Judge Roger Gregory Receives Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law

---

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 

In a profound moment of humility and gratitude, Judge Roger L. Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law last Thursday. The medal—previous recipients of which include Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, as well as Robert Mueller ’73 and Loretta Lynch—recognizes Judge Gregory’s remarkable journey of public service, beginning here in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Pictured: Judge Gregory 
Photo Credit: UVA Law 

“When I received the letter saying that I would be the recipient of this incredible medal, I was glad that I was on level ground because I was about to faint,” said Judge Gregory. Judge Gregory noted that it was especially an honor to be at “Mr. Jefferson’s school.” Praising the Law School for its contributions to legal scholarship, Judge Gregory noted that he and Dean Goluboff first met at a panel on constitutional law. “She’s a working dean . . . She was waxing eloquently on constitutional law. I was taking notes.” Judge Gregory also noted that, thanks to his three daughters, “I didn’t go to the University of Virginia, but a lot of my money did.”

The story of Judge Gregory's ascent to the bench is etched with the indelible marks of history. He was raised in Petersburg, Virginia, where he attended a segregated public high school until the 11th grade. He later attended nearby Virginia State University as a first-generation college student, where he graduated summa cum laude. Judge Gregory then attended law school, receiving his J.D. in 1978 from the University of Michigan Law School, for which, said Dean Goluboff, “we forgive him.”

Judge Gregory went on to work in private practice and eventually established his own firm with Lawrence Douglas Wilder in 1982. He was then nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by two presidents—first by President Bill Clinton in a recess appointment, and later by President George W. Bush after the first appointment expired. Clearing the Senate with a near-unanimous vote, Judge Gregory became the first Black judge to serve on the Fourth Circuit, and he remains the only judge appointed to a federal appellate court by presidents from both major parties.

From 2016 to 2023, Judge Gregory served as Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit. During his tenure as Chief Judge, Gregory wrote the majority opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump,[1] upholding an injunction against President Trump’s travel ban that restricted admission of refugees from seven majority Muslim countries. Judge Gregory also highlighted two death penalty cases that the Court reviewed, ultimately resulting in a reduced life sentence for one defendant and exoneration based on actual innocence for the other. “After seventeen years on death row, he was released . . . All cases are important, but those ones stand out,” Judge Gregory said.

Reflecting on the honor bestowed upon him, Judge Gregory evoked the intertwined threads of history and memory. Situated in the former capital of the Confederacy, Judge Gregory’s chambers in the Lewis F. Powell, Jr. U.S. Courthouse are a poignant symbol of change juxtaposed against the grim echoes of history. Judge Gregory noted that from his window, he can see Thomas Jefferson’s state house and a statue of Barbara Johns, a civil rights activist who, as a high school student, helped to initiate one of the consolidated cases in Brown v. Board of Education.

Judge Gregory thus sits at a complex intersection of our nation’s history—a history that has undoubtedly shaped his view of the Constitution. Judge Gregory noted that, since the beginning of the Republic, the question of who are “We the People” has perplexed legal thinkers. “People that looked like me would not be so if we were textualists or originalists,” Judge Gregory said. Noting the importance of  adhering to the Constitution, he continued, “The good thing about that is also the bad thing about that . . . Everybody has a different view of what that means.”

But for Judge Gregory, the struggle over constitutional meaning is itself important. “Text without context is pretext,”  Judge Gregory said. “The Constitution must be interpreted with contextual sensitivity to changing circumstances so that it imposes reasonable requirements in such circumstances,” he continued, citing Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court alongside Chief Justice Marshall.

“Constitutionalism is a blessing because we adhere to the Constitution, but it can be a curse if we engage in distorted constitutionalism,” Judge Gregory said, pointing to John C. Calhoun’s constitutional defense of slavery and Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott. “I love the Constitution . . . but there's nothing talismanic about these words unless they're in the heart.”

Asked how his life has affected his jurisprudence, Judge Gregory recalled a friend who spent much of his adult life in prison due to substance abuse. Now recovered and out of prison,  he helps guide others through prison and addiction. “From diabetes, he’s now almost blind . . . and he said ‘I’ve never seen clearer in my life than I see now today,’” Judge Gregory said, choking back tears. “That’s how we’ve got to see the Constitution.”

---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

---

[1] 883 F. 3d 233 (4th Cir. 2018).

Lambda Celebrates 40th Anniversary with a Gay-la for the Ages

---

Brent Rice '25 
Staff Editor 

This past Friday, Lambda Law Alliance proved that Feb Club isn’t the only time they know how to throw a good party. Over 210 students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends of the Law School’s second-largest affinity organization gathered at the Kimpton The Forum Hotel for a night of merriment and celebration as the club rang in its 40th year of existence and paid tribute to three persons who have had an outsized impact on the LGBTQ+ community both locally and nationwide.

The night began with a reflection on LAMBDA’s humble beginnings, founded in 1984 as the Gay and Lesbian Law Students Association and comprised just enough students to fill a dining room table. By spring 1997, GALLSA had grown to 15 members and changed its name to BGALLSA to include bisexual students. Later, somewhere around 2001, the organization changed its name to LAMBDA in an effort to avoid forcing its members into defining themselves with labels of their sexuality. Today, LAMBDA’s membership consists of more than 130 self-identifying queer students.

In her introductory remarks, Dean Risa Goluboff took the time to reflect on the aforementioned growth of the club and also to share a staggering statistic about the current 1L class—that is, nearly 20% of them self-identify as queer. Goluboff closed her remarks by extending to LAMBDA an official welcome to middle-age and wishes for many more successful years to come. 

Next, Jennifer Hulvey, the former director of financial aid at the Law School and current senior advisor to the same office, took the stage to share a few touching interactions she has had with students over the years alongside some additionally exciting statistics about the University’s Queer Alumni Network (QVA), which has provided over $350,000 in scholarships to LGBTQ+ students over the years. Hulvey, a past recipient of the Alvarez-Coughlin award which seeks to honor those who have made “extraordinary efforts on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community by creating an open, supportive, and welcoming environment for diversity at the Law School, the University as a whole and beyond,” helped transition the evening to the presentation of the award to three very worthy attendees in the audience.

Photo Credit: Lambda Law Alliance & Reilly Swennes ’25 

Scott Migliori ’12, the 2020-21 honoree whose acceptance of the award had been delayed due to Covid, was the first person of the evening to be presented the award. Migliori was the first openly transgender student at the Law School. Despite expressing great pride over the growth of the LGBTQ+ community at UVA Law, Migliori, who is currently considering leaving Florida over concerns for his family’s safety, reminded the room that there is still important work to be done.

Luis Alvarez, Jr. ’88, President and CEO of the Law School Foundation and one of the namesakes of the award, introduced the next recipient, Susan Baker-Manning ’98. Baker-Manning, who worked in Big Law after graduating from UVA, talked about finding ways to make an impact and serve your communities no matter your role. As a Partner at Morgan Lewis, she led large impact litigation matters, including representing some of the largest businesses in the country in an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Baker-Manning currently serves as the General Counsel of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Next, the award’s other namesake and long-time LAMBDA advisor, Professor Anne Coughlin, introduced the evening’s final recipient of the Alvarez-Coughlin award, Cordel Faulk ’01. Faulk served UVA Law from 2009 to 2020, first as Director of Admissions and later as Assistant Dean and Chief Admissions Officer. Many of the evening’s speakers took the time to address special thanks to Faulk and testified that the growth of LAMBDA that we had gathered to celebrate was the direct result of Faulk’s work to make UVA Law a more welcoming and inclusive place.

To close out the evening, world renowned drag queen Jackie Cox took the stage and serenaded the crowd before inviting the audience to join her on the dance floor.

---
wrf4bh@virginia.edu 

Perspectives on Stablecoins

---

Noah Coco '26 
Managing Editor

On Tuesday, April 9, Law, Information, Security, and Technology (LIST) hosted practitioners at the forefront of stablecoins for their event titled “Women in the Digital Assets Industry: Different Perspectives on Stablecoins.” The practitioners each discussed their experiences at the financial, legal, and regulatory frontier of this burgeoning technology and industry.

Professor Julia Mahoney, who is currently teaching a Monetary Constitution class, kicked off the discussion with a broad introduction and survey of stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies whose values are pegged to some external reference point. The most common of these external reference points are other fiat currencies – currencies backed by the government that issued them rather than a physical commodity like gold or silver[1]—but stablecoins may also be pegged to commodities, and others maintain their value through algorithmic formulae.

Pictured: Flavia Naves, Meagan Griffin ’13, Lisa Schroer, & Professor Mahoney 
Photo Credit: UVA Law 

According to Professor Mahoney, what sets stablecoins apart from other cryptocurrencies is their greater potential to serve as a medium of exchange. As the name suggests, many stablecoins are reliably pegged to their external reference points and effectively eliminate the wild price fluctuations that have so far been endemic to cryptocurrencies more broadly. Price stability is achieved by maintaining sufficient reserve assets backing the stablecoins, which are often overcollateralized to protect against fluctuations in the prices of the underlying reserve assets. As price-stable mediums of exchange, stablecoins can circumvent the “iron grip” of sovereigns by providing an alternative financial infrastructure beyond national financial regulators and private financial intermediaries.

On the other hand, stablecoins do not come without skeptics. Mahoney cited academics and regulators alike who have expressed concern over the adoption of this innovative yet still nascent technology. One common criticism is that stablecoins are recreating the Civil War-era phenomenon of widespread circulation of private bank notes. In this modern context, however, the “banks” issuing the stablecoins are so far unregulated and prone to destabilizing bank runs that could provoke government intervention. Federal regulators like Gary Gensler, Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, share similar sentiments and have so far taken aggressive stances against the industry.

The remaining practitioners proceeded by reflecting on their own roles amidst the financial innovation and accompanying regulatory uncertainty surrounding stablecoins.

Lisa Schroeer, Senior Director & Analytical Manager, Cross Analytic Practice Expertise Team at S&P Global Ratings, began by discussing these trends from a private ratings perspective. Lisa, a self-proclaimed “unlikely DeFi’er” who started her career at the Federal Reserve before transitioning to her current employer, says, as she sees it, the primary goal of rating agencies is providing transparency and minimizing asymmetric information for financial assets. With respect to stablecoins, she has been assessing the ability of stablecoins to maintain their pegs by examining the assets backing them. Quality of reserve assets, asset liquidity, and overcollateralization are key features she looks at in determining whether stablecoins can reliably keep their pegs. This analysis is difficult when stablecoin issuers keep relatively less transparent records,[2] or when stablecoins are backed by assets of less stable value, like other cryptocurrencies.

Flavia Naves, Commissioner of the Wyoming Stable Coin Commission and Of Counsel at Hathaway & Kunz, LLP, next spoke about stablecoins from the state regulatory perspective. Naves noted that stablecoins are still “wizardry” to regulators, who know very little about the technology and are equipped with an outdated toolset of old laws to regulate the industry. Throughout the history of banking, regulators have constructed banking guardrails and internet guardrails as more transactions and payments began to occur online, but she says that the industry still lacks appropriate “blockchain guardrails” to deal with the newest financial innovations in crypto and stablecoins. Although the correct regulatory response is still debated, she notes that states have been more active in regulating the industry to date than the federal government. Her own Wyoming Stable Coin Commission is a product of recent state legislation establishing the Commission and empowering it to create what would be the United States’ first government-issued stablecoin backed by US dollar reserves.[3]

Megan Griffin ’13, Of Counsel in the Global Fintech & Payments Group at Paul Hastings LLP, further elaborated on state stablecoin regulatory schemes that she has encountered in her practice. She noted that states are the primary regulators for non-banking, non-depository institutions, the category that stablecoin issuers fall into. That regulatory structure complicates the stablecoin industry because the “interlocking web of state banking departments” lacks uniformity in their approach to cryptocurrencies broadly, and stablecoins in particular.

