UVA Tradition: Lighting of the Lawn

Riley Lorgus (BA ’24)


As the semester comes to a close, the Lighting of the Lawn (LOTL) committee is excited to invite the UVA community to the 22nd Annual Lighting of the Lawn. This beloved University tradition will be held this Friday, December 1, from 7 to 9:30 p.m. at the Rotunda. LOTL is open to the entire University as well as the wider Charlottesville community. As we count down the days until LOTL, we hope that you will join us this upcoming Friday.

Doors to the event open at 6 p.m. with a performance from the undergraduate band Weekends and Wednesdays on the South Lawn, accompanied by food trucks, photo stations, free snacks, hot beverages, and so much more. The performances begin at the Rotunda stage at 7 p.m. and feature student dance and acapella groups, with the signature light show as a finale (which will feature a few more songs this year!).

LOTL was born from the terrifying events of September 11, 2001. Following the national tragedy, an air of sadness, fear, and grief remained on Grounds. Seeing their once joyful community now overwhelmingly scared, a group of student leaders came together during that dark fall season to uplift the community. Members of the Fourth Year Trustees Committee of the Class of 2002 were determined to uplift and unite the community in any way possible. Trustee Matt West proposed the idea of bringing light, literally, back to Grounds by illuminating the lawn with string lights. As soon as the University administration and Facilities Management team got on board, students got to work hanging lights on the Rotunda and Pavilions before the very first Lighting of the Lawn on December 15, 2001. 

What started out as a modest event has grown exponentially in the years since the first LOTL. Today, this cherished event draws over fifteen thousand attendees across the University and Charlottesville community. With performances from over twenty-five student acapella and dance groups, receptions across the Lawn, and the iconic, colorful light show, LOTL is a huge celebration of love, light, and people we hold dear to our hearts. What remains consistent each year is the universal message of unity and community as we gather together before the fall semester draws to a close. As always, LOTL is planned entirely by a dedicated group of undergraduate students, who share the same determination to illuminate Grounds as the 2002 Fourth Year Trustees.

LOTL has adapted to our recent history and experiences as a community. As we pass the one-year anniversary of the tragic deaths of our peers D’Sean Perry, Lavel Davis Jr., and Devin Chandler, this year’s Lighting of the Lawn remains committed to celebrating their lives and the light that they brought to our community. Their numbers, 41, 1, and 15 will be illuminated during the event.

This year, we would like to invite the community to join us at the Disglow! The LOTL committee designed this night of Disglow fun to celebrate the spirit of community, the joy and strength that is found in togetherness. Despite hardships faced by members of our community, LOTL shines bright and is a beacon of hope for those at the University, the Charlottesville area, and even attendees joining us virtually. We hope this year is no exception. What is more joyful than a night of glow-in-the-dark disco fun? Wear your brightest disco outfit and bring your glow sticks to the Lawn. Our night at the Disglow will uplift the community and celebrate their hard work during the fall semester.

More information on this year’s Lighting of the Lawn can be found at our website lightingofthelawn.com or on our Instagram page @lotluva.

The LOTL committee has put in countless hours of tireless work during the fall semester to put on this event. All of us on the committee hope to see you on the Lawn and we can’t wait to celebrate with you!


---
ral8pd@virginia.edu

UVA Panel Hosted by Karsh Institute Says Update To Immigration Laws Needed

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor


A panel of University of Virginia professors and policy advisors met on Thursday, November 16, to discuss the ongoing strains on the U.S. immigration system. The panel was hosted by the Karsh Institute for Democracy. The Law School’s own Professor Amanda Frost and Professor Emeritus David A. Martin were among the four panelists.

The panelists were generally critical of Congress’ failure to pass legislation updating immigration law, particularly asylum law, which hasn’t seen major reform for nearly thirty years. “I think it's reasonable to say—is Congress broken?” said Professor Frost, who specializes in immigration law. “And are they breaking the courts through their inability to enact legislation dealing with immigration?”

Frost said that without a needed change in immigration law, the Executive has attempted to resolve immigration problems on its own through new rules or guidance. Frost cited three cases in which these actions have been challenged in federal court.[1]

Frost explained that these legal challenges are involving the courts in partisan fights over immigration policy. “Those who are challenging laws and executive branch policies—if they’re on the red side, then they’re bringing these cases in red state fora, where they think they’re going to get—and often do get—handpicked judges that will rule in their favor. And equally, the immigrants’ rights advocates are choosing to litigate in fora where they think there will be a friendly outcome.”

Angela Maria Kelley added that the present policies for asylum seekers are not working. Kelley, who worked as an immigration lawyer and was formerly the Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security under the Biden Administration, explained that asylum cases can take years to process. During those intervening years, while asylum seekers have temporary legal status, they find work, build relationships, and buy houses. But they are often still turned away. “They put down roots, they live their lives. But when they get up under the immigration judge, finally, the person who had a really strong asylum case seven years ago doesn’t have one now,” said Kelley. That means that asylum seekers can never truly settle down. “They’re always looking over their shoulder—Is ICE going to come get me? That’s not sustainable.”

While panelists mostly focused on how to manage the current immigration crisis, Professor David Leblang of UVA’s Frank Batten School of Public Policy suggested that the crisis itself is being exaggerated for political purposes. “There's only about 3% of the [global] population that lives outside of their country of birth,” said Leblang.

Leblang, a Professor of Public Policy at UVA’s Frank Batten School, suggested that some opponents to immigration reform are motivated by animus. Leblang also criticized efforts to deter migration, saying that they are ineffective. Leblang explained that those who come to the United States have often been displaced by conflict or climate change. “There's data on how many deaths have occurred on the southern border of the United States. And if death doesn't deter you, I don't know what will.”

But Professor David A. Martin, noting his work in the Clinton administration, said that deterrence canwork. Martin explained that in the early days of Clinton’s presidency, asylum became a “high visibility issue” due to two major crimes committed by asylees: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and a shooting at the CIA’s Virginia headquarters that killed two agency employees. With Martin’s help, the administration adopted new policies, such as a six-month waiting period before asylum seekers could receive work authorization. “It worked. It did deter claims. The numbers dropped considerably,” said Martin.

