister; I’m just really bossy. The paper gave me a platform to force my worldview onto a wider group of people, which I definitely took full advantage of.

As you know, we need some new editors to replace the many incredible graduating 3Ls. What is your pitch for law students to join the Law Weekly?

It’s fun! It’s a Law School tradition! It’s good for your mental health! It’s better for your resume than any journal!

Lightning Round!

Any shout outs?

Weekend Thursdays, of course.

Zodiac sign?

Capricorn, predictably.

How do you take your coffee?

Milk, no sugar.

Favorite study spot?

At home with my two cats curled up nearby.

Post-grad plans?

Big Law in Houston and becoming an Astros fan.

Dream job? Other than EIC, of course.

Working for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be really interesting, but if I were doing something outside the law, I would be a chef.

How have your free Mondays been so far?

I haven’t had one by the time of this writing, but I am looking forward to being better able to pregame The Bachelor finale.

Any (much-needed) advice for the incoming EIC?

I hear he’s a pretty cool guy with a good head on his shoulders, so I’m sure he’ll be fine. The Law Weekly is a dictatorship, but you have an editorial board for a reason—don’t hesitate to lean on them when answering the big questions that will come your way (like who will pick up the pizzas on Monday).

---
Interviewed by Nikolai Morse '24

Court of Petty Appeals: Everyone v. Parking and Transportation

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2023

Everyone
v.
Parking and Transportation

75 U.Va 17 (2023)

Peterson, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

This is not the first time I have written about parking enforcement for this Court.[1] In UVA Gym-Goers, I enjoined “all future enforcement of . . . metered parking” at IM-Rec facilities. That decision was handed down on January 26, 2022. Just recently, less than a month ago, this Court’s own Justice Kulkarni released another scathing opinion regarding parking, Students v. Parking Enforcement.[2] In his concurrence to Students v. Parking Enforcement, Justice Morse referred to the practice of charging students for the use of parking spaces as “one of the most pernicious and extractive practices condoned by the Law School.” So, why are we here today?

On February 14,[3] Dean Davies forwarded an email to the student body. That email, originally written by Greg Streit, the Assistant Dean for Building Services, stated in matter-of-fact terms that, despite “inconsistent” enforcement in the past regarding parking violations, this was no longer going to be the case. Further, Parking and Transportation (P&T) would be limiting the spots available in the D2 lot for ParkMobile parking to only fifteen. However, perhaps the biggest change is the decision to adjust the rate from an affordable $1.75 per day to an outlandish $2.50 per hour for parking. What was once a charge that I was absolutely willing to accept now has me reminiscing about the good old days of only paying $14 per day to park in San Diego.

Typically, when I write opinions for this Court, I try to feign some degree of judicial legitimacy or legal reasoning. Perhaps I do it by using fancy headers, like “Background,” “Analysis,” and “Conclusion.” Perhaps I do it by employing a real-life legal doctrine. However, this case defies that sort of reasoning. The depraved actions of the school in pursuing this path necessitate the removal of all appearances of propriety. Y’all wanted to play dirty, so the Court is going to play dirty.

Frankly, this decision is just shocking. It doesn’t make sense on so many levels. It leaves me reeling with many unanswered questions. So, the first question I would like to pose is: Do you, UVA, care about your students and, if so, why are you simply trying to extract every last ounce of monetary value you can from us? I already pay upwards of $65,000 per year—that’s almost enough for the diversity jurisdiction requirement—why must you not only try to rip $25 per day from me on top of that, but also make my life miserable with fines and fees for violations? To put it simply: Parking enforcement and provision seems like the kind of cost that could be buried in our cost of tuition. The University could charge me $4,000 per year for parking and, if they embedded that charge in my tuition fee, I wouldn’t bat an eye. I wouldn’t even think about it. It would be a cost of attendance, and I would be lucky enough to have a school which provides me parking.[4] The fact that I am being treated as a thing which the school can extract value from even after I have paid roughly $195,000 to be here is an absurdity, and it speaks to how the University values its students.