For instance, most regulations of cryptocurrency at the state level derive from money transmitter statutes, which have traditionally applied to the issuance of payment instruments, instruments of prepaid value, and remits between two parties, but that are now being used to regulate cryptocurrency exchanges, even when they do not even touch fiat money. Some states have labeled stablecoins as cryptocurrencies, which under their respective state statutes excuses them from regulations governing underlying asset reserves (implicitly acknowledging that cryptocurrencies somehow hold intrinsic value). Other states label stablecoins as cryptocurrencies, but under their respective statutes they do regulate the underlying reserves. Still other states recognize stablecoins as a store of value, a category which also subjects them to regulations of the underlying reserves. The lack of uniformity makes compliance with state regulations difficult for stablecoin issuers, who often must engage counsel at earlier stages than other technology startups.

---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu 

---

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp.

[2] Like Tether, one of the most widely used stablecoins.

[3] Castelluccio et al., Wyoming Adopts Stable Token Legislation and Lays the Foundation for a Government-Issued Stable Coin, Mayer Brown (May 5, 2023) https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2023/05/wyoming-adopts-stable-token-legislation-and-lays-the-foundation-for-a-government-issued-stablecoin.

Strong Showing from UVA Law in 41st Softball Invitational

---

Garrett Coleman '25 
Executive Editor 

The 41st Annual North Grounds Softball League Invitational began last Friday evening, with the first pitches delivered by  guests of honor Dean Risa Goluboff and the family of Tessa Wiseman ’24. Teams from Georgetown Law and Florida State Law won the Co-Rec Championship and the Open Championship, respectively.

Pictured: UVA Law's CoRec Blue 
Photo Credit: Katie Barbella '25 

The weekend was not only about softball, but also incorporated a strong charitable component. On this point, Tournament Director Sally Levin ’24 said, “Besides bringing law students from across the country together for a fun weekend of softball and socializing, the great purpose of the Invitational is to raise money for our charitable partner, ReadyKids. ReadyKids is a local non-profit that provides counseling, family support, and early learning opportunities to children in Charlottesville. Our team visited ReadyKids in the fall, and it was clear how many important services they provide in their nurturing spaces. Our partnership with ReadyKids goes back many years, when Professor Schragger served as the president of the board, and is now stronger than ever. Presenting our donation check to ReadyKids is one of the highlights of the weekend.” This year’s donation came out to $40,000.

When the playoffs came around, this reporter was thrilled to follow the elite CoRec Blue team from UVA Law. Before the first game Sunday morning against the University of Connecticut Huskies, I found myself an excellent perch from which to listen to the players warm up. One Husky said of CoRec Blue, “This is their JV team . . . we have to win.” Unfortunately, the Huskies’ finest came up short, 15 to 7. The highlight of the game was an early grand slam from Sam Meyer ’24. The team’s other Sam, Quinan ’25, also had an excellent throw from deep left field to get out the Husky who was running home. This reporter thinks that play made up for his earlier at-bats.

Next team up to the slaughterhouse was Yale. During the game, one of my anonymous sources overheard this from a Yalie outfielder: “Dude, they’re trying too hard. It’s intramural softball, and they’ve got ten dudes who can hit .500.” While we were not sure what metric this student was using, it is fair to say that the Blues had over ten players who had a home run percentage of over .500. The Columbia students on the bench voiced similar concerns, accusing many UVA players of using performance enhancing drugs. Perhaps the Blues were trying too hard, as the final score came out to 24 to 1.

In the quarterfinals, the Blues faced off against Charleston Law, who put up the best fight so far. Daniel Dunn ’25 was a brick wall at third base, catching several low line drives. Andrew Becker ’24 continued his fantastic day with a grand slam, sailing far beyond the center fence. Quinan and Becker continued to secure the left and left-center outfield. And Midge Zuk ’24 dominated on the diamond with several line drives and a big catch in deep right field. I was able to see this one up close and personal as I picked up Becker’s home run ball, which the field monitor refused to authenticate.

Tragedy struck when the Blues met the Georgetown Aiders and Abattors, who had previously defeated UVA’s other team, CoRec Gold. The GULCers kept a one run lead through three innings, with both teams fielding beautifully. But the Blues answered in innings four and five, scoring seven runs. With massive homers from Dunn and Cooper Lewis ’24, steady line drives from Sadie Goering ’24, and effortless fielding from shortstop Matan Siskind ’25, the Blues looked unstoppable. Unfortunately, an eight-run rally in innings six and seven secured the win for Georgetown. Their steady line drives into the outfield kept runners moving consistently. While disappointed, the players of CoRec Blue and their many fans behind home plate kept their chins up and left the diamond with collegiality intact.

From sources who wished to remain anonymous, this reporter did learn of some hiccups in the event. There were multiple hospitalizations from injuries–nothing too serious, thankfully, but to be expected when law schools continue to spurn KJDs. A non-UVA player was ejected for yelling at an umpire. And a certain D.C. school even had an illegal bat confiscated from them. Our noble lawyers would do well to remember that there will be sharp practices once we leave these honor-bound Grounds.[1]

While the bleachers were replete with chirping, some of it migrated online. The Harvard Law School softball page on Instagram posted this message after their elimination: “And, thank god we’re not Yale, who lost 46-0 today.” After seeing Yale in the playoff round against the Blues, this reporter is confused as to where the Harvard students got that information and would be happy to consult on any future libel actions. The HLS Softball account also posted about their new accolade: Ivy League Champion at the UVA Law Softball Invitational. While this is also disputed, I would like to invent an even newer accolade in light of the most recent rankings: UVA Law wins the T4 Championship.

Congrats to the winning teams and thank you to all the event’s organizers for a well-run and enjoyable weekend in Charlottesville. Field Monitors were constantly running between games and putting in the necessary behind-the-scenes work, thanks to the guidance of our other Tournament Director, Grace Stevens ’24. It was an excellent showcase of our wonderful town, talented school body, and uniquely collegial spirit.

---
tq77zz@virginia.edu 

---

[1] This was before the final rounds, and I am unfortunately quite confident that the Aiders and Abettors corrected the honest mistake immediately.

Professor Cahn's New Book Tackles Growing Wage Gap

---

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 

In the United States today, more women hold bachelor's degrees than men, and that gap continues to widen.[1] Why, then, is the wage gap increasing for women with college degrees? In a new book, Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy, Professors Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, and Nancy Levit claim to have found the culprit: the winner-takes-all economy.

Last Tuesday, Professors Cahn and Carbone introduced their book to a crowd of students. As they explain, the “winner-takes-all” (WTA) economy allows corporate leadership to consolidate resources for their own benefit, often through illegal or unethical means. For everybody else, high-stakes bonuses are doled out based on short-term metrics that are “impossible to meet without cheating,” Professor Carbone explained.

This system, the professors argue, has allowed toxic leaders to thrive at the expense of workers’ health and quality of life. Such businesses, sometimes described as having “masculinity contest cultures,” are characterized by low trust, high stress, and zero-sum competition. “When you create that kind of environment, you drive women out,” said Carbone. “These high-stakes bonus environments are counterproductive [and] are associated with greater fraud, distrust, higher turnover, lower morale, and lesser productivity.”

The professors recalled an interview with a woman who had been fired from her job as an office manager at a dentist’s office at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The unnamed interviewee, whose teenage son was taking care of her newborn child, had to stay home when her son caught COVID-19.

“We went in thinking—oh, a dentist. Small office, the dentist needs his manager, can’t do without her—he was in a rock in a hard place. We found out: no. Private equity in New York made the decision to fire her,” said Professor Carbone. This story, Carbone explained, illustrates the spread of the WTA model. “It’s not about the dentist. It’s not about the needs of the dental office. It’s about their focus on quarterly earnings and the need to show a constant earning sheet . . . It’s violating arguably new regulations passed to protect workers during Covid, and they don’t care.”

Not only is the growing gender gap a potential problem for the legal equality of women, but also, as Professor Cahn explained, these same trends can be observed in the legal profession. “Although more than half of all law school grads are women, the number of women in senior leadership roles at U.S. law firms is far less than half. 22 percent of equity partners were female in 2020, 15 percent in 2012,” said Professor Cahn. And the percentage of women among the highest-paid attorneys in law firms has decreased from 8 percent in 2005 to just 2 percent in 2020.

Professor Carbone is nonetheless optimistic that the disadvantages of these systems are leading investors to switch to more open business models. “In corporate America, there’s actually greater recognition of the business case for diversity . . . . While diversity doesn’t guarantee good practices, the lack of diversity is almost always associated with bad practices.” This change in thinking has motivated changes in business practices, like the NASDAQ’s new disclosure requirement for diversity in corporate boards, added in 2020. “It’s not about being woke, and it’s not about DEI,” said Professor Carbone. “It’s about a tell.”

Professor Cahn similarly expressed optimism about the possibility of change. “There are already changes happening in corporate America . . . . Your generation is already emphasizing the importance of work-life-family balance.” Professor Cahn suggested that an increase in men taking family leave may also help, as maternity leave is a major contributor to the wage gap.

Stressing the availability of viable alternatives, the professors also noted that the mid-century predecessor to the modern winner-takes-all paradigm was characterized by values now seen as feminine. The so-called “Company Man,” emblematic of the era, had a collectivist approach to work. Whereas then, employees bragged “My company is better than yours,” today, instead we brag “My bonus is bigger than yours,” explained Professor Cahn. “There was a feeling of community . . . . The values associated with community and cooperation, today seen as feminine values, in earlier times were seen as male values.”

The trio of professors began working on the book in 2016 when they still believed then-candidate Hillary Clinton might soon be president. “One of the nice things about the eight-year process was that after we started, that’s when #MeToo happened. And so, there were some changes. There was more visibility to some of this that also occurred after we started,” said Professor Cahn. But one thing that didn’t change in those eight years: the fact that women at the top are falling behind.

Professor Cahn is the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Professor Carbone is the Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota Law School. Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy will be available for purchase beginning in May.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

---

[1] Kim Parker, What’s behind the growing gap between men and women in college completion?, Pew Research Center (Nov. 8, 2021).

116th Libel Show: The Best Ever?

---

Ryan Moore '25 
Law Weekly Historian 

No one truly knows when this happens, but at some point during the school year, the University of Virginia sends their best and brightest law students to an elite comedy and musical performance camp. I presume the students work 14-hour days perfecting comedy writing, practicing musical composition, and learning the finer points of acting. Last Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, these insanely talented law students returned to Grounds and put on the 116th Libel Show.

 Pictured: Libel's 3Ls take a bow.
Photo Credit: The Sandu Family 

The Libel Show is a UVA Law tradition, like softball or exorbitant parking fees. Legend goes that the show started as a hazing ritual, where 2Ls and 3Ls would force 1Ls to perform skits on the steps of the Main Grounds Rotunda. The 2 and 3Ls would throw rocks and shoot bottle rockets at them, which is a practice I think we should bring back.[1] The practice suffered two false starts. First, allegedly the President of UVA was hit by a stray bottle rocket. Second, and better sourced, is that in the 1900s the Libel Show lampooned a mortgage professor so hard he had the show shut down for five years. In all honesty, he probably deserved it, as he failed an entire class of Mortgage Law students.

In its current iteration, the show lampoons life at the Law School through a variety of impersonations, song parodies, and skits. Despite being put on by a gaggle of law students, who ostensibly have hours of readings to do each night, the quality of performance and musicality is surprisingly high. The ultimate goal of the Libel Show is to give every law student one to three evenings of outrageous comedy. Lord knows we all need it.