As to whether similar reforms are achievable now, Martin was less certain. “I understood that I’d be here as the old timer on the panel to bring some historical perspective and maybe to find some glimpses of times in the past when bipartisanship worked, or executive initiative worked.”


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

[1] The cases Professor Frost cited were Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498 (5th Cir. 2022) (invalidating the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)); E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, No. 18-CV-06810-JST, 2023 WL 4729278 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2023) (invalidating a rule creating a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for asylum seekers that fail to schedule an appointment with a mobile phone app prior to applying), argued, No. 23-16032 (9th Cir. Nov 7, 2023); Texas v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 6:23-CV-00007 (W.D. Tex. filed Jan. 24, 2023) (challenging the Biden administration’s use of  parole status for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela).

Maliyekkal and Gray Win 95th Annual Lile Moot Court Competition

Nikolai Morse '24
Editor-in-Chief

Pictured: Aquila Maliyekkal '24 and Sean Gray '24
Photo Credit: UVA Law

On Thursday, November 9, Aquila Maliyekkal ’24 and Sean Gray ’24 won the 95th Annual William Minor Lile Moot Court Competition. They argued against third-years Audrey Payne ’24 and Hunter Heck ’24. Held annually, the competition starts with a field of about fifty individual competitors who write briefs and argue student-written problems in a mock federal or state appeal. To reach the finals, these teams advanced through three previous rounds of the Competition in their second year and the fall of their third year. In each of the rounds, the students wrote a brief and presented an oral argument before a panel of judges on a problem written by a fellow law student.

In the final round, the competitors argued before a panel of three distinguished federal judges. The chief judge was Judge Allison Rushing, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting in Asheville, North Carolina. The next judge, Judge Allison Nathan (who has judged the final round of Lile previously), is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose chambers are in New York City. The final judge, Judge Jesse M. Furman, also hails from New York City, where he is a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the final round of oral argument, the judges joined the competitors and their families for a reception.

Ben Buell ’24 wrote this year’s problem, which was used in the semi-finals and final rounds. The problem concerned a computer programmer, James Oliver, who had been hired by a microchip manufacturer, Edison Technologies, to create a cybersecurity software program named Citadel. Nearly a decade later, Oliver learned that Edison sold dozens of copies of Citadel between 2014 and 2017. He promptly registered a copyright and sued for infringement as soon as it was secured. Edison Technologies appealed the decision of the district court, which found that Oliver owned the copyright and was able to receive damages.

In writing the problem, Buell focused on two issues common to copyright infringement suits: ownership of the copyright and the availability of damages. The first issue turned on whether Oliver was the sole owner, such that he possesses the exclusive right to distribute copies of the software, or whether Citadel was a “work made for hire,” in which case that right vests in Edison. Importantly, whether the software was a “work made for hire” turned on whether Oliver was an independent contractor or an employee of Edison while he built the software. Second, even if Oliver owned the copyright in Citadel, does the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations for civil infringement claims preclude retrospective relief, such that his claims to damages stemming from Edison’s sales of Citadel from 2014 to 2017 were barred?

Buell said, “The problem was designed to test different skills. One issue was heavily fact-intensive and the other was a pure question of law on which there’s a significant circuit split. The second issue is on the cutting edge of copyright law–the Supreme Court will resolve the split this spring in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy.”[1]

Indeed, Lile President Kathryn Kenny ’24 emphasized the efforts of the many students involved in administering the prestigious competition. “The Lile competition is fairly unique since it is entirely student run; students organize the rounds, research and write the problems for each round, serve as preliminary round judges, and invite judges for the semifinal and final rounds.” From the initial rounds, where students serve as judges and brief graders, up through the process of facilitating later rounds, Kenny affirmed that running the Lile competition had been among the most rewarding experiences in her law school career.

When asked how they decided to partner, Gray responded that “Aquila and I became friends on the first day of law school and never looked back. During 1L, after we both made the Extramural Moot Court team and once we heard about Lile, we decided that we'd team up.” Maliyekkal echoed Gray’s comments, noting also that while they are “very different people—our backgrounds, politics, and legal philosophies couldn't be further apart,” he had “improved tremendously as a thinker and writer just by being Sean's partner. I've improved as a person by being Sean's friend.”

Gray described the intensive writing process he and Maliyekkal followed: “We'd each write our portions, then come together and meticulously edit the brief as a whole. Highlights of our writing process included: debating whether the article ‘a’ needed to proceed every item in a list; arguing about the use of the past perfect tense; deleting most of the em-dashed phrases that we both litter throughout our writing; and workshopping way too many metaphors and one-liners. Sounds fun, right? Harmonizing our styles was one of the more demanding parts of the process, but it was also quite rewarding.” Maliyekkal agreed, noting that their “[writing] styles aren't vastly different, but we each certainly had our literary peccadilloes and hang-ups we had to negotiate with the other about. Some of the most fun we had came from competing with each other to come up with pithy lines we could pepper through the brief to make it an engaging read (or the closest a brief on copyright and statutes of limitations could get to it).”

Maliyekkal and Gray were thrilled to have won and spoke highly of the demanding experience, which spanned more than a year. Maliyekkal described it as “an intense but rewarding experience . . . It pushed me to become a better writer and advocate and allowed Sean and I to test our skills against people we respect tremendously.” Gray echoed these sentiments, calling it “one of my favorite experiences in law school . . . It honed skills that will serve me well for practice—I became a better writer, speaker, advocate, and teammate throughout. But most importantly, I had a great time working with my best friend.”


---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1]  60 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023).

Winter (Pro Bono) Is Coming

Ashanti Jones '26
Staff Editor


On Wednesday, November 1, 2023, the Pro Bono Program at the Law School held a session to educate students on winter break pro bono. The session was hosted by Assistant Dean for Pro Bono and Public Interest Kimberly Emery ’91 and Assistant Director of Public Service Andrew Broaddus.  For any who were unable to attend or any who did attend but got distracted by thoughts of their impending major memo, the Law Weeklyoffers this article as a step-by-step guide to finding and securing a winter break pro bono project from our resident pro bono experts.

What should I look for in a project?        