Further, even if this was somehow still seen as the morally and financially right decision by the University, the choice was flawed in another way: the timing. Valentine’s Day of the last semester for students that started at the Law School during the height of the pandemic is not the time to pull the rug out from under students. We are talking about a class of students who, relative to the average law student, have already had so much taken from them by the school. And not just experientially—this statement holds true monetarily as well. Because, while other classes got events like Dandelion, Admitted Students Weekend, Barrister’s, a Fall, Thanksgiving, and Spring break, and more during their 1L year, our year instead paid full tuition to attend half of our classes over Zoom.[5]

The point that I am getting at here is that this was simply a stupid time to make this change. Eat whatever costs you have to eat for the next three months before the Class of 2023 is gone. I’m sure that the endowment won’t be hit too hard by that decision. In fact, in the long run, it would likely be a boon to the school. Because all I can say is that I don’t think a single person I have talked to from the current class of 3Ls has any intention of donating a dime to the Law School after their experience these last three years. And it seems unsurprising why those students feel that way.

This Court orders the University to publicly recognize that this decision was, at best, a stupid one, and at worst, a stupid decision that revealed the University’s nefarious intent to treat its students as mere things from which to extract value. The University is also enjoined from charging for parking outside of costs hidden in tuition. Courts are rarely tasked with crafting policy, but luckily, ours is no normal court. So, the Court is happy to order the University to reverse its current parking decision, leave the status quo in place for the remainder of the semester, and then increase tuition—while simultaneously making parking free for all students—next fall. The school shall distribute parking passes to all students at the beginning of each year and still hire parking enforcement to ensure that no undesirable townies are using the parking spaces. This is a well-crafted and sufficiently insidious policy as to not immediately turn any heads. I’m shocked the school didn’t implement it sooner.

---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

[1] UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA, 74 U.Va. 13 (2022).

[2] 75 U.Va. 13 (2023).

[3] Literally on Valentine’s Day.

[4] Even if, in reality, that school is severely overcharging me for the good.

[5] In fact, I believe we paid $2,000 for what was labeled “Activity Fee.” There were no activities. I still don’t know what I paid for. Apparently it wasn’t parking.

Hot Bench: Anna Bninski '23

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2023

I am so happy to welcome our esteemed Features Editor, Anna Bninski ’23! Anna, would you please introduce yourself to our vast readership?

Sure! So, I am originally a Navy brat, but I grew up here in Charlottesville after my father was stationed at the Navy ROTC at UVA. Then, I went to UVA for undergrad. After graduating, I spent about seven years bouncing around volunteer opportunities, academic pursuits, and various jobs, mostly for non-profits. Then, instead of continuing to work in communications, I decided that I would rather get into a track with the possibility for more concrete accomplishments. So, that’s what brought me to law school.

What area of the law are you most interested in?

Litigation, with a focus on employment law.

And what sparked your interest in that field?

So, I’m pretty nosy, which means I’m interested in an area of law that has scope for some investigation-type projects. And wild stuff happens at work. That makes it an interesting area of law—and it’s also one that pretty much everyone’s life will intersect with at some point because most folks will have a job. But there are a lot of misconceptions about what are and are not legal practices. I think people often think that activities that are merely unfair are illegal. But then they don’t recognize that some things employers are doing that seem normal are actually illegal. So, it’s an area that I find very interesting that has both human and legal aspects. And I’ve been informed that I have “litigator energy,” which seems pretty accurate. I’d say I’m one of the many litigation-focused types who have only a very foggy grasp of what M&A lawyers actually do.

Besides writing and working as an editor for the Virginia Law Weekly, what other activities are you involved with on Grounds?

I was the Philanthropy Chair and am now Co-Vice President of the Domestic Violence Project. While we are not the most visible club, we have been able to do some really great volunteering and fundraising work. That has been very rewarding. For example, I was particularly happy when we raised over $700 for the Shelter for Help in Emergency. And I also work at the circulation desk at the Law Library, so come check out an iPhone charger from me. Or a book, if you’re feeling really wild.