Writing a review of the Libel Show is a difficult task for any reporter, let alone one as sub-par as me. Key to enjoyment of the Libel Show is knowing all the inside jokes—not just of the law but of law school itself. Try explaining offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel, or why Dean Dugas is a funny punchline, to someone who’s brain hasn’t been broken by 1L year.[2] I looked through past reviews of the Libel Show and honestly have a better understanding of the Rule Against Perpetuities than what the 1976 Libel Show was about.

Therefore, I have decided to completely embrace the ephemeral nature of topical comedy and have created a list that will shoehorn in as many Libel Show in-jokes and reviews as possible.[3] You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll enjoy some BBQ that will make you slap your dang mama.

Pictured: James Hornesby '24 as Swiper the Parking Police Officer 
Photo Credit: UVA Law on X 

1. By far the biggest crowd pleaser was Study On My Own, a parody of Dancing On My Own by Robyn. If four UVA Law students were ever to drop out and form a boy band, it would be these guys. Gentlemen, there is still time.

2. I loved how the Libel Show Troika invited Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to perform some skits. He followed in the footsteps of his father, Robert F. Kennedy, who also participated in the Libel Show during his time at UVA. Now, my editor tells me that this was not the real RFK Jr., but a talented impersonator. I remain skeptical of the official story and will await the final report from the Warren Commission.

3. George Santos.

4. Little known fact, but the Charlottesville Historical Society recently unearthed a lighthouse on the grounds of Monticello. The Libel Show was lucky enough to secure an exclusive interview with Bartholomew, the current lighthouse keeper, who is offering discounted accommodations for UVA Law students. Have your carrier pigeons on standby.

5. The only lowlight of the night came from the trumpet player on Darden Guys. This player, who shall remain nameless,[4] made a mistake starting at measure 76. The notes he was supposed to play were D#, G#, G#, B, B, then a C#. Instead, after the second B note, he dropped down to an A natural. A rookie mistake, unbecoming of his level of skill and abilities, but most likely a result of the open bar.

That just about sums up the 116th Libel Show. Every year I am shocked at how talented my fellow law students are, and how much we accomplish in just a few group rehearsals. Special shoutout to my bandmates. Playing music with you all the last two years has been one of my most cherished experiences, and I will dearly miss you, and our 2:00am runs to Cookout.

Pictured: The Founding of UVA 
Photo Credit: UVA Law on X 

---
tqy7zz@virginia.edu

---

[1] Let’s see you dodge that, RFK Jr. Headshot!

[2] Like my wife, who kept on asking what a “fed sox” is.

[3] Future Law Weekly historians will hate me, just as I hate prior Law Weekly reporters who do not adequately cite their sources.

[4] But is totally not me.

Could America's Future Be Parliamentary?

---

Andrew Allard '25 
Editor-in-Chief 

Max Stearns is the Venable, Baetjer & Howard Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law. His new book, Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy is available for purchase online.

Pictured: Maxwell Stearns 
Photo Credit: Hopkins Press 

 Last Monday, the Journal of Law & Politics hosted an interview with Professor Max Stearns ’87 to talk about his new book, Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy. As the title suggests, Stearns’ proposal is ambitious—it involves three amendments to the Constitution.

Stearns’ three amendments would: (1) double the size of the House of Representative and institute a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system; (2) replace the Electoral College with presidential election by House party coalitions; and (3) allow the House to remove the President with a no confidence vote.

The three constitutional amendments Stearns proposes would replace the United States’ present presidential system with one that looks much more like parliamentary democracy, a system of government that has been widely adopted in democracies around the globe, especially in Europe. Stearns emphasized that MMP voting—which is used in Germany—is key to breaking the “stranglehold” that the two parties currently have on American politics. “Many people haven’t heard of mixed member proportionality. But it is a system that produces proportional representation and yet avoids the tragedy of many proportional representation systems that are hyper fragmented.”

Under an MMP voting system, Americans would still vote in federal elections every two years. But instead of one ballot, voters would now cast two: one for a candidate in their district—just like voting now—and one for a party. Party ballots would be assessed on a state-by-state basis to determine the proportion of seats for each party. For example, Texas’ House delegation would double from thirty-eight to seventy-six. If voters in Texas split evenly for four parties, each party would receive 25 percent of Texas’ seats in Congress, or nineteen seats each. Meanwhile, the candidates who won district votes would take one of their party’s nineteen seats until those seats are filled, with the remainder filled by party-list members.

Because a single party would be unlikely to capture the entire House of Representatives, parties would then have to form a coalition government. The resulting coalition would also appoint the President. A 60 percent supermajority of the House could then also remove the President for “maladministration.” While Stearns doesn’t supply a legalistic definition for maladministration, he noted that the supermajority requirement would prevent removal for mere policy differences because it would require members of the coalition government to also vote for removal.

Stearns acknowledged that these proposals are radical. But he suggested that they are “conservative” in the sense that they repair America’s democratic institutions through the most minimalistic reform needed. “We are past the point of bandaids,” Stearns said.

Stearns also explained his rejection of other—arguably more modest—proposals. “One of the things that gets a lot of attention is ranked-choice voting. I blame Andrew Yang for this,” Stearns said. “Ranked-choice voting does none of the things that its advocates contend.” Stearns argued that in a bimodal electorate, the elimination of candidates with the fewest votes, which characterizes the ranked-choice voting process, ultimately reallocates votes to major party candidates. “It punishes sincere voting. It doesn’t get you a centrist.”

To the extent that other problems, such as the polarized media environment, also contribute to democratic backsliding, Stearns argued that these problems will be easier to tackle under a parliamentary system. “Once we are a functioning democracy—which we are not—we can take on lots of things.”

Of course, a single amendment to the Constitution—let alone three—may be a dead end given the high bar for passage and the polarized public. Americans have amended the Constitution only twenty-seven times in 235 years, for an average of about one amendment every eight years. Excluding the Bill of Rights, which was quickly adopted after ratification, that average is about one amendment every fourteen years. By comparison, the global average lifespan of a constitution is just seventeen years.[1]

But Stearns insists that amendments are the only viable option. “The mistake that people make is to think that the thing to be avoided is proposals that require amending. No, the thing to be avoided is proposals that will not work and cannot be enacted.” Stearns suggested that, perhaps, Congress would become interested in democratic reform if a constitutional convention were initiated. “We may dislike these people—let them be the heroes of democracy.”

In short, Stearns is taking on a gargantuan task. Fixing American democracy, noble as it may be, is no easy feat. “For the same reason it is hard for a man to see where he placed his glasses, it is hard for a democracy to fix its political process.”[2] Vice Dean Michael Gilbert, interviewing Stearns, summed it up nicely: “I thought a natural place to start would be with the problems in American democracy. Now, the problem is, we only have one hour.”

---
tya2us@virginia.edu 

---

[1] Tom Ginsburg et al., The Lifespan of Written Constitutions, U. Chi. L. Sch. (Oct. 15, 2009). https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lifespan-written-constitutions

[2] Note, Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 1049 (2020).

The Rise and Fall of Silicon Valley Bank

---

Noah Coco '26 
Managing Editor 

On Tuesday, March 12, the LawTech Center hosted Professor Xuan-Thao Nguyen from the University of Washington School of Law to discuss her new book, Silicon Valley Bank: The Rise and Fall of a Community Bank for Tech. The discussion took place almost one year after the Bay Area regional bank failed and entered Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation receivership.[1]

Professor Nguyen began by discussing the origins of her research into Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which far preceded the bank’s recent troubles. Earlier in her career, when she first started as a summer associate at the law firm Fried Frank, she was assigned to research the question of whether any banks would issue loans collateralized by intellectual property. She discovered a pretty clear answer: with very few exceptions, almost no bank in the country would issue such a loan. One regional bank, however, distinguished itself for integrating these exact loans into their business model. That bank was SVB.

Nguyen described SVB’s origin story as having its own startup character. In the 1970s, its founders–Robert Medeiros, Bill Biggerstaff, and Roger Smith–proposed a novel banking business model for servicing emerging tech startups. They had little capital at the start but managed to secure $10,000 in investments from a network of one hundred professionals ranging from law firm partners and accountants to politicians and venture capitalists. This network was representative of the services that SVB pitched to its customers: a deep and broad network of professionals with knowledge of how startups needed to operate.

SVB’s model was built around providing loans to venture capital (VC)-backed startups strapped for cash between VC funding rounds, a period where more than 50 percent of startups historically had failed. Along the way, they captured the entire startup ecosystem, providing banking services not only to the startups themselves but also to their founders and executives, as well as the VC funds and investors backing them. SVB swiftly established its bona fides both to regulators and customers and quickly came to dominate banking services to the startup community. They continued to expand as the success of their business model was proven time and time again. It grew to become the thirteenth largest bank in the country on the eve of its collapse.

As spectacular as SVB’s rise was, so too was its fall—a “Shakespearean tragedy,” as Professor Nguyen views it. In the two years preceding SVB’s collapse, and while Professor Nguyen was conducting interviews for her research, SVB was a “vibrant and successful” bank. That all changed suddenly.

Professor Nguyen first described the broad contours of the economic mechanisms that precipitated SVB’s demise. Flush with cash from government stimulus programs following the pandemic, VCs channeled excess deposits into SVB. Meanwhile, the startup companies SVB lent to demanded fewer loans. Chasing alternative methods of generating returns to pay their own depositors, SVB dumped their deposits into what were considered to be very safe long-term U.S. Treasury bonds. However, as the Federal Reserve executed the most aggressive rate hikes in its history, the value of those bonds dramatically fell. Fearing the insolvency of the bank’s balance sheets, SVB’s own tech clients triggered a run on deposits, withdrawing $142 billion in less than forty-eight hours.

This economic explanation only describes part of the story, though. Professor Nguyen proceeded by identifying the actors she believes to be most culpable for the demise of SVB: the “tech bros.”  As Nguyen sees things, “the tech bros were responsible for killing their own bank.” She believes they were informed by a misunderstanding of the basic operations of banks and driven by a “herd mentality” among VC-backed portfolio companies.

The misunderstanding that Nguyen pointed to was the fact that the losses from the Treasury bonds were minimal compared to the size of the bank’s entire balance sheet. Moreover, these losses were merely “on paper,” that is, they would only be realized if SVB was forced to sell the bonds to meet customer demands for deposits.[2] The assets were very safe, and had SVB held the bonds to maturity they would not have been forced to realize the losses on those assets and perhaps would still be operating today.

More concerning for Professor Nguyen, however, were the “bubbles” within tech circles that amplified the fears of bank collapse through social media and communication networks. SVB’s customer base was concentrated within the relatively small and interconnected VC-backed startup community. Once the narrative of fear gripped that small group of VC backers, it proliferated as these same backers instructed their portfolio companies to withdraw their deposits from SVB. These messages circulated rapidly through social media and other messaging platforms, and the portfolio companies complied. Within forty-eight hours, SVB succumbed to the demand for over $142 billion in deposits, the shortest bank run in this country’s history.

Professor Nguyen made parting recommendations for both the bank operators and tech bros central to SVB’s collapse. To the bankers, she says the lesson to be learned is that social media is a new risk to modern banking that risk managers need to account for. To the tech bros, she recommends humility. Tech founders may develop innovative technological products, but this does not make them sophisticated banking operators. Perhaps with a little humility, they would not have induced the collapse of their own bank.

---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu 

---

[1] https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/failed-bank-list/silicon-valley.html.

[2] Which they were.

Oleg: the Oleg Vidov Story

---

Nikolai Morse '24 
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus 

On March 13, 2024, Professor Paul Stephan’s Emerging Markets class hosted a screening of Oleg: The Oleg Vidov Story. The documentary, narrated by Brian Cox,[1] covered the life of Oleg Vidov, a Russian film star who defected to the United States in 1985. The screening was followed by a brief question and answer session with Vidov’s widow, Joan Borsten. Called the “James Dean of Russia,” Vidov’s defection from the USSR to the United States was particularly notable due to his high profile. The film provided a peek into the life of an artist whose ambitions were cabined by the goals of state propaganda, who had to give up a life in his home country to escape persecution, and who ultimately found a new path late in life which combined his artistic and political sensibilities.