Emery opened the session acknowledging that students have a variety of reasons for pursuing winter break pro bono projects, and nailing down your specific reason is crucial when beginning your own search for a project. However, regardless of reason, all students should first determine when they are actually available during break.

If your driving motivation is getting your forty hours of pro bono to qualify for the Public Interest Law Association’s Public Service Summer grant or your fifty hours for the New York State Bar, Emery suggested students make sure their desired project qualifies as pro bono under that organization’s specific definition.

For the PILA grant, any project on GoodWorks qualifies, and students finding their own projects should ensure the project is unpaid and serves “low-income or under-represented clients, legal services providers, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, or private law firms providing pro bono services.” Emery also stated that, while judicial internships are valuable (unpaid) learning opportunities, they do not qualify as pro bono work for the Pro Bono Program or the PILA grant. For the New York State Bar, students should email the New York State Pro Bono Bar Advisory Committee at probonorule@nycourts.gov with any questions.

Emery also noted that students can use winter break pro bono to establish a geographic tie, if planning to work in person, to a specific market for a summer or post-grad job or establish an interest in a specific practice area. However, this may not be possible for students trying to target international markets or transactional work.

“There are a few markets that can be a little harder,” Emery said. “Overseas projects can be a problem, unless you have personal contacts, or really know an NGO, or are working with a professor who has contacts.”

How do I apply to winter break pro bono projects?

There are two ways to apply to winter break pro bono projects: through GoodWorks or by reaching out to the organizations directly via email. Emery recommended students only apply to three projects total. If applying through GoodWorks, Emery suggested students use the sample interest statement available on their website when crafting their own interest statement. If applying via email, Emery stated students can use their sample email available on their website as a guide or simply copy and paste their sample email and fill in their specific information.

Additionally, Emery recommended students look to the organization’s staff directory and email their materials to the organization’s volunteer coordinator, internship coordinator, pro bono director, or something along those lines. If you are unable to locate a staff member with one of those titles, Emery recommended students email materials to a staff attorney or the general organization email instead. If you have not heard from the organization, Emery suggested reaching out to her or Broaddus for help, or simply calling the organization directly.

Finally, Emery urged students to utilize the Pro Bono Program staff while applying to projects, because they may be able to connect students personally to staff in the organization’s office. “We have lists of public service alumni, so if you’re just gung-ho about X organization, and you’re going to apply, shoot me an email,” Emery said. “We are here as a resource; we don’t want you to feel like you’ve been thrown out to the wolves.” 

When should I start applying to winter break pro bono projects?

As of November 1, some winter break pro bono projects are available on GoodWorks with more to come throughout the month. Emery stated most will remain open until the first week or so of December, so there is no rush in applying. For those applying via email to organizations not listed on GoodWorks, Emery stated that now is a good time for students to start sending their interest emails. Additionally, while there is no exact deadline to submitting interest emails, Emery shared that it is ideal to send them before finals season starts to ensure a timely response from your targeted organizations.

“We do not recommend waiting until after exams,” Emery said. “You’ve now moved into the holiday season, and a lot of offices are going to be operating with a skeleton crew or are closed entirely.”


---
alj3emz@virginia.edu           

LSAC's Change to LSAT Speaks to a Larger Issue

Garrett Coleman '25
Managing Editor


On November 1, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) announced that it would pull its free prep course offerings from Khan Academy and transition them over to the subscription-based LSAC LawHub.[1]This decision came after some broader restructuring of the legal gatekeeping test in October of this year, which saw the removal of the logic games section.[2] While many of us may want to put LSAC in the past as an uncomfortable hurdle, it is important to remember how pivotal their role is in shaping the legal field. Many of our future colleagues will be products of LSAC’s restrictions, so I think its practices merit continued consideration. And as a group of people uniquely adept at the LSAT, its changes are at least somewhat interesting.

I am happy to criticize a standardized testing apparatus because I am one of the decreasing few who think they still have merit. Having students from a variety of undergraduate institutions sit for a single exam that requires no background knowledge is a good thing. It helps to separate those who have genuine legal potential from those who benefited from better academic opportunities—though, I admit, no test could do this in full. But that goal is undermined when LSAC is allowed to raise profitable barriers throughout the application process. The LSAT itself costs $222. If you want to apply to law schools with your score, that will be an additional $200. But if you want to actually apply to a particular school—as opposed to having some CAS report floating in the ether?—that will be another $45 per school, not including the specific application fee. And I have a hard time believing that they are pricing at cost, given that their 2021 net assets totaled $270 million.[3] Even with all this cash, there have been widespread reports of terrible remote LSAT experiences after LSAC went from ProctorU to Prometric.[4]

During undergrad, when helping other pre-law students with their LSAT preparation, I always loved how simple the ideal prep plan was. In my experience, Khan Academy paired with Mike Kim’s The LSAT Trainer was an effective combination for many students. The videos covered every basic problem type and were free, with some accompanying practice tests.

LSAC would respond to my criticisms by touting their fee waiver structure, in which independent students earning below 300% of the federal poverty level can receive these services for free, including the LawHub subscription. For that, I commend them. But the fee waiver system still leaves out plenty of people who earn slightly more but are still wary about spending hundreds of dollars for the subscription and accompanying prep courses.

Those of you who know me are aware that I am not a “vive la révolution” type. LSAC’s officials are entitled to fair compensation because they do provide a unique product that undergoes extensive testing. And I believe that such a product is quite helpful to law schools who want to develop the best lawyers possible. But those good results are predicated on wide availability of opportunity. If large swaths of the population are functionally excluded from adequate preparation, then it is not really a test for merit. Further, law schools and lawyers should not allow LSAC to abuse their position and extract money from aspiring law students. This is because LSAC does not actually provide a valuable good in and of itself. It is a service to help us choose the next generation, and its opportunities should be spread as widely as possible.

The larger issue that underlies this entire concern, though, is that we have a profession built around credentialism when it is not necessary. Your LSAT determines what schools you can get into. Then, even if you want to work in mergers and acquisitions, your Torts grade will factor into what firms will hire you. And when you are actually practicing, the luster of your resume will affect how clients see you. This is true even though some have said that a “generally intelligent high-school student [could] pass the bar with a few months of preparation.”[5] Lawyers as influential as Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson did not even attend college before practicing law.