Wonderful! So, I know you came to the Law School in the COVID year…

Oh, yeah.

What are the noticeable changes you’ve seen in the Law School?

Well, I was a complete hermit my first year because one of my roommates at the time was an essential worker. I couldn’t in good conscience justify bringing bonus germs into the house. So, if I had the option of doing school on Zoom, then that was what I needed to do. After being a hard-core hermit, things were relaxing a bit during 2L. And with that came many delightful classmates! For 3L, the ability to just hang out at school and not have to deal with the same stressful environment of early COVID has been really lovely.

And how would you say that impacted the friendships you’ve built during law school?

I would say that I made one or two good friends during 1L, and it has been a pleasant expansion of that number ever since.

Building off of that unique experience, what advice do you have for 1Ls and 2Ls?

This isn’t really for 1Ls or 2Ls specifically. While this is probably advice that you hear a lot, it’s important to think about what matters to you and not necessarily what everyone else or the institutions of the school are telling you are the best things. I feel this with myself—it is very easy to want things because everyone tells you that that is what you should want. And then you pursue those goals because they feel like the right ones. This is not to say that all widely accepted goals are bad goals and that no one should do them! But I just think that it’s important to take a minute and imagine what you want to get out of life and prioritize from there. And this reflects both career goals and academic goals. You don’t actually have to kill yourself over every class. You can be strategic about how you spend your time.

Before you leave law school, is there anything you would like to accomplish?

Well, I’m doing the Workplace Rights clinic at the LAJC right now, which is something new for me. I’m really looking forward to seeing my academic work be useful to people who are serving folks in the real world.

Great work following CREAC and tying this back into employment law. Do you have any last words that you would like to leave our audience with?

My husband and I have a mid-size dachshund named Otto. He is very long and very low to the ground and so is a constant tripping hazard.

Lightning Round!

How many siblings do you have?

I’m the youngest of four!

How do you take your coffee?

Cream, no sugar.

Favorite kind of library patron?

People who have a book on hold and are excited it’s finally arrived.

What’s your horoscope?

Scorpio. I’m great at holding grudges.

Favorite restaurant around town?

That’s a hard one…it was Anna’s Pizza No. 5 before it closed. RIP.

What are you doing for your Bar Trip?

I don’t know if I’m even doing one yet, that’s so far in the future…

What’s your phone screensaver?

It’s a picture form my wedding. Me and my husband and a lot of bushes.

Do you recommend getting married din law School?

Yes to eloping in law school, but I don’t think I can recommend a whole big ceremony. Just organizing brunch for 20 people was enough!

---
Interviewed by Garrett Coleman '25
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Dana Lake, et.al.

Virginia Law Weekly February 22, 2023

Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff
v.
Dana Lake, et.al.
75 U.Va 16 (2023)

Allard, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Background

Andrew Allard and Ethan Brown are 1Ls in Section H. The two joined the Law Weekly as staff editors in 2022. They have attended probably most of the Law Weekly meetings and have contributed a combined sixteen articles, all of impeccable quality. And yet, the Law Weekly’s esteemed Editor-in-Chief, Dana Lake, recently confused Allard and Brown for the umpteenth time. This suit followed.

Plaintiffs request an emergency injunction to prevent Lake and all other Law School students and faculty from repeating the error of calling each by the other’s name. In considering Plaintiffs’ request, this Court must determine whether it is properly within our jurisdiction to enjoin the Law School community from making honest mistakes, and further, whether Defendant’s mistake was, in fact, reasonable.