Vidov was born near Moscow in 1943 to Varvara Ivanovna Vidova, a school teacher. His mother met Vidov’s father during World War II while he was recuperating in a hospital where she was a nurse. Having heard that his father died during the war, Vidov grew up raised by a single mother. Vidov and his mother moved around regularly because she was dispatched to different parts of the USSR to teach in Soviet schools. As a result, Vidov spent his childhood living in Russia, Mongolia, and East Germany. When his mother was sent to China, Vidov was sent to live with his aunt in Kazakhstan.

Vidov’s uncle had been sent to the Gulag, and Vidov grew up hearing from his family about how his uncle was unjustly imprisoned. Vidov’s aunt told him often that he could not rely on or trust the state, and must always be self-sufficient. His aunt also provided him with his first exposure to cinema, seeing movies such as Tarzan, Grapes of Wrath, and Stagecoach. It was then that he decided he wanted to be an actor.

Eventually, Vidov’s mother faced a politically motivated attack, lost employment opportunities, and eventually even had her pension cut. Vidov, then fourteen years old, worked full-time and enrolled in night school for acting. Seeking movie roles, he was told that he would not receive roles without “knowing the right people.” Needing to support his family, he worked in construction before being accepted into the state university for film.

Vidov began to receive film roles. He contributed nearly all of his paychecks to support his mother and aunt, helping them to insulate the shed they lived in with cardboard. After a while, he was recruited by a director to film a movie in Denmark, which provided his first opportunity to travel and experience life outside of the Eastern Bloc. Though he was originally told by a group of KGB officials that he could not go because he was not a party member, Vidov was ultimately allowed to travel to Denmark after signing an agreement that he would not sleep with Western women and would be a good Soviet gentleman. The film was selected for competition at the Cannes Film Festival and was reviewed favorably.

Returning to the USSR, Vidov encountered a Soviet government that was imposing an increasing number of restrictions on art, literature, and movies. While Vidov continued to receive leading roles, he became increasingly disillusioned with the government’s elevation of propaganda over artistic integrity.

It was during this time that he met his first wife, Natalia Vasilievna Fedotova, who was best friends with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev’s daughter, Galina. While they had a son in 1971, their marriage was unfortunately not a happy one. As Vidov traveled extensively to film in various locations, his wife grew dissatisfied with his salary and urged him to leave acting and take up a role as a Soviet minister.

After five years, they agreed to separate. Natalia then filed for divorce and obtained all their communal property. During the divorce hearing, a judge took him aside and told him that while there were laws, there were also telephone calls. And the judge had received a telephone call from a high-ranking Communist Party official. After their divorce, Vidov received fewer and fewer roles and for five years did not receive a single leading role. He knew that he would have to escape the Soviet Union if he was to have any future in film.

After befriending a Yugoslav actress, Vidov married her friend and got permission to live in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. But after some time, his wife divorced him because she did not want to be a wife only on paper. He was instructed to appear at the Interior Ministry in Moscow, but because the local officials liked his movies, he was given leave to arrange his own travel rather than be taken into custody. It was during this time that he talked with an actor friend who had a restaurant on the Yugoslav-Austrian border and convinced an official at the Yugoslavian embassy to stamp Vidov’s passport to allow him to cross.

After a harrowing cross, Oleg was relieved to escape, but it soon sunk in that he was a stateless person. After being put into contact with actors (including the woman who would later become his wife, Joan Borsten) in the West, they helped him to immigrate to America as an individual seeking political asylum. After a few years, he ended up getting the animation and story rights to Russian movies and stories, and he produced them with the famous ballet dancer, Mikhail Berizhnikov. This led to his renewed fame in Russia and his ability to return home and reunite with his family, including his son, Slava.

The documentary provided an intimate view into a fascinating life with various chapters, told by his friends and family. It ended with an intonation by Vidov that “[h]appiness belongs to the risk takers…I always followed my heart, and that is my freedom.” Asked what she hoped viewers would take away from this film, Borsten responded with a reference to the similarities between Vidov’s strained life in the USSR and modern-day Russia, “I hope this film gives you some insight into what Russia was, and what it could have become.”

---
Cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1] There is nothing quite as soothing and terrifying as listening to Logan Roy hold forth for several hours.

Law Students Turn Out for Mason Ramsey

---

Brent Rice ‘25
wrf4bh@virginia.edu

This past Saturday, the historic Jefferson Theater hosted a remarkable spectacle as the former Walmart yodeler and Subway sandwich artist, Mason Ramsey, performed to a sold-out, standing-room-only crowd. The young superstar delivered a performance for the ages to an audience of all ages, including at least twenty members of the Law School community, with multiple members from every class year represented. For Ramsey, this performance marked his second visit to the city and venue as he continues his meteoric rise to fame.

Pictured: Mason Ramsey 
Photo Credit: Brent Rice 

Ramsey’s story is one of humble beginnings when, in 2018, a video of him yodeling Hank Williams' "Lovesick Blues" inside a Walmart went viral, launching him into the spotlight at the young age of eleven. Now seventeen, Ramsey proved he is capable of far more than yodeling, captivating the audience with hits like “Famous” and “Puddle of Love,” and tear-jerkers such as “Reasons to Come Home” and “Blue Over You,” showing off the impressive range of his now mature voice.

But it wasn't just Ramsey's vocal prowess that stole the show—his stage presence was equally impressive. Sporting black pants, a blue velvet quarter-zip, and an orange scarf that has become a signature look for him on this tour, Ramsey commanded attention by strumming his guitar and dancing across the stage with the confidence of a seasoned performer.

No wonder that, upon returning with a member of my party after the show to reclaim a credit card that had been inadvertently left at the bar, the security guard proclaimed him to be “the next Elvis.” The diligent guard was far from the only one with high praise for Mason Ramsey. Sophia Lorusso ’25 shared her enthusiasm for the concert with a simple sentence: “It was electric.”

Others at the event, who shared that they attended solely at the urging of their friends, expressed surprise at the quality of Ramsey’s voice and the relatability of his lyrics. Several admitted that they will soon be adding several of his singles to their regular playlists for future listening pleasure.

As the concert drew to a close, Ramsey brought down the house with a soul-filled performance of the crowd favorite “Twang,” before taking a moment to express his gratitude and disappearing off stage. Not one to let the night end prematurely, the group of law students began a chant of “one more song” that reverberated into a thunderous roar from the crowd, drawing Ramsey back onto the stage where he delivered not one, not two, but three encore performances. None as powerful as “Yo Da Lady Who,” which had the crowd shouting those very words at the top of their lungs for the duration of the song and late into the night.

After the concert’s end, many of the law students stuck around for several minutes while they waited for Ramsey to sign the 2’ x 6’ banner Alexa Rothborth ’25 had designed for her Mason Ramsey-themed pregame that preceded the event. Smiling fondly over her freshly autographed memorabilia, Rothborth put an endearing spin upon one of Ramsey’s own lyrics, adding “We loved him for his twang.”

As for me, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that many of these bops had found their way onto my own Spotify playlist. If you happen to catch me in the music room this finals season, I hope you’re ready to clear your throat and sing along.

---
wrf4bh@virginia.edu

BLSA Brings Rappaport to Talk Entertainment Law, AI in Music

---

Ashanti Jones '26 
Features Editor

Friday, March 1, the University of Virginia School of Law’s Black Law Student Association (BLSA) hosted Kim Rappaport, Senior Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs for Columbia Records, for the latest installment of their Breaking Ground Speaker Series. Rappaport discussed the intricacies of entertainment law, her personal legal career path, and current issues in music law, such as the growth of artificial intelligence (AI). The event featured a moderated interview by Nia Saunders ’25, BLSA Vice President, and Kyle Trotman ’26, BLSA Interim Social Action Chair, followed by questions from the audience.

Pictured (left to right): Nia Saunders '25, Kim Rappaport, Kyle Trotman '26 
Photo Credit: UVA Law 

In addition to her current role at Columbia Records, Rappaport served as Senior Director of Business and Legal Affairs for Sony Music Entertainment and RCA Records and was recognized as a Billboard Women in Music Executive Honoree in 2023. Throughout her career as an entertainment lawyer, Rappaport has worked with notable artists such as Beyonce, Lil Nas X, and Adele.

Trotman began the interview by asking Rappaport about her unique path to practicing entertainment law. Rappaport started her professional career with a bachelor’s in architecture from Cornell University, but soon after she pivoted and pursued a law degree at American University Washington College of Law, where she graduated magna cum laude.

“People take many journeys in education and then finally make a decision, so for me that journey started from an early age with art, design, and music,” Rappaport said. “I sort of compromised with my parents, who were like ‘you can’t go to art school, you’re not going to be able to support yourself.’ They were right, I couldn’t really support myself, so I went to law school.”

Rappaport began her legal career as an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Arnold & Porter. Rappaport shared with the audience her experience as a BigLaw associate and how her work with Arnold & Porter gave her an unusual opportunity to break into entertainment law. “I worked my way into the IP litigation group, because at the time they had business with the RIAA, which is the lobbying organization for record labels,” Rappaport said. “We represented all the labels on a big anti-piracy case…and I led the damages case, which wasn’t the sexiest work, but I really got to interact with all the record labels.”

One evening, Rappaport faced off with a team of eight or more lawyers alongside some of Sony’s in-house lawyers on a matter pertaining to the case. Over the course of the night, Sony’s in-house team departed, leaving just Rappaport and one other attorney, which eventually turned into just Rappaport. “[Arnold & Porter] left me alone for the weekend with the client, it’s like 1 a.m., we’re still on the phone with Winston & Strawn, and this senior Sony lawyer said ‘I have to take a nap,’” Rappaport said.

Feeling a little outnumbered, Rappaport asked the senior lawyer if there were any other Sony lawyers they could phone for backup, to which the senior lawyer responded they had no junior associates in the department at that moment. Noticing a prime opportunity, Rappaport seized the moment and pitched herself on the spot. “I went back to the office I was borrowing, printed my resume, came back with an additional coffee and a bread product, and that’s basically how I made the move,” Rappaport said. “He asked me ‘you want to do this?’ and I said ‘yea, I’d actually love to.’”

Rappaport clarified her role as an in-house entertainment attorney does not involve talent scouting, it is purely on the side of talent acquisition, which she believes is probably for the best because sometimes she has discounted artists that have turned out to be a huge success for the label.

“They didn’t hire me for my creative judgment, and a lot of the times I’m wrong,” Rappaport said. “I was working on Little Nas X, and when we first found the early version of  ‘Old Town Road’ and my CEO was dm’ing him, I thought it sounded like a nursery rhyme. Shame on me, Little Nas X has surpassed Elvis and the Beatles, he’s a delight and he’s a creative marketing genius.”

Saunders shifted the conversation by asking Rappaport about the effects of AI on the music industry and how entertainment lawyers are accommodating or challenging these effects. “AI, at least for Sony, is probably one of the biggest topics,” Rappaport said. “All the music companies fear it’s going to cannibalize the industry like digital anti-piracy did.”

Rappaport explained the best way to combat the negative effects of AI, as of now, is to contract around it as best as they can, but mainly by restricting an artist’s ability to grant rights to their music to AI. “The whole point of a recording agreement and the crux of our company is getting these exclusive rights,” Rappaport said. “We don’t want another company to basically flip it on us and do any re-records. Like with Taylor Swift, you see the problem of the re-record…people are rushing to buy the re-record instead of the original, which is the same fear with AI, so we’ve been working in AI-specific language into our contracts . . . because we don’t want to be caught behind on technology.”