I doubt many people here will appreciate this perspective, since we have largely won the credentialism game. By virtue of having UVA School of Law on our resumes, we send hundreds to the lucrative Big Law firms. But if credentialism abates, there may be a future in which law students don’t have to enter heavy debt to pass a test that many others could prepare for.


---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

[1] Annmarie Levins, Khan Academy LSAT Test Prep Resources Coming to LSAC’s LawHub by June 2024,  LSAC (Nov. 1, 2023) https://www.lsac.org/blog/khan-academy-lsat-test-prep-resources-coming-lsacs-lawhub-june-2024.

[2] Karen Sloan, Law School Admission Test to drop 'logic games' questions from exam, Reuters (Oct. 18, 2023) https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/law-school-admission-test-drop-logic-games-questions-exam-2023-10-18/.

[3] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/132998164.

[4] Doug Lederman, Problems With Law School Test Frustrate Thousands, Inside Higher Ed (Aug. 14, 2023) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/graduate/2023/08/14/proctoring-issues-affect-thousands-taking-lsat.

[5] George Leef, Some Very Contrarian Thoughts on the LSAT, National Review (Oct. 12, 2022) https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/some-very-contrarian-thoughts-on-the-lsat-and-law-school/.

Hunter-Gatherers and the Nature of Property

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor


Christina Martin says that a Supreme Court opinion from last term shows that the justices are interpreting property rights through the lens of natural law. Martin suggested the court’s opinion in Tyler v. Hennepin County[1] recognized a property interest so obvious that it could not be resisted. “It pretty much doesn’t matter what history was, what state law is. The mind rebels at it. We all reject this.” 

Martin, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, recently made her debut oral argument before the Supreme Court, winning a unanimous opinion for the petitioner. Martin recapped the case and interpreted the court’s opinion at an event hosted by the Federalist Society at UVA Law last Wednesday.

The facts of the case made for an unsurprising unanimous decision. Martin’s client, Geraldine Tyler, is a 94-year-old condo-owner in Hennepin County. Ms. Tyler had accumulated $15,000 in unpaid property taxes, and the County seized and sold Ms. Tyler’s condo for $40,000. But rather than returning the $25,000 excess to Ms. Tyler, the County kept all of the proceeds for itself. This practice, which Martin and others have called “home equity theft,” was decisively rebuked by the Court.

The question posed by the case is deceptively simple: Was the County’s taking of the surplus $25,000 unconstitutional? But underlying that question is a much more complex one: Where does property come from? Is it a bundle of rights protected by state law? Or does property have an “irreducible core” which states are bound to respect? And  as Justice Roberts asked at oral argument, “[I]f there is an irreducible core to the property, where does that come from?”

Recalling the oral argument, Martin explained: “Without saying it, I was essentially trying to say that it comes from natural law. The Declaration of Independence says that we all have certain unalienable rights, and this I believe is one of them . . . Property is something—it existed before government. Government exists in part to protect it.”

As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, natural law is “a philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action.” As Martin notes, natural law had a significant influence on the American founding. And its history goes much further—to the roots of Western civilization.

But if the justices had anything to say about natural law, like Martin, they did not say so overtly. Nor did the justices opine on human nature. Instead, writing for the court, Chief Justice Roberts offered a more familiar answer: history and tradition. Relying on sources from the Magna Carta to 18th century state laws, the court found broad consensus that “government could not take more property than it was owed.”[2]

The problem with a natural law gloss on the court’s opinion does not stop at the text of the opinion itself. Anglo-American property law traditions, as it turns out, are not a universal aspect of human society. On the contrary, some hunter-gatherer societies think of property in a way that is entirely unfamiliar. And given that foraging is “the original condition of humankind and 90 percent of human history,”[3] it is arguably a much better reflection of human nature than modern American society.

Anthropologists have observed a custom of reciprocity in some hunter-gatherer societies called “demand sharing.”[4] One such anthropologist, James Suzman, lived with and studied the Ju/’hoansi people in Namibia for more than two decades.[5] In an article for the anthropology magazine Sapiens, Suzman describes how foreign the practice seems to a Western observer. “Where we usually consider it rude for others to ask unashamedly for something that we own or to just expect to receive it, the Ju/’hoansi considered this normal. More so, as far as they were concerned, denying someone’s request ran the risk of being sanctioned for selfishness.”[6]

Despite what this practice might suggest, the Ju/’hoansi still recognize private ownership. But the rights of the owner are much more limited. “The net result of this was that, while private property was respected—after all, if there is no private property, how could you enjoy giving or receiving a gift?—material inequalities were quickly ironed out.”[7]

Of course, one group’s cultural practices cannot inform an entire theory of human nature, nor should it be the basis of American property law. The fact that hunter-gatherers’ lifestyles are arguably more “natural” does not mean that every American must practice demand sharing. Rather, these radically different customs are a reminder that observations about human nature are just that—observations. If there comes a day when we can discern universal behavior from those observations, perhaps we will have a basis for a natural law of property. But for now, human societies remain stubbornly diverse and unsusceptible to such broad generalizations.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

[1] 598 U.S. 631, 143 S. Ct. 1369 (2023).

[2] Id. at 641.

[3] Richard B. Lee & Richard Daly, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers 3 (1999).

[4] See e.g., Nicolas Peterson, Demand Sharing: Reciprocity and the Pressure for Generosity Among Foragers, 95 Am. Anthropologist 860 (1993).

[5] James Suzman–About, https://www.fromthebush.com/about (last visited Oct. 29, 2023).

[6] James Suzman, Why Envy Might Be Good for Us, Sapiens (June 21, 2018), https://www.sapiens.org/culture/hunter-gatherer-inequality-namibia/.

[7] Id.

Statement from Virginia State Senator Deeds

Editor’s Note: Thank you to Senator Deeds for contributing this article. The Senator’s statement does not reflect the views of the Virginia Law Weekly or any of its editors.