Defendant objects that this action cannot properly be brought before this Court. Upon notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to file suit, Lake protested, “No, please! I’m, like, totally face blind! It was an honest mistake!” Defendant’s argument cannot stand. Even taking for granted that Defendant’s mistake was an honest one—a very generous assumption, indeed—this Court has a long history of exercising jurisdiction over “many petty complaints . . . between individual students.”[1] I mean, it’s in our name, for heaven’s sake. This Court has even gone so far as to annex entire federally-owned properties in order to complain about them in the auspicious pages of this paper.[2] So likely are we to assume jurisdiction over even the most trivial disputes that it appears nearly certain that a jurisdictional argument serves only to assist this Court in reaching its word count requirements.

It is next argued that even if this Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, Plaintiffs have no basis upon which to request a Law School-wide injunction. This, too, we must reject. Plaintiffs note that renowned contracts scholar, Professor Mitu Gulati has also made the mistake of calling one by the other’s name.[3] To require Plaintiffs to prospectively identify all other Law School students and faculty who may make this ridiculous error would be unduly burdensome. Also, while my colleagues may know enough about civil procedure to figure out how to join all of those other parties, I sure as hell don’t, and I’m the one writing this thing, dammit. Thus, a Law School-wide injunction is Plaintiffs’ only adequate remedy.

It is lastly objected that two of the Justices presiding in this case are the plaintiffs who brought it to begin with. It is argued that based on the fundamental legal principle, nemo iudex in sua causa,[4] those Justices should have recused themselves. We need only note that if Justices of this country’s Supreme Court are under no obligation to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, then, under the doctrine of whataboutism, neither are we.

Having clearly established our jurisdiction over this case, we turn to the merits. Plaintiffs argue that Lake’s apparent confusion of their identities is negligent, discriminatory, and unreasonable as a matter of law. On prior occasions wherein Lake confused their identities, Plaintiffs have objected to their treatment as “the fungible Section H gays.” Lake has persisted in confusing the two despite their utter lack of visual similarity. See Appendix A. Plaintiffs also note that they have contributed many articles to the pages of this paper and even in this very Court. Thus, in light of their distinctive appearances and their towering contributions to the Law Weekly, we agree with Plaintiffs that Lake’s mistake was unreasonable.

Conclusion

Because the issue in this case is exceedingly trivial, it is naturally within our jurisdiction. Further, because they could not look any less alike and are both very unique individuals, it is mere silliness to confuse Plaintiffs simply because they are dark-haired, gay 1Ls in Section H who both write for the Law Weekly. Okay, having put it that way, I kind of see the other side’s point now. But I digress.

***

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a Law School-wide injunction preventing the confusion of their names is GRANTED.

Appendix A

Mr. Allard (left) and Mr. Brown (right). Photo credit: Jared Tay ’25.

Brown, J., concurring as to Part I and dissenting as to Part II.

For the reasons stated by Justice Allard in Part I, I endorse this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The Court of Petty Appeals will remain today and forever more a venue for vocalizing petty claims, and there is nothing more petty than two catty homosexuals purposefully starting chaos in the waning days of Chief Justice Lake’s tenure as she begs tearfully to ride into the sunset. As masterfully illustrated by Justice Allard, the instances of incorrect naming are frequent and widespread enough for this Court to exercise general jurisdiction. And while I apologize to Chief Justice Lake that she bears partial responsibility for the sins of Professor Mitu Gulati, it is an insurmountable feat for me to open up my Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from last semester to check Rule 20’s policies on permissible joinder. So, she fights this battle alone.

But I dissent from Justice Allard’s assessment regarding the reasonableness of Chief Justice Lake’s mistakes in Part II. Reviewing the evidence de novo, I reiterate that Justice Allard and myself are flavors of the same person: gay, white, dark-haired, short-to-medium height men who worked in the Washington, D.C. area before graduation; enjoy David Bowie music; use too many emoticons in text conversations that do not require them; have first names starting with vowels; at least nominally identify as Unitarian Universalists; and, finally, write for the Virginia Law Weekly.