---
alj3emz@virginia.edu 

VJIL Art Theft Symposium: Perspectives on Visiting the Louvre Over Spring Break

---

Nikolai Morse '24 
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus 

On February 27, the Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) hosted its 73rd annual symposium, entitled Art Theft, Artifact Repatriation & Restitution Efforts: Challenges and Progress. For this reporter, the event provided an interesting backdrop to a visit to the Louvre while in Paris for spring break.

The symposium focused on efforts to repatriate art that had been removed from its country of origin, most commonly during wartime or colonial occupation. For the most part, the focus of discussions was on the interactions of the legal system and various governments in assisting or hindering repatriation efforts.

The event began with welcome remarks from Mishan Khara ’24, the outgoing Editor-in-Chief of VJIL, and Julia Jean “JJ” Citron ’24, the Symposium Director and outgoing Research and Projects Editor of VJIL. The first panel, “Modern Litigation Approaches to Restitution Claims,” consisted of Jake Archer, Special Agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation; L. Eden Burgess, B.A. ’96, Of Counsel at Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP; Professor William L. Charron ’98, Partner at Pryor Cashman LLP; and Jonathan C. Hamilton ’98, Partner at White & Case LLP.

The panelists described the legal framework underlying efforts to repatriate art as a meshing of property and contract law, overlaid by an intermingling of state and federal law. The litigators discussed recent cases they had worked on and the litigation strategies they had pursued. Of particular interest was the comparison between civil and criminal routes to repatriate stolen art. One panelist noted that much of the civil dispute will center on the choice of law, and whether the law of the current locus of the art should govern or the law of the land of origin.

Next, Amelia K. Brankov, the founder of Brankov PLLC, gave the keynote address. In her address, Ms. Brankov described various current trends in art law more generally, and how repatriation efforts were affected. She also described some of the factors that have complicated matters, including artificial intelligence and other evolving technology. She also described the ways in which copyrighted intellectual property intersects with art law, and how this is driving the development of American law in the area.

The final panel of speakers addressed the topic “Institutional and Individual Approaches to Transitional Justice, Memory, and Repatriation.” The panel included Professor Deborah A. DeMott, Duke University School of Law; Ndubuisi C. Ezeluomba, Curator of African Art, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts; Ashley D. Fry, Indigenous Affairs Officer, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Lorie J. Nierenberg, Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser. The panelists described the relationships between museums, the public, and countries of origin. Speaking on the importance of repatriation efforts, the panelists described it as a story of culture and returning historic art in relation to communities that exist today. The panelists from the State Department described various initiatives and educational programs.

When asked how VJIL chose this year’s symposium topic, Citron pointed to the number of repatriation claims and, perhaps more notable, the significant number of museums that returned such art in 2023. Contrasting this year’s topic to that of prior years, Citron said she was motivated by the personal feelings that art invokes, and her hope that it made the operation of international law more tangible for attendees. “By bringing in art, which is a deeply personal and emotional topic, I thought that it would hit closer to home because art is a part of us and our cultures’ stories and storytelling.”

During my visit to Paris over spring break, as I toured art museums, I thought about the symposium. The complexity of repatriating art involves, as panelists mentioned, the intersection of various legal doctrines and local, national, and international law. Yet more than the legal complexities of repatriation, my mind was drawn to the emotional and historical connection that Citron pointed out.

For instance, my favorite part of my visit to the Louvre was its collection of antiques. The Louvre is home to a prodigious collection of artifacts and artwork from the ancient Persian and Egyptian empires. To see the stories the artwork told, and to imagine them being crafted by human hands thousands of years ago, was awe-inspiring. And if I’m being honest, I was truly glad they were there for people to see.

At a more fundamental level, there seem to be many questions that demonstrate the tension inherent in repatriation efforts. Is art for the individual or the public? Should art that is displayed from other nations (even those that no longer exist) contain a disclaimer to this effect? Isn’t this what many descriptions in museums already do? And can any explanation sufficiently pay respect to a land or people whose artifacts and history were forcibly seized or destroyed? And how should we weigh the increased visibility of an artifact in a world-famous museum, compared with the national pride in having art returned to its birthplace?

The answers to these questions will likely continue to shape the development of both art law and the ways in which art owners, art lovers, and countries interact with historic and popular art. For now, they are worth considering while we enjoy art and connect ourselves to those from places and times far from our own.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

Law Firm Partners Prepare Students for AI's Impact on Legal Practice

---

Noah Coco '26 
Managing Editor  

As a law student, if you are not thinking about how artificial intelligence (AI) will impact your legal career, you should probably start. If you are already thinking about how AI will impact your career, you should be encouraged by the opportunities it presents. That is the message that attorneys Chris Mammen and Jay Silver ’81, partners at the law firm Womble Bond Dickinson, delivered to students at the Law School on Thursday, February 22, in a talk titled, “What You Need To Know About AI in Legal Practice.”

The current buzz surrounding AI is inescapable. It may be difficult to separate the signal from the noise and discern the lasting impacts of the technology on society. Lawyers will have to contend not only with the unique legal challenges that AI engenders, for clients and public interest organizations alike, but that these same transformational technologies will impact the very practice of law.

It is easy for lawyers to embrace the challenges that AI introduces for clients. The rapid adoption and deployment of AI technologies and applications pose numerous legal uncertainties that provide a “target-rich environment,” as Silver likes to think of it, for attorneys to help clients navigate. Mammen and Silver presented wide-ranging areas of concern that clients will regularly rely on lawyers to help navigate—particularly in the early phases of AI adoption before many of the legal challenges begin to be resolved—from privacy, data security, and regulatory concerns, to questions of intellectual property infringement, products liability, and professional liability. Uncertainty generates demand for legal counsel. Law students should be encouraged by this increasing demand and be prepared to take on the challenges companies will be faced with.

What may be more concerning for law students is the prospect of these same AI technologies and applications displacing employment in the legal sector itself. For instance, Mammen and Silver cited a 2023 report published by Goldman Sachs estimating that 44% of tasks performed by legal professionals could be automated by AI.[1] Although the precise distribution of legal sector employment displacement is difficult to predict, it is apparent that law firms, the destination of a majority of the Law School’s graduates, will have to prepare for the possibility of dramatic displacement and realignment of their workforces. Mammen and Silver pointed to at least three reasons for decreased demand for law firm employment.

First, law firms themselves will require fewer attorneys and legal professionals as AI applications perform the duties traditionally performed by associates—for instance, legal research, document summaries, and document drafting. Compounding this trend is the concomitant reduction in demand for external counsel at all as in-house counsel, who will likewise reduce their own staff, utilize their own AI applications to perform work previously outsourced to external counsel. Third, as legal services become easier to perform through AI applications, new types of professional services firms will increasingly enter the space and displace even more demand for the services of law firms. Mammen and Silver noted that the Big Four accounting firms, generally considered to be professional services firms, have already begun investing heavily in legal services technologies that perform work traditionally serviced by attorneys at law firms.[2]

The story Mammen and Silver presented thus far suggests a grim outlook for legal sector employment. Law students, in particular, may be discouraged as they contemplate the massive financial investments currently being expended to receive an education for a profession expected to be increasingly displaced by AI. However, dismay and resignation are premature, for the same technologies that challenge the traditional model of law firm services and employment create opportunities for a new class of legal professionals to adapt and forge a new model.

The changing nature of legal services will demand a new set of skills that attorneys have the opportunity to harness. Put another way, the value proposition for lawyers will shift, creating new opportunities for those attorneys capable of deploying AI applications within law practices effectively. For example, there are opportunities for attorneys and law firms to be leaders in the adoption of AI tools. Perhaps this means, as Mammen and Silver suggest, law firms should think of themselves as venture capital funds investing in the very legal technologies that will drive the legal services industry in the future. Perhaps it simply means effectively structuring law practices around AI technologies, efficiently allocating labor and developing competitive fee structures that retain and attract clients.

Also, opportunities will abound for “power users” of the AI tools law firms will have at their disposal. General tech skills and fluency will obviously become increasingly important for attorneys to possess, but so too will the skills necessary to evaluate AI outputs. Mammen and Silver propose that the model of law firm employment will “compress” the traditional path of attorneys and favor those who can become such “power users” proficient in evaluating AI outputs, as opposed to the traditional model that favored those attorneys who gained proficiency in many of the technicalities of legal work through the routine performance of repetitive tasks. Such repetitive tasks may become obsolete with the adoption of AI, so attorneys who can adapt to the new models of work while establishing themselves as trusted advisors for clients will be positioned to thrive in this new environment.

---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu 

---

[1] Briggs, et al., “The Potentially Large Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Economic Growth,” https://www.gspublishing.com/content/research/en/reports/2023/03/27/d64e052b-0f6e-45d7-967b-d7be35fabd16.html.

[2] Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG).

Upcoming Law School Safety and Response Event

---

Mary Grace Triplett ‘24

Warning: This article discusses gun violence in schools. If this topic makes you uncomfortable for any reason, please know that you are not alone. This article seeks to start a conversation about how to improve safety in the Law School.

All of us have been impacted by gun violence. I grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, only a ten-minute drive from The Covenant School. In 2023, The Covenant School was the target of the deadliest mass shooting in Tennessee’s history.[1]And just months before that, three students—D’Sean Perry, Devin Chandler, and Lavel Davis Jr.—were shot and killed on UVA’s grounds. These tragedies reflect the grim reality of our modern age—students, teachers, and school administrators are often the victims of senseless violence. Last year, two hundred and twenty-seven people in the United States were wounded or killed on school property.[2] Unsurprisingly, these shootings have left students feeling anxious, unsettled, and fearful when something at school feels out of the ordinary.

In addition to these feelings of hopelessness, students may also feel frustrated about what can only be described as an information gap. Does the Law School have procedures in place for these kinds of situations? Are members of the public required to “check-in” when they enter the school, or can they move freely about the Law School? How do we lock the classroom doors in the event of an emergency? These questions are typically met with a response that students should contact Student Affairs if they have questions or feel unsafe. But even if Student Affairs is the proper avenue to address day-to-day issues, the school desperately lacks a broader discussion about safety. From our perspective, this issue seems to be on the backburner until—tragically—it comes to the forefront in the wake of another shooting.

These feelings inspired me and my friends to write a petition to the Law School administration last spring. Our petition included several goals: to identify feasible ways to make our school safer, to increase transparency about our safety protocols, and to start a much-needed conversation about campus safety that would include students, faculty, and staff alike. Our collective “first step” is to host an event on Law School Safety and Response, which will be led by members of UVA’s Threat Assessment Team and the Office of Emergency Management. The event has been organized by Annie Somerville ’24, Ethan Young ’24, Kennedy Williams ’24, and myself. It has been sponsored by the Student Bar Administration, and we welcome other student organizations to endorse the event as well.

The event will be tailored specifically to the Law School. It will offer an opportunity for students to ask questions to Law School administrators and UVA Emergency employees about how to respond in unsafe situations. First, it is important to acknowledge that the Law School is in a unique position because it is open to the public. On any given day, many individuals who are not affiliated with the Law School will roam our hallways for tours, events, or clinics. These contributions and community interactions are an enriching part of our student body experience. But this dynamic occasionally leads to uncomfortable and anxiety-inducing situations. Last year, for example, there were at least two occasions in which a non-student appeared in a course and participated in ways that were concerning, and at times, aggressive. This event will offer guidance and suggestions on how you could respond appropriately—or choose not to respond—in those situations. The hosts of the Law School Safety and Response event will also discuss the possibility of an active shooter. While this topic is certainly difficult, we feel that preparing for such a situation is far less difficult than the alternative.