The Commonwealth is one of just a few states that has an election every year. The election on Tuesday, November 7, will decide control of the state legislature and determine whether Governor Glenn Youngkin will have the majorities he wants to enact the same regressive legislation we’ve seen rammed through in other states, like Florida.

Even though Youngkin narrowly won election in 2021 and won a GOP-majority in the state house, Democrats still retained a majority in the Virginia State Senate. The Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus has served as a brick wall against radical GOP legislative priorities. But, with the entire chamber up for election this year in newly drawn districts, we have no guarantee of keeping that majority.

Everything we care about is on the line in this election—abortion access, gun violence prevention, LGBTQ+ rights, environmental protections, criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and more.

Republicans promise that they will pass an abortion ban. Youngkin has stated that he will sign into law any abortion ban that reaches his desk. He and the state GOP are running on a fifteen-week ban.

Republicans promise to crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights, including outing queer and trans youth to their parents and banning books showing loving, gay relationships. Virginia is supposed to be for lovers. I cannot believe that we still must fight in 2023 to say these simple truths: Love is love, and people are who they are.

Republicans intend to block marijuana legalization in the Commonwealth and other important criminal justice reforms passed under the previous Democratic administration. They want to roll back important regulatory changes that keep coal ash and hazardous chemicals out of our water supply.

They will stick their heads in the sand instead of confronting the urgent threat that is climate change. Youngkin has already pulled Virginia out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and he will do even more if empowered by a Republican legislature. And they’ll continue to ignore the need for common sense gun violence prevention measures, including restricting weapons on college campuses, requiring safe storage of firearms, and banning assault weapons.

All the progress we've worked so hard to achieve could be gone in just one election cycle. And, if Democrats hold the Senate and retake the House of Delegates, we can send bills to the Governor’s desk and force him to take a position. We can also get to work on enshrining abortion rights into the Constitution, repealing the same-sex marriage ban, and providing for the automatic restoration of voting rights for felons.

We're in year four of Virginia's four-year election cycle. In the first three years the President, the Governor, or Congressional seats are at the top of the ticket and drive turnout. In this fourth year, the General Assembly races are at the top of the ticket. In a low turnout environment, every vote counts, and even races in safer districts could flip because voters don’t come to the polls.

The recent headlines coming out of the Youngkin administration, where state officials have purged 3,400 lawful voters from the rolls, make one thing clear: Republicans only want certain people to vote this election. I urge you to make your voice heard no matter how much they might try to restrict it.

In 2021, just 27 percent of registered voters age eighteen to twenty-nine cast a ballot in the election, and, this year, that number could be even lower. With lower than 43 percent turnout expected in our area, a high youth vote could make all the difference. This is why it's critical that you exercise your right to vote and send a message that Virginia rejects MAGA extremism this November 7.

Because of voting rights reforms passed by Virginia Democrats, Virginia has gone from one of the worst voting rights states in the country to one of the best. You can vote early in-person at the city or county registrar’s office through Saturday, November 4. If you requested a mail ballot, you can drop it off at your election day voting precinct, the registrar’s office, or put it in the mail by Election Day.

I hope UVA Law students who live in Charlottesville and Albemarle will cast their votes for our shared vision for our community. I hope you will vote for me and my fellow Democrats Katrina Callsen (54th District) and Amy Laufer (55th District), who are running to serve in the Virginia House of Delegates. You can find out more about all of our incredible Democratic candidates—including UVA Law student Mike Pruitt, who is running for the Board of Supervisors in the Scottsville District, and Allison Spillman, who is in a tight race against Meg Bryce, Antonin Scalia’s daughter—by going to the Charlottesville Dems[1] and Albemarle Dems[2] websites.

We can’t go backwards this November 7. Vote for a cleaner Virginia, a freer Virginia, a loving and tolerant Virginia. Vote for a Virginia that supports reproductive healthcare. Vote for respecting democracy and protecting our civic institutions. Whatever your reason, cast that ballot and make your voice heard.

[1] https://cvilledems.org/upcoming-elections/2023-11-7-general-election/.

[2] https://albemarledems.org/our-candidates/.

Law School Panel Says Future Challenges to ICWA Likely

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor


Last Wednesday, October 18, Child Advocacy Research and Education (CARE), in cooperation with the American Constitution Society at UVA and UVA’s Native American Student Union, hosted a panel discussion of the recently decided Supreme Court case Haaland v. Brackeen,[1] in which the Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Photo Credit: Andrew Allard '25

Some 486 tribal nations voiced their support for ICWA, and the decision was welcomed by Native organizations.[2] Said Seth Coven ’25, President of CARE and organizer of the panel, “This is a really important topic that doesn’t get the same coverage as some of the other cases that came out this past summer. . . . The decision was a surprise to some, but in the eyes of CARE and a lot of advocacy organizations, it was a win.”

As the panelists explained, the Brackeen majority determined that ICWA was consistent with Congress’s plenary power to regulate affairs with Indian tribes. The Court also rejected petitioners’ argument that ICWA violates anti-commandeering principles, reasoning that Congress can dictate Indian adoption standards to the states under the Supremacy Clause.

But panelists expressed concern that ICWA may continue to be the target of legal challenges. “It’s only the beginning,” said Professor Andrew Block, who specializes in youth law. “Justice Kavanaugh, in a concurrence, leaves open the door to equal protection challenges, especially after the affirmative action decision.”

To be sure, future challenges to ICWA may ultimately fail. Professor Holly Clement, a former attorney from the Department of the Interior’s Indian Trust Litigation Office who recently joined the Law School as an adjunct professor, suggested that a 1974 case, Morton v. Mancari,[3] clearly weighs against finding that ICWA is racially discriminatory. “I do think you’ll see an equal protection challenge, but I don’t think it will be successful.”

Brianna Baldwin, a medical student at UVA and the president of the Association of Native American Medical Students, likewise explained that, under current law, members of Indian tribes are not a racial or ethnic group, but citizens of sovereign nations. Baldwin noted that in the wake of Students for Fair Admissions,[4] the American Association of Medical Colleges opined that the decision would not impact consideration of an applicants’ tribal membership because it is a political status, not a racial status.