The similarities listed here are surely only a small fraction of the overlaps in personality, demeanor, and appearance that Justice Allard and myself share. And since there are at least five 1Ls on the paper—perhaps even six on a particularly dull Monday evening, when everyone cares enough to show up—who can blame Chief Justice Lake for mixing us up? If three’s a crowd, then six is a hellish mix of skin and bones. Requiring Chief Justice Lake to have the ability to tell us fungible gays apart is an intrusive standard for this Court to set, one that exceeds the wisdom of this Court’s jurisprudence and erodes the federalist principles this nation was built on.[5] Thus, it can be rationally construed that Chief Justice Lake’s confusion was sufficiently reasonable.

Still, despite my disagreement with Justice Allard’s analysis in Part II, I concur in his final judgment issuing an injunction against Chief Justice Lake for her conduct. What would the Law Weekly be if not a place that rewards trivial drama at the expense of our beloved staff members? Thus, despite my deeply held reservations about Justice Allard’s comments regarding our non-fungibility, I sign onto his judgment.[6]

Dana, C.J., concurring.

While I may concur with this ruling under the long-established but almost never-used mea culpadoctrine,[7] I will go a step further. This case presents the Court with the chance to evaluate a truly existential question: Are there circumstances under which 1Ls may win?

We have long held that a class of persons with no rights (such as 1Ls) do not ever have standing to bring suit against upperclassmen, no matter how direct and targeted the petty slight they face may be.[8] That this Court frequently allows such cases to proceed to discovery instead of granting summary judgment says more about the amount of free time our Justices have than anything else.[9] There is certainly precedent for belligerent and underappreciated Justices suing the Chief Justice, as seen most recently in UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth.[10] While consisting almost entirely of straight dicta, this case raised several important issues: 1) whether this Court may exercise its authority over the Law Weekly Executive Board;[11]and 2) whether, and how, the precedent of “1Ls always lose” can be binding when we frequently find in favor of plaintiff groups which incidentally include 1Ls. Focusing only on this second question, we must find in favor of 1Ls for one simple reason: There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.

We find that—under an exceptionally narrow, tailored, case-by-case evaluation—1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win than it is for them to lose. We expect this rule to be rarely enforced, since there is almost nothing this Court finds funnier than ruling against the objectively correct party (multiply by 100 if the party is a 1L). Even now, I must fight the urge to tell Plaintiffs/Justices Allard and Brown to go kick rocks.

Am I wrong for misidentifying them? Perhaps.[12] Do I reject their attempts to hold me responsible for my actions? Almost implicitly. Will I stop mixing them up now that I have had to write 400 words in penance? No. I can’t change my nature.[13] The only option available to me to comply with the injunction[14] is to resign from the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. That my resignation coincides with the election of a new E-Board and my graduation is a total coincidence.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu

[1] Students v. Parking Enforcement, 75 U.Va. 13 (2022).

[2] See In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds, 75 U.Va. 7 (2022).

[3] Professor Gulati has, in fact, confused Justice Allard with two of his Section H classmates. On multiple occasions. But no hard feelings.

[4] “No-one is judge in their own cause.”

[5] Is this how one does Con Law?

[6] Sorry, Dana.

[7] Andrew and Ethan have been active members of the paper, writing several wonderful and iconic pieces. Much, much, much more importantly, they always submit their articles early. It is this fact which has earned them my concurrence.

[8] See 1L Plus Ones v. Barrister’s Planning Committee, 75 U.Va. 15 (2023). But also I want to emphasize that this is NOT TARGETED. I love all the Law Weekly 1Ls equally, if not accurately.

[9] A suspicious amount of free time for a group of people who must be voluntold to write every week…

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

[11] It may not, for the record.

[12] I SAID I WAS SORRY!!!

[13] As long as you dress in a distinctive way, do not change your haircut, and do not interact with me in a place where we have not spoken before, I can guarantee a 50 percent chance I will be able recognize your person and a 20 percent chance I will correctly use your name in conversation.

[14] Which I am doing voluntarily, not because the Court told me to.