Finally, our classmates have raised important questions about what the administration is currently doing to protect our community, and what other measures could be put in place. A large part of the problem is not that the Law School lacks those procedures, but that students are unaware of them. To have productive conversations about reform, we must first take the time to understand the school’s existing protocols and the reasoning behind them. This event will provide an opportunity for students to learn the procedures already in place and suggest new ideas for the future. We do not have the answers about how to make our school safer, or how to help students feel more comfortable in the classroom. But before we can solve the problem at hand, we must enable a discussion concerning the key information between students and administrators so that we are all on the same page.

There are many ways for students to fight the gun violence epidemic that our schools currently face. Through organizing this event, we have chosen to instigate change within our own community by facilitating dialogue, improving protocols, and preparing for an emergency. But this is just the beginning of a conversation, which we hope will spur further community organization and activism around this problem.

We hope you will join us at the Law School Safety and Response meeting on Wednesday, February 28th at 1 p.m in Brown 152. It will be an opportunity to learn and ask questions about an issue that affects each of us daily. Feel free to reach out to me, Annie, Ethan, or Kennedy about questions, comments, or concerns that you may have.

---

[1] Adeel Hassan & Emily Cochrane, What We Know About the Nashville School Shooting, N.Y. Times (Sept. 13, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/article/nashville-school-shooting.html.

[2] Naaz Modan & Kara Arundel, Another Record High: Counting School Shootings in 2023, K-12 Dive (Dec. 20, 2023), https://www.k12dive.com/news/2023-total-school-mass-shootings/703007/.

Meet the SBA Candidates

---

Simeon Daferede ’25
Presidential Candidate

My time at our law school has inspired me to not just to become a better lawyer, but an even better person thanks to becoming a part of this wonderful UVA Law family. Yet, our institution can always improve to allow everyone to be a part of our family whether it be through our resources, increased representation, or accommodations for our student body. As SBA President, I aim to campaign on extending accessibility to our events, our campus, and to academic success for our peers. Below are some of my ticket’s ideas.

To improve access to our events, I would decrease the prices for our marquee events—Barrister’s Ball, the PILA Auction, and Fauxfield—by allowing payment plans for Law School events. To improve the safety of our social events, I will work with SBA to create a team of volunteers that can act as designated “sober monitors” that would be points of contact for attendees to call or locate at an event to report if they feel unsafe or need a way to get home. Next, I would propose partnering with rideshare services for off-grounds events by providing attendees with codes, which would increase access to and from events safely. Lastly, we would plan a Law School Family Weekend. Our family members are only able to visit our campus in the beginning at orientation and at the end at graduation. But they never get to fully experience our community on a day dedicated just for them.

Second, our team will work with our administration to improve access to campus resources. I would begin with improving student access to parking spaces by ensuring clearer signage for permit parking and better enforcement of the Visitor’s Pass for events. Next, I would advocate to increase our financial aid options. We must have more need-based scholarships for incoming students; we need our law school to aid its future public servants with 3L Summer Stipends to study for the Bar. Further, I will push our administration to hire more OPP Counselors to increase the proportion of students to counselors. Additionally, I would ensure our library space is sacred during finals season for Law School students only by installing a Key Swipe Card to the library doors. Lastly, I would fight for better accessibility options for our student body during finals week by negotiating with administration to allow students to take their final flex exams on Sundays, to submit the flex exams with larger submission windows, and to provide easier access to testing spaces for students with learning accommodations.

I am prepared to undertake the responsibilities to run our existing SBA Committees and to execute these measures based on my prior leadership experiences and current involvement at this Law School. Currently, I serve on the Admitted Students Open House Cabinet, where I work with admissions to execute the school’s largest event for prospective students. I also serve as the Academic Chair for LPS where I have created initiatives to give access to academic and professional resources for LPS Members. Before law school, I worked at a research non-profit where I co-lead the implementation and project management of interventions designed to eradicate Youth Homelessness. During my undergraduate studies, I led UVA’s UPC equivalent, the Major Activities Board, to use our $250,000+ budget to book critically acclaimed musical acts, to procure sponsorships from local vendors, and to create an arts program fundraiser for local schools. I have cherished my time at UVA Law, and I believe that my experiences and our ideas can and will foster the community we deserve.

---

Ginny Reams ’25
Presidential Candidate

Hi everyone! For those of you who I have not gotten the pleasure to meet, my name is Virginia “Ginny” Reams, and I am running to be your next SBA President. If my name looks familiar, it is probably because my introductions usually start with a “Good Morning and Happy Monday!” as I have spent the past year serving as Secretary on the Executive Board of SBA.

Being a part of the Executive Board for the past year has put me in the unique position to witness firsthand the intricacies of the presidential role and the commitment that is required to perform it successfully. I have been able to develop a deeper understanding of what policies in the organization are successful and which are not—it is not lost on me that the student body is often frustrated with SBA, and students feel as if the organization is simply a soundboard for their complaints. Nolan Edmonson and I are running to change that. Our campaign is focused on refreshing the SBA structure, enriching the student experience, and creating space for student collaboration.

Firstly, we plan to refresh the committee structure that is currently in place by creating concrete goals for each committee to achieve throughout the year. In doing this, we hope to revitalize successful events of the past like Mental Health Week and Spirit Week, while additionally encouraging our committee members to create new programming. Further, we plan to have more direct Executive Board involvement on the Barrister’s Committee by placing either the Vice President or Treasurer as a permanent sitting member. We hope that this addition will alleviate continuing logistical concerns surrounding the event.

Secondly, we hope to enrich the student body experience. SBA is responsible for Fauxfield, Barrister’s, and many other signature events that students look forward to each year. In order to hold SBA accountable, we plan to publish a calendar at the beginning of the semester of the dates of these events. Additionally, this communication will include standardized event ticketing procedures and timelines in order to assuage current student frustrations.

Lastly, and most importantly, we are promising to prioritize student collaboration and communication throughout our tenure. Nolan and I plan to engage the student voice by having regular and open communication with not only student leaders, but the entirety of the student body. In order to achieve this, we plan to increase SBA collaborations with a wide range of student organizations, while specifically bolstering support for affinity organizations, so we can ensure that each student feels welcomed in the greater UVA community. Further, we will be opening the SBA office to public weekly office hours so that we can hear from any student who may have a concern or an idea.

If you got this far, I truly appreciate your time to listen to our ideas. I genuinely believe that Nolan and I have the combined experience and passion to take SBA to a level that it has never been. We would be truly humbled to be elected your next SBA President and Vice President and will work tirelessly to make this place that is so special to us, even more so.

---

Laura-Louise Rice ’25
Presidential Candidate

Hi everyone! My name is Laura-Louise Rice and I am humbled to be running to be your next SBA President. As I reflect on my time at UVA Law, these past two years have been filled with friendship, support, and memories that will last a lifetime. If elected SBA President, my goal will be to foster opportunities for each of you to similarly find deep fulfillment in your experience at UVA Law.

I’m running to make SBA more ACTIVE in the Law School along with my friends: Rahul, Asha, Mark, and Amelia. Our platform is ACTIVE – Accountability, Communication, Transparency, Inclusivity, Vibes, and Engagement. An ACTIVE SBA allows us to focus on the student experience from multiple angles by empowering student organizations, engaging in meaningful advocacy, and hosting events where everyone feels welcome. We believe that each of these tenets embodies our vision to make SBA approachable and reliable to both student organizations and the broader student body.

Accountability, Communication. Transparency. As SBA President, my time, my energy, and my efforts will be yours. Accountability, communication, and transparency all work hand in hand to make sure that each of you feels heard and your concerns feel answered. It is the SBA President's job to be vocal on behalf of students to Law School Administration. As we welcome a new Dean, I plan to leverage the many relationships that I have already established with Law School Administration to maintain a culture of collaboration and accountability. I will ensure that, when student concerns arise, a clear path to potential solutions can be found. I believe that the ability to self-govern as students comes with great responsibility, which I will approach with accountability, communication, and transparency.

Inclusivity. Vibes. Engagement. These efforts function to ensure everyone feels a sense of belonging here at UVA Law. I chose to attend UVA because of the collegial atmosphere that is uncommon in a law school experience, and I believe SBA plays a critical role in preserving our experience. SBA already sponsors and cosponsors so many wonderful programs, but we aim to leverage SBA’s role to make events more inclusive by considering financial constraints, having both alcoholic & non-alcoholic activities, and prioritizing the overall welfare of students. Mental health is often referred to in passing at the Law School, but we want mental health to be an ACTIVE consideration in all of our programming & advocacy.

By revitalizing SBA’s infrastructure and committees, we will ensure that SBA is a strong nucleus in the student experience at the Law School. In reflecting on my time as First Year Council President and then President of the Black Law Students Association, what I have learned most is the importance of bridge-building. SBA stands to bridge the gap between students, student organizations, and administration. We hope to be ACTIVE in bridging those gaps through organization alliance meetings, mini-org fairs, and integration of committees into much of SBA’s operations.

We recognize that SBA as it stands is often known to be an organization that provides funds and standard programming each year, but our goal is to accomplish much more. Throughout this upcoming year, an ACTIVE SBA will serve the student body as we navigate successes and challenges, both on Grounds and around the world. Strong, organized leadership that is focused on uplifting student needs will allow us to enhance individual student experiences while maintaining our collegial community. Thank you, and I look forward to getting ACTIVE with you all next year!

---

Toni Woods ’25
Vice Presidential Candidate

As Vice President, my campaign platform prioritizes student accessibility first and foremost. A campaign idea is only as meaningful as the students that are able to benefit from it. When considering how to best serve as Vice President, it is most important to me that as many UVA Law students are able and encouraged to participate in student life here as possible. I would aim to increase student event participation by making events more price-conscious, inclusive, diversified, and engaging.

Specifically, I propose the following plans: decreasing the prices of school events, especially hallmarks like Fauxfield, PILA, and Barrister’s Ball; increasing the safety and comfort of school events by designating sober monitors to help any incapacitated or uncomfortable students; partnering with ride-sharing companies or organizing bus shuttles or carpools to meet any transportation need; broadcasting the dates and details of events to students as early and often as feasible; participating in or at least informing the student body of more events happening in Charlottesville like Restaurant Week, concerts or performances, and the Carter Mountain Sunset Series; and involving more of the student body with events without alcohol and with invitations to include partners or family.

I am qualified to serve as Vice President because of my experience coordinating events, monitoring and serving on committees, participating in the Student Bar Association and its elections, and serving on Executive/Managing Boards and as a Senator twice. In college, I was elected Senior Chair of a student organization and performed many of the same tasks required of the SBA Vice President: planning graduation, class events, and bonding activities.

At UVA, I have served as a 1L Senator, 2L Senator, and Diversity Advisory Committee Member on the SBA. I have also served on the Managing Board of the Virginia Law & Business Review and the Executive Board of the Black Law Students Association, where I oversee my own committee and organize UVA Law’s Diversity Receptions, a formal school event for hundreds of people. I have the experience, skill, and passion to fulfill the role of Vice President and look forward to continuing to be an active participant in our student body by serving on the SBA.

---

Nolan Edmonson ’25
Vice Presidential Candidate

My name is Nolan Edmonson, and I am running to be your next SBA Vice President. I am excited to run for a position that will have an impact on student life, and I am pleased that I will be doing so alongside my friend, and current SBA secretary, Ginny Reams.

While I have not served in SBA before, I believe my leadership experiences at this school have prepared me to meet the challenges that lie ahead. For the past year, I have served as president of the Jewish Law Students Association, and in that role, I have spearheaded initiatives to build closer bonds between JLSA members through a number of activities. Enriching the student experience, refreshing the organization, and creating opportunities for collaborative ideas have been my watchwords as president, and they would guide me in this role as well.