Still, whether Mancari and other precedent can hinder future challenges to ICWA is unclear. Some justices have been willing to depart from the Court’s precedent, as in Students for Fair Admissions itself. Indeed, Justice Kagan even acknowledged in a recent interview at Notre Dame Law School that “there have been ideological divides with one side overturning precedent” in recent cases.[5]

For Native tribes, the stakes of legal challenges to ICWA are high. “Native communities experience higher rates of suicide compared to all other racial and ethnic groups in the U.S.,” Baldwin explained. “Connecting to community, to one’s own language, to one’s culture, to one’s background, can be a predictive health factor for Native youth.” Baldwin noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in Brackeen emphasizing the importance of ICWA for the welfare of Native children.

Professor Naomi Cahn, an expert in family law, suggested that while ICWA is not perfect, it has had a positive impact on Native youth. “In Utah in 1976, an Indian child was 1,500 times more likely to be in foster care than a white child. Today—not great, but four times more likely.”

Indeed, such disparities are precisely what motivated ICWA’s enactment in the first place. As Professor Clement explained, ICWA grew out of the relationship between federal, tribal, and state governments. Under the Constitution, federally recognized Indian tribes are independent, sovereign nations, with exclusive power to manage their internal affairs. “The policy of keeping Indians free of state interference is deeply rooted in our history.” Despite that clear separation, Clement explained, “there’s always been a huge conflict with the states wanting to take on jurisdiction and trying to interfere.”

In writing the statute, Congress noted that “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children,” and that “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children.”


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

[1] 599 U.S. ___ (2023).

[2] Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (Haaland v. Brackeen), Native American Rights Fund, https://narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt (last visited Oct. 21, 2023).

[3] 417 U.S. 535 (1974).

[4] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023).

[5] Josh Gerstein, Kagan Hopes Supreme Court’s Ideological Divide on Precedent Isn’t Permanent, Politico (Sep. 22, 2023 6:02 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/22/elena-kagan-supreme-court-precedent-speech-00117760.

SBA Women's Mental Health and Wellness Roundtable

Caitlin Flanagan '24
Staff Editor


On October 17, the Student Bar Association invited two members of the local Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) to guide a conversation with law students about resources for victims of sexual violence and ways to shape a preventative culture which decreases risk factors for abuse. Carley Mack, the Director of SARA’s prevention team, and Jacqueline Schell, an advocate on SARA’s client services team, joined a group of law students who hoped to discuss their experiences in the Law School and to learn about SARA’s work here in Charlottesville.

Mack began the discussion by describing the work that SARA does in town and in the surrounding counties. The organization’s focus is on providing trauma-informed support services to survivors, as well as identifying creative ways to make communities safer and more empathetic. Practically, their advocates’ broad range of work includes serving as a liaison between victims of sexual assault and their medical providers in local hospitals, collaborating with the University’s Title IX office to ensure that students are aware of SARA’s resources, and assisting survivors with a range of needs. SARA is able to offer survivors care from their own in-house therapy team, and also assists them with filling other critical needs, such as legal representation and safe housing. Mack shared that her favorite part of work is getting tuned into the great range of community resources which are available to provide holistic support to individuals who have survived sexual violence.

Given our context here in the Law School, several questions arose regarding the relationship between SARA and the University’s Title IX office. SARA has a relationship with the UVA Title IX coordinator, Molly Zlock, but emphasized that the scope of SARA’s work with the University is, for the most part, survivor-led. For example, if a student has been a victim of sexual violence and would like an anonymous report to be filed on their behalf, SARA can file that report and subsequently coordinate with the student.

The group discussed the importance of truly confidential resources to a victim of sexual violence. It is essential for many survivors to identify a point of contact who is sensitive to the trauma of sexual violence, well-informed regarding the various plans of action that a victim can take, and who will not break the conversation’s confidentiality, regardless of the gravity of what has occurred. SARA’s representatives discussed the difference between a confidential resource and a mandatory reporter, and recommended that any law student who wants to have a conversation without reporting repercussions get in contact with their advocates.

The roundtable discussed prevention, as Mack and Schell asked the students about the Law School’s culture surrounding sexual violence and its impacts. The group noted that the Law School’s orientation, particularly as compared to other academic institutions, surprisingly does not include an in-person conversation or training regarding sexual assault prevention. Participants in the conversation proposed ways to change the culture surrounding sexual violence at the Law School, including ideas as simple as posting a flyer regarding resources like SARA in the restrooms and at events promoted within the Law School that involve heavy drinking, such as Barrister’s Ball or Bar Review.

Mack provided an example in the form of a poster which SARA has been using in trainings to change the culture around sexual violence in the restaurant industry. The poster describes ways to practice bystander awareness, in the form of “three D’s”: direct, delegate, or distract. Mack provided examples of preventing sexual violence which would fall under each of these categories, to include directly telling someone to stop their threatening behavior, asking someone who is a good friend of an involved party to break up an escalating situation, or distracting someone who seems to be crossing another person’s personal boundaries by telling them that they dropped their wallet near the bar.

SARA’s representatives and the members of the Law School community discussed potential push-back to increasing awareness of sexual violence, and agreed regarding the importance of continuing these important discussions in our community.


---
cf3tf@virginia.edu

FedSoc Hosts Live Taping of Advisory Opinions

Nikolai Morse '24
Editor-in-Chief


On Wednesday, October 18, the Federalist Society at UVA Law hosted a live taping of Advisory Opinions (“AO”). As many of our readers are likely aware, Advisory Opinions is a semi-weekly legal podcast, which features “conversations about the law, culture, and why it matters.” It is part of The Dispatch, an American conservative online magazine.

Advisory Opinions is hosted by Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch and David French of The New York Times. Isgur has an array of experiences, ranging from time at private firms such as Wiley Rein and Cooper & Kirk, to the Office of Legal Policy, to multiple political campaigns. French has written for The Atlantic and National Review, served as legal counsel to the American Center for Law and Liberty and the Alliance Defending Freedom, and was President of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) before serving in the military. Regrettably, neither host attended this great institution for law school.[1]

Wednesday night’s taping included roughly an hour of discussion by the hosts followed by twenty minutes of questions from members of the audience. The hosts covered a variety of topics, including the Fugees rapper Prakazrel Michel’s ineffective assistance of counsel appeal, a study which found that female Supreme Court advocates are interrupted at a significantly greater rate than their male counterparts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s remarks calling for a Supreme Court code of ethics, and whether the Fifth Circuit is destined to become the Ninth Circuit (known for its decisions regularly being granted cert by the Supreme Court, only to be struck down in epic fashion).

Following the standard greeting with which the Federalist Society opens its events,[2] Connor Fitzpatrick ’25 introduced the hosts. The hosts then kicked the show off by noting how much happier and better looking their audience was than the typical law school. Considering that the hosts seemed to be staring directly at this reporter’s freshly trimmed goatee, we can all agree they were right.

First, the hosts discussed the rapper “Pras” Michel’s lawsuit[3] in which he was found guilty of acting as an unregistered foreign agent funneling dozens of millions of dollars to influence political campaigns and investigations in the United States.[4] While this case is interesting on the merits, Isgur and French focused on its intersection with artificial intelligence. Specifically, the hosts described claims raised by Michel that he suffered ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) because, among other things, his trial counsel had used artificial intelligence to draft the closing statement.[5]

While the AO hosts thought there might be a claim against the lawyers because they had a stake in the artificial intelligence company they contracted with, the hosts were sanguine about the prospects of the IAC claims. Isgur emphasized that “the Strickland[6] standard doesn’t even come close to describing how hard it is for ineffective assistance of counsel claims to succeed. Falling asleep at the table didn’t count. Failing to call witnesses didn’t count.”

Isgur and French also discussed the question, put forth by other legal commentators, that the Fifth Circuit might be the new Ninth Circuit.[7] The hosts disagreed with the hypothesis of Empirical SCOTUS, that because the Fifth Circuit is known for conservative jurisprudence, it is likely to be affirmed on most of the cases the Supreme Court had granted cert on. Pointing to cases like NetChoice v. Paxton[8] and Community Financial Services Association v. CFPB,[9] the AO hosts suggested that these cases were highly likely to be overturned.

The students in attendance seemed to have enjoyed themselves, and a number hung around after the taping to speak with the hosts. Casey Crowley ’24 gushed, “My favorite part was Sarah’s wit. Her jokes about UVA students being much better looking and charming than Yale or Harvard students were my favorite.”

Describing the decision to invite Advisory Opinions to the Law School, President of FedSoc at UVA Law, Aquila Maliyekkal ’24 stated, “David and Sarah are very thoughtful (and entertaining) interlocutors, and we knew that students that attended would both have a lot of fun and find it very informative. A big part of our mission is exposing grounds to smart, thoughtful conservatives, and we think that’s exactly what the event accomplished!”

Wednesday night’s taping was posted on Thursday, October 19, and can be found on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and anywhere else you listen to podcasts.[10]


---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] We understand that they attended a Boston-area commuter law school. We respect the hustle.

[2] Straight from the source: “The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.” Heady stuff.

[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/26/fugees-rapper-convicted-political-conspiracy-00094073.

[4] We’re open to bets on how many times the prosecutors sang “Ready or not, here I come, you can't hide” as they prepared for trial.

[5] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.206880/gov.uscourts.dcd.206880.310.0.pdf.

[6] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

[7] Noting the Ninth Circuit’s tendency to be a glutton for punishment, during my 1L criminal law class Professor Jeffries memorably described them as acting “Like lemmings, off the cliff…repeatedly.”

[8] 49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022) (cert granted).

[9] 51 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (cert granted).

[10] Bonus points for those who listen until the very end, when you can hear a weirdly-timed chuckle, courtesy of yours truly.

LIST Hosts Law and Technology Career Panel

Noah Coco '26
Staff Editor


The Law, Innovation, Security, and Technology Society (LIST) welcomed three Washington, D.C. attorneys who specialize in law and technology on Wednesday, October 4. They were invited to discuss their careers and share insights into the broader opportunities available in law and technology. The attorneys composing the panel were Allison Holt Ryan, a partner in the Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Hogan Lovells; Michael Jones, a patent litigation and prosecution attorney at Rothwell Figg; and Rebecca Weitzel Garcia ’22, an associate in the Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Wilson Sonsini. LIST President Jeff Stautberg ’25 addressed questions to the panel, and answers to several of these questions are excerpted below.

Pictured, left to right: Allison Holt Ryan, Michael Jones, Rebecca Weitzel Garcia '22 Photo Credit: Hogan Lovells, Rothwell Figg, Wilson Sonsini

What skillsets are most important for your job?

All the panelists reflected on the importance of being able to communicate across stakeholders, ranging from government regulators to software engineers. As Weitzel Garcia articulated, she must “translate legalese into engineer speak and engineer speak into legalese.” They all stressed the importance of the capacity to take complex ideas and explain them in simple terms, whether to argue in court or communicate with regulators. For Jones, it helps to have a background in engineering—he has both bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering—especially in his line of patent litigation work, where a technical degree is required for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) bar. As a partner, Holt Ryan emphasized the importance of building relationships, as this is paramount for engaging with clients and colleagues. She often deals with victims of large-scale data breaches, so the ability to navigate these sensitive issues with panicking clients is a necessity.
 

What technical expertise is required for your position?

In most contexts, a technical background is not a requirement. It is still helpful, though, to be “tech-curious,” according to Weitzel Garcia. She noted that she often interacts with software engineers who speak about the code they write, so she has had to learn enough to understand and communicate to others what the engineers are conveying. Holt Ryan mentioned that this type of knowledge can be acquired through practices as simple as taking engineers out to lunch and asking them to explain their work through analogies, for instance. This is the type of activity that allowed her—an attorney originally from “the middle of nowhere” Tennessee, with bachelor's degrees in English and Political Science and who did not begin work in her current practice until she was a sixth-year associate—to succeed in her current role.

There are some contexts, however, where a technical background is necessary such as practicing patent prosecution before the USPTO. Although some litigation suits require fewer technical skills, Jones noted, it is otherwise essentially a requirement. Most practitioners have technical degrees, and they often specialize in their relevant areas of expertise.

What does a typical day look like in your role?