The role of vice president requires that I work closely with SBA committees to ensure their goals for the year become reality. Our campaign would see to it that committees have concrete goals heading into the start of the year so that the programming like Mental Health Week and Spirit Week can be expectations that are guaranteed to every student. Part of that goal setting requires accountability on the part of SBA to follow through with what it plans. To that end, our campaign will create a “rolling” calendar of important dates to help students set their schedules so that they can maximize their involvement in SBA programming. Ideally, this calendar will include relevant information such as ticketing procedures and timelines to make the process of engagement as stress-free as possible.

Additionally, SBA must prioritize its relationships with student organizations which are the lifeblood of the student experience at this school. Speaking from personal experience, as a leader of a student organization, it was not always clear who on SBA I should turn to if I wanted to collaborate on events. Under our leadership, we would endeavor to reach out to organizations to collaborate on a wide range of events all with the intended goal of building community and fostering a sense of belonging among everyone at the Law School. In addition to reaching out, Ginny and I want to empower students to come to us with ideas that they might also have. With that in mind, we plan to open the SBA office to weekly office hours so that we can hear from students who want to be heard.

Ginny and I want to work for the betterment of the student body—enhancing and enriching the student experience at the Law School. We feel that our combined leadership experience and desire to build community will be invaluable in accomplishing that task. But it cannot be done alone. We need you and your support when you go to vote for SBA President and Vice President. We hope to have the opportunity to work tirelessly on your behalf.

---

Rahul Ramesh ’25
Vice Presidential Candidate

Hey everyone! My name is Rahul Ramesh and I am running on a ticket for SBA Vice President alongside Laura-Louise, Asha, Mark, and Amelia.

The community at UVA Law means the world to me. I’ve been so fortunate to have met my best friends here and to have received incredible support from the faculty. My primary motivation for running for SBA Vice President is to pay back to this community all that it has given to me. It is my desire that all students feel a sense of belonging and comfort at the Law School, and I believe there is a lot SBA can do to accomplish that goal.

Our campaign is organized around six constitutive elements: Accountability, Communication, Transparency, Inclusivity, Vibes, and Engagement (ACTIVE). From our perspective, these are crucial ingredients for any functional student government. They make certain that messaging to the broader student body is consistent and reliable and also ensure that student organizations are always well-supported and given ample notice. Perhaps more importantly, they also speak to the importance of approachability. For too long, SBA has operated as a cordoned-off entity, often leaving student organizations in the dark about their next steps. In contrast, the ACTIVE campaign is fundamentally about centering student organizations and the student experience, rather than about preserving unimportant hierarchies between organizations. We will always be available to you, we will always set clear and realistic expectations, and above all, we will always prioritize your pursuits.

This year, as SBA treasurer, I’ve had the opportunity to work with a whole host of organizations and to play a part in organizing countless events from SBA after-school socials and 1L finals support to Fauxfield and 3@3. As a consequence of that work, I am also keenly aware of the procedural cracks and fissures in the communicative network between student organizations and SBA. Going forward, we want SBA to operate in a more proACTIVE fashion: consistently reaching out to organizations to facilitate new partnerships and events, raising awareness for organizations and causes in rapidly developing areas of the law, and strengthening the relationship between the law school and the broader Charlottesville community.

It is no secret that law school can, at times, feel like an impossible demand. UVA Law distinguishes itself from the field because it can go to great lengths to help us connect with one another and create formative relationships. Whether it’s visiting the Sunset Series for the first time with your 1L section, wondering where the time went at the Midway Toast with your 2L peers, or reminiscing about the good times at the 3L Bonfire, there is so much that the Law School has to offer when it focuses on creating space for each and every student. However, it is also true that there are times when UVA Law falls short of its promise of belonging and collegiality. 2024 is slated to be a massive year for our community. Against the backdrop of a new Dean of the Law School, a likely contentious national election, and ongoing geopolitical turmoil, I believe it has never been more important to center the student voice and to be cognizant of how deeply we can all be affected by what happens in the world. While SBA is certainly not a curative, our vision for the role of student government begins from a position of care and desire to support students facing a plethora of overlaying challenges. The path forward, we believe, is for SBA to remain ACTIVE and work tirelessly with student organizations to ensure that all students feel welcome and heard.

NSLF, LIST Host MoFo National Security Attorneys

---

Noah Coco '26
Staff Editor

On Tuesday, February 13, the National Security Law Forum (NSLF) and the Law, Innovation, Security & Technology Society (LIST) hosted five attorneys from the D.C. office of Morrison Foerster to discuss legal careers in national security and data privacy. The panel was composed of partners Brandon Van Grack, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s National Security and Global Risk + Crisis Management groups, and James Brower, along with associates Jonathan Babcock ’18, Whitney Lee, and Liv Chap. The group collectively gave the room, full of mostly 1Ls in the midst of private firm search, a broad sense of what a career in national security law might look like.

Van Grack began the discussion by emphasizing the broad scope of the national security law practice group, which encompasses issues ranging from sanctions and export controls to data privacy and cyber incident response, and even to issues of political law like foreign agent registration. This breadth was well-represented on the panel of attorneys, each of whom focused on at least one of these issues. Within these categories, Van Grack noted the one unifying characteristic: “Policy interests ultimately underscore everything.” Although this does not mean that attorneys in private firm national security practices are performing political roles, their practices are nonetheless responsive to current events and regulatory changes. “Whatever a national security issue is evolves over time,” Van Grack noted, as new regulatory regimes emerge and others are replaced.

This dynamic nature of the practice is what drew many of the attorneys on the panel to national security law. Contrary to practices like tax law where the regulatory regime is complex and has developed over a long period of time, national security law changes much more rapidly as it responds to emerging political and technological developments. Incumbency in the practice does not necessarily serve the same advantages as it does in other practice groups. Take artificial intelligence (AI), for instance. Lee noted that the firm has already started to address issues of cyberattacks promulgated through AI-generated deepfakes. This represents an entirely novel question of law in which even new attorneys can become the foremost experts in a relatively short period of time. It is not the case, Lee remarked, that there are partners at the firm with twenty years of experience to catch up with.

It is easy to see how technological advancements contribute to this dynamic, but political regulatory regimes have a nearly identical feature. Van Grack alluded to six new regulatory regimes that were proposed just last month—for example, new regulations on outbound investment similar to those administered by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for inbound investments. A new regulatory regime means a level playing field for attorneys to learn and become leading experts in an area of law.

Another theme that emerged throughout the discussion was that, although as a regulatory practice national security law does not require much litigation, there is plenty of opportunity to use similar skills in service of advocacy on behalf of clients before government regulatory agencies. Babcock, for instance, regularly advocates for clients in front of CFIUS. Although the advocacy does not take the form of courtroom litigation, he still appreciates the opportunity to use similar research and writing skills in a forum that allows him to advocate for his clients “face-to-face with regulators.” Van Grack made a similar reflection of his own experiences in front of regulators, and he highlighted the opportunity to work with clients to characterize the facts at the center of regulatory actions and to challenge regulator narratives. According to Van Grack, although this form of advocacy does not always require formal legal arguments, it nonetheless requires the same skills and is a rewarding feature of the job.

Finally, several of the attorneys gave insights into the life cycle of a typical matter in their practice groups. Two matters in particular were discussed. The first one was pulled from a recent sanctions violation case that Babcock negotiated with the Department of Treasury. Babcock outlined his team’s response from initial internal investigations and strategizing, through to his engagement and ultimate settlement with the Department of Treasury. The whole process lasted almost three years.

In contrast, Lee gave insights into what a typical cyber incident response might look like, which is likely to develop much more rapidly. The initial response is the most intensive because it often requires coordinating efforts to discover the source and scope of a cyber-attack while also managing relations with clients, regulators, and the media. Van Grack described this early phase as a “fast burn,” followed by weeks or even months of clean-up work once the incident is under control.

The Morrison Foerster attorneys followed up their panel with a happy hour at the Forum Hotel where students had the opportunity to engage with them in person and learn more about each of the attorney’s personal experiences working in national security law.

---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu 

The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights

---

Andrew Allard ‘25
Executive Editor

In Taft v. Hyatt,[1] an attorney and members of a Masonic lodge both claimed entitlement to an award for the arrest or information leading to the arrest of a Black physician, Robert E. Smith. Smith had met with the attorney, William Hyatt, as a prospective client. But when the two failed to reach an agreement, Hyatt told the county attorney where to find Smith. Just an hour later, lodge members Clarence Glass and Thomas Edwards—unaware of Hyatt’s actions or the award for Smith’s arrest—helped the police bring Smith to prison. The court concluded that none of the parties were entitled to the award, because Hyatt’s information did not lead to Smith's arrest and because the lodge members who were unaware of the offer could not have accepted it.

Law students might be familiar with this case—a classic illustration of offer and acceptance—or at least others like it. But when Taft v. Hyatt appeared in a 1972 contracts casebook, it left out a key fact: The Masonic lodge whose members helped arrest Smith was a “colored” Masonic lodge; they were trying to protect Smith from a lynch mob.

Pictured: Professor Dylan C. Penningroth gives his talk in Caplin Pavilion
Photo Credit: Andrew Allard '25

As legal historian Professor Dylan C. Penningroth of the University of California, Berkeley explains in his new book, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, omissions like this were part of a pattern that excluded Black lives from the history of American law. Under pressure to incorporate Black Americans in their curricula, top law schools in the 1970s began equating civil rights with minority status. “They implied that Black people encountered law meaningfully only in criminal justice, voting, the workplace, schools, and public accommodations—that is, in cases that were ‘about race,’” Penningroth explained. Indeed, one of the few contracts cases that did acknowledge the involvement of Black litigants was Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.,[2] a case dealing with the doctrine of unconscionability.

Penningroth was careful not to malign legal historians for their framing of Black history. As Penningroth explained, Black history as a modern field of study grew out of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. “Many leading Black historians came into the field profoundly shaped by their experiences as activists in the 1960s. Some of them explicitly said that their scholarship was a continuation of the struggle for Black freedom . . . Movement-centered scholarship is as urgent and necessary today as it was in the 1960s.”

But Penningroth argued that focusing exclusively on how white supremacists weaponized the law against Black Americans has made legal historians miss how Black Americans shaped legal doctrine by using courts to their advantage. “It has helped make Black history almost synonymous with the history of race relations, as if Black lives only mattered when white people were somehow in the picture.” And the Movement-centered framing has also placed a “moral burden on African-American history that few other scholarly fields have had to carry.”

In reality, Black Americans had been using the law long before the Civil Rights Movement to marry, divorce, care for their elders, own property, and run their churches and businesses. Penningroth’s research revealed that there were more lawsuits involving Black litigants in the Jim Crow era than during Reconstruction. And while Black Americans were plaintiffs less often than whites were, the gap was narrow. At times, such as in Illinois in 1892, Blacks were overrepresented as plaintiffs. Black litigants came to court for a diverse array of matters, including divorce, insurance, unpaid rent, easements, wills, assaults by white neighbors, town officials who damaged their property, and more.

While Black litigants were asserting their legal rights, most often they were not challenging white supremacy; most lawsuits brought by Black plaintiffs were brought against Black defendants. And when white defendants were involved, lawyers carefully developed strategies to avoid fomenting white fears of racial equality. Nor did Black litigants enter court on a level playing field. “The baseline rules of contracts, property, and civil procedure silently favored the haves over the have-nots, the repeat player over the one-shotter.”

But the fact that Black Americans had been asserting their rights in courts for decades helps solve a puzzling question—why did Black Americans put faith in law in the first place? “If we want to understand Black people’s demands for their rights that Americans denied them, then we have to pay more attention to how they talked about and used the rights that were not denied them,” Penningroth explained.

Beyond overcoming a popular framing, telling the story of day-to-day Black legal victories came with a practical challenge—most case records simply don’t mention the parties’ race. “I wanted to write Black history,” Penningroth said, “but I couldn't tell who was Black.” Penningroth’s fascination with these stories is evident from his respect for the documents where they lie. He described driving around the country, spending weeks at a time at a county courthouse sifting through forgotten papers in its dockets. “Very few people care about old court records,” Penningroth said. “But for now they're still there for anyone willing to look. And they have stories to tell.”

Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights is available now from W. W. Norton & Co.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

---

[1] 105 Kan. 35 (1919).

[2] 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Karsh Center Hosts Discussion on Trump's Eligibility

---

Pictured (left to right): Melody C. Barnes, J. Michael Luttig, and Kurt Lash
Photo Credit: VPM (Virginia Public Media)

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor

AUTHOR: Andrew Allard ’25

TITLE: Legal Scholars Discuss Trump’s Presidential Eligibility

WORD COUNT: 880

Last Tuesday, February 6, the Karsh Center for Law & Democracy hosted a discussion on Donald Trump’s eligibility for federal office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1] The Law School’s Professor Micah Schwartzman ’05 introduced the panelists: J. Michael Luttig ’81 and Kurt Lash. The event was moderated by Melody Barnes, a Senior Fellow at the Karsh Center. Luttig is a former judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Lash is the E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

The discussion was held just days before oral arguments for Trump v. Anderson, a pending Supreme Court case examining Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment’s applicability to former-president Trump. The case arrived before the Court on appeal from a Colorado Supreme Court decision determining that Trump was ineligible to hold federal office because of his alleged support for the January 6 insurrection. Oral argument for that case was held last Thursday, February 8.

Professor Lash argued that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision should be reversed based on its erroneous interpretation of the phrase “any office, civil or military, under the United States.” As Lash explained in an amicus brief he submitted in support of Trump,[2] “civil office under the United States” was contemporaneously understood to encompass only appointed officers. Lash pointed out that the language of Section Three, which moves from the high offices of Senator and Representative to a “general catch all phrase,” supports this more restrictive reading. “This structure naturally reads as if the drafters expressly named all the high offices they wished to include, and they did not include the President.” Lash argued that while it is “textually possible” to read civil office under the United States differently, the ambiguous question should be resolved in favor of letting voters decide whether to re-elect Trump.

In response, Luttig pointed out that Lash “is tracking very closely the arguments that my [former] law clerks are making on behalf of the former president. For that reason alone, I have concluded that the President is emphatically disqualified under Section Three.” Luttig, who also submitted an amicus brief,[3] framed the case as a test of America’s commitment to democracy. “It goes without saying the Supreme Court of the United States must not fail this test.” Luttig said that by trying to remain in office despite losing the 2020 Election and “prevent[ing] the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history,” Trump engaged in an insurrection against the Constitution that bars him from federal office. Luttig emphasized that insurrection against the Constitution, rather than against the United States itself, is what Section Three forbids.[4] But Luttig acknowledged that there were “legitimate offramps” that the Supreme Court could take in this particular case to decide that Trump is not disqualified from federal office.

Lash agreed with Luttig’s “insurrection against the Constitution” reading of Section Three. “It certainly makes sense in terms of my study of the Civil War,” Lash said, citing the seceding states’ “betrayal” of the Constitution. But Lash disagreed that Trump’s conduct clearly meets that standard. “Once again, I think you’re looking at a term that can be read in different ways. Of course it can be read in a very broad way to include any type of resistance against the ordinary, peaceful transfer of power.” But Lash, describing himself as an originalist, suggested that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment may well have had “something far more insidious and far more catastrophic” in mind.

Luttig responded that while he is not an originalist, other originalist scholars, such as William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, have concluded that Section Three does apply to Trump. “They are professedly not just conservatives, but originalists,” Luttig said. “There is no question in this world that under an originalist understanding and interpretation of the words of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment that the former president is disqualified. It’s incidentally also the case, that under a plain textual reading uninformed by the originalist meaning, that the former president is disqualified.”

Luttig also disagreed that disqualifying Trump would be undemocratic. “The Constitution itself tells us that disqualification is not anti-democratic . . .  Disqualification is not what's anti-democratic. What's anti-democratic is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification.” Luttig said. Lash offered a different view, saying that excluding Trump from the ballot is not necessarily undemocratic—if doing so is constitutionally justified. “On the other hand, if it’s not constitutionally justified to disqualify Donald Trump, then it would be profoundly anti-democratic to prevent the country—at least half of the country—from voting for their choice of President.”

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

---

[1] “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” U.S. Constitution, Article 14, §3.

[2] Brief for Professor Kurt T. Lash as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Donald J. Trump, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 2024 WL 61814 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2024).

[3] Brief of Amici Curiae J. Michael Luttig, Peter Keisler, Larry Thompson, Stuart Gerson, Donald Ayer, et al., in Support of The Anderson Respondents, Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, 2024 WL 61814 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2024).

[4] The pertinent language of Section Three bars from federal office certain government officials who “having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same . . . .”

Becoming a Peer Advisor at UVA Law

---

Pictured: Peer Advisors meet with new students, Orientation 2023
Photo and Caption Credit: UVA Law

Mark Graff '26
Staff Editor

The Peer Advisor program held information sessions on February 6 and 8 to inform potential candidates about the application process.

At the session, Co-Directors Jess Williams ’25 and Cynthia Eapen ’25 spoke about the Peer Advisor application and the responsibilities of the role. According to Jess and Cynthia, successful applicants are those with enthusiasm for UVA Law, previous leadership experience, excitement for the mentorship opportunity, and commitment to diversity. They stressed that these categories are defined broadly, and that they encourage anyone with excitement to mentor students to apply. According to Cynthia, the initial application is “straightforward,” with four to five responses of no more than 300 words. 

As most UVA students know, Peer Advisors are responsible for introducing 1L and LL.M. students to life at UVA Law, providing academic support and institutional knowledge, offering advice for the job search process, fostering cohesion with the section, and building friendships with peers. Jess emphasized that being a Peer Advisor is a “rewarding and incredible experience where you learn a lot from the people you teach.”

After giving an overview of the Peer Advisor role and application, a panel of peer advisors answered questions and shared their thoughts on the experience. Madalyn Moore ’23, two-time Peer Advisor, said that “You get to be an unbiased problem solver, and just help people figure things out.” Further, she explained that Peer Advisors hold the important role of “demystifying” challenges like the job search and filtering out faulty advice. Madalyn recalled an example of this, when one of her students heard of a rumor that “if you don’t have a job by February, you aren’t getting one.”

Madalyn suggested that potential applicants “think about formative experiences you had with your Peer Advisors and create a framework for how you would interact with 1Ls, including what changes you would make.” She echoed a sentiment that all the panelists stated—to find the “why” behind your application and present honest feedback on your experience with Peer Advisors. 

Another topic the panelists addressed was a recent change in the Peer Advisor program—disassociating with Student Affairs. As a newly independent student organization, the past year had some challenges, such as the lack of overlap between Orientation Facilitators and Peer Advisors. However, Cynthia underscored that students interested in working as an Orientation Facilitator, or other positions with conflicting timelines such as Legal Writing Fellows, should not be dissuaded from applying. This year, the Peer Advisor leaders are coordinating with Dean Davies to create greater cohesion between the different groups. Their goal is to include peer advisors in the orientation process, so that new students are familiar with their peer advisors before the school year starts.

Though the disaffiliation with Student Affairs may be new this year, according to Madalyn, this change is bringing the organization back to its roots. “When the [Peer Advisor] program started in 1992, by Black and LL.M. students, it was unaffiliated with Student Affairs. The goal is now what it was then—to give unbiased and direct advice,” said Madalyn.

1Ls and 2Ls interested in becoming a first-time PA are encouraged to submit an application by Thursday, February 15. After written applications are reviewed, a select number of applicants will receive an invitation to interview on February 21, with interviews being conducted the week of March 11–15. Interviewees will receive a notification of their decision on March 22, and all selected peer advisors will attend spring training on April 5.

---
mg2dja@virginia.edu

Judge Stephanos Bibas' Parental Insight on the Law

---

Pictured: Judge Stephanos Bibas
Photo Credit: Penn Carey Law

Caitlin Flanagan '24
Staff Editor

On February 3, 2024, the Federalist Society at UVA Law hosted Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before Judge Bibas was appointed as a circuit judge in 2017, he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where his research focused on criminal law and procedure. He has also worked in private practice and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where it was noted that he successfully prosecuted a world expert on stained glass who directed a grave robber to steal Tiffany windows from tombs in cemeteries.

Judge Bibas presented a talk which drew parallels between lessons he has learned as a father of four children and as a federal judge for the past six years. He recalled being asked during the process of judicial confirmation what experience had prepared him for the role. He knows now that a full answer to that question would have to include the experience of being a father. He framed his speech around four surprisingly similar lessons that a fair judge, and a successful parent, must learn.

First, Judge Bibas spoke to the importance of equal treatment, both real and perceived.  As a parent, he’s noticed that children are quite attuned to even the appearance of favoritism. He has therefore learned, when disputes between his kids arise, to resist showing any natural bias in favor of the poorly behaved but perhaps younger, cuter, and smaller party. As a judge, he’s found it pivotal to explain any distinctions he makes between the parties, explain why they are relevant, and apply them consistently. Judge Bibas spoke to the importance of identifying and rooting out his own unconscious biases, and celebrated judges who have had the courage to stand for constitutional rights even when they are unpopular. Further, Judge Bibas explained that he will bend over backwards to ensure that unrepresented parties with meritorious claims receive full and fair consideration, even if it requires some lawyering on his part, as an effort to guarantee substantive equal treatment.

Second, the parental and judicial roles both underscore the significance of setting clear rules and enforcing them consistently. Judge Bibas warned the room that the children of law students tend to have their own inherited lawyerly genes, and that when lawyers have families of their own, they will gain an appreciation for the unique challenges that young, argumentative minds pose for parents. He then, turning to judging, critiqued the judicial invention of multi-factor balancing tests which simply incentivize clever lawyering and thus favor whichever litigants have more financial resources. Bibas, as a judge and as a parent, strives to make clear rules, rather than mushy and manipulable standards.

Judge Bibas’ third parallel between judging and parenting was the importance to litigants, and children, of receiving fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. The thread that ties civil procedure together is fair notice, yet unclear standards and insufficient access to legal counsel leave many people in this country without sufficient notice and without a fair opportunity to be heard. Judge Bibas specifically criticized growing strict liability exceptions to the mens rea requirement in criminal law, which he thinks erode our system’s emphasis on fair notice. He also suggested that litigants seeking inexpensive legal aid in the U.S. should have an opportunity to hire a limited license lawyer or paralegal, who spent less money on their legal education but would be able to help ensure that less privileged individuals have an opportunity to be heard. Pressures to plead guilty and perfunctory plea hearings don’t give litigants sufficient understanding of their own process; Bibas works to speak respectfully and in plain language to ensure that every party in his court feels they understand their constitutional guarantees. 

Finally, Judge Bibas spoke to the need for a posture of humility and open-mindedness in both roles. Being a father is a daunting obligation, and no matter how many parenting books you buy, there are no easy answers. Bibas is driven to ask for guidance from his faith and from his community often, as a father. He spoke to the significant effect that genes and peer communities have on young, forming minds, explaining that the realization that children are not infinitely perfectible blank slates actually takes some of the burden off of his shoulders. As a judge, too, he thinks it is important to recognize the appropriate limits of the role and to embrace the humility of working to apply the law without infusing it with his own preferences. His process with his clerks in writing cases is quite collaborative, in part because a good judge, like a good father, should be willing to sometimes change their mind.

---
cf3tf@virginia.edu