No law career panel is complete without this staple. As is often the case, the panelists all expressed that no two days look alike, so they resorted to the classic tactic of describing their most recent day of work.

On any given day, Weitzel Garcia works on a couple of major projects and a few smaller projects. Recently she has been assisting clients through two major Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigations. In the meantime, she had completed a one-off privacy policy for the Technology Transfers group, conducted typical first-year associate doc review, and engaged in research for a data privacy agreement for an educational technology company.

Holt Ryan generally spends most of her days on client calls. She is currently representing clients targeted by the recent Moveit data breach exploitation. The incident has spawned nearly 200 new privacy lawsuits against the software developer and twenty-five related independent companies. She announced the newest development that all the cases were to be combined into a single class action suit in Massachusetts. That particular day, she spoke with clients regarding settlement strategy in response to this case.

Jones’ days do tend to look a little more uniform. He can anticipate spending approximately half of his time helping clients obtain patents, and the other half litigating patent infringement. That particular morning, he worked through discovery disputes, reviewed legal research, and directly assisted inventors trying to protect their innovations.

What new topics do you expect to come down the pipeline?

Recent actions involving the major regulatory bodies are affecting all of the panelists’ practices. Weitzel Garcia alluded to recent rulemaking at the FTC that she anticipates will impact her clients. In particular, she cited the sweeping commercial surveillance rules governing consumer privacy and data security. She noted that there remain unanswered questions regarding the FTC’s role and whether the rules exceed the FTC’s permitted reach. Holt Ryan referenced the FTC as well but expressed her interest in the “turf war” among regulators like the FTC and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over how they are handling issues such as cyber-attacks and the implementation of AI in industry. Jones likewise expressed excitement in following the rulemaking he anticipates from the new Commissioner for Patents, Vaishali Udupa, as she conducts a review of existing rules.


---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu

Statement from the Law Weekly Board

Over the past week and a half, the world has seen the horrific and unjustifiable terrorist attacks in Israel, and the devastating ongoing violence in the Gaza Strip. We unequivocally condemn Hamas’ brutal terrorist attack and offer our most heartfelt sympathy and support to those members of the Law School community who are suffering as a result of these tragic events. Whether your family or friends are in the region, or your faith or ethnicity tie you to it, we want to express our steadfast friendship and commitment to you.

Many of us came to UVA because of its special community and the wonderful people who comprise it. It is important to remember that the measure of friendship is not found in how we conduct ourselves when little is required of us. It is in the challenging moments, where perhaps we seriously, even viscerally, disagree with each other, that we have the opportunity to prove the strength of our relationships. This is not always easy. But it is precisely in times like these that grace, understanding, and friendship are most needed, both for our community and the world which we will all soon enter as attorneys.

Above the doors of our school are carved the words, “That those alone may be servants of the law who labor with learning, courage, and devotion to preserve liberty and promote justice.” We hope that liberty, justice, and peace come as quickly as possible to all Israelis and Palestinians. And we hope that you, our dear readers and friends, will rely on the kindness and support of our community, which we are all so lucky to be part of.

Professors Frampton and Prakash Discuss the Trump Indictments

Noah Coco '26
Staff Editor


Students and faculty gathered on Wednesday, September 27, for the first session of a series on the federal and state indictments against former President Donald Trump, sponsored by the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy. The first session, titled “The Indictments: A Primer,” focused on reviewing the indictments at a high level and addressing basic questions regarding possible constitutional problems that could arise. 

The discussion was led by Professors Thomas Frampton and Saikrishna Prakash. Together, they combined their expertise in criminal law and the presidency to provide context to students regarding the upcoming litigation. 

Professor Prakash kicked off the event by discussing constitutional issues that may arise in the course of litigation. Many open questions remain about how this unprecedented criminal litigation against a former president, and possible future sitting president, will proceed. The Constitution provides some hints, but not many concrete answers. Unlike the specifically enumerated privileges for members of Congress – speech and debate privileges, for instance – the presidency does not actually have privileges against arrest or prosecution. The only guidance on this issue comes in the form of a memo produced by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 2000. OLC concluded that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, or even indicted, in either state or federal court because it would interfere with the president’s ability to serve. This remains Department of Justice policy, although there has been no occasion to challenge it since its publication. 

Prakash maintains that the conclusion of OLC is incorrect. He believes that criminal indictments and prosecutions fall within Twenty-fifth Amendment’s categories of incapacities that would make a president unable to adequately serve in his duties. And while the record of criminal indictments against sitting presidents is sparse, he does note one, albeit comical, instance when President Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding while riding in a horse-drawn carriage through the streets of Washington, D.C. 

While only speculating about how a criminal prosecution might proceed in the event that Donald Trump is reelected to the presidency before the resolution of the impending litigation, Prakash was much more confident in asserting that there are no constitutional concerns that preclude prosecuting a presidential candidate, even one with the status of former President of the United States. 

Prakash concluded by discussing possible defenses Trump may have against the indictments, namely that his conduct was performed in his official capacity as president, and an assertion of executive privilege. It is perhaps unsurprising that former President Nixon provides the closest hint as to whether these defenses will be successful. In cases stemming from the Watergate scandal, courts have held that a president or former president cannot be sued for damages resulting from official acts. Prakash believes, however, that this logic should not extend to criminal charges. Instead, he argues, this question should be addressed by Congress. On the question of executive privilege, too, courts may decide to override Trump’s defense. 

Professor Frampton, armed with printed copies of all of the indictments, followed Prakash with a discussion of their contents. Trump faces four separate criminal cases composed of over ninety felony charges. In the time allotted for him to speak that afternoon, Frampton remarked, he had approximately five seconds per felony count. 

The first case was brought in New York and primarily concerns allegations of falsifying Trump Organization business records. Wrapped into the facts of this case is the entertaining, yet disgraceful, saga of payments made to pornstar Stormy Daniels. Former Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen (who has already pleaded guilty to violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act) was reimbursed for “legal services” for the payment he made to Daniels. Frampton noted, however, that this case will hinge on whether the prosecution can prove that Trump acted with an intent to defraud, a necessary element for these felony charges. 

Trump faces additional federal indictments in the Southern District of Florida in the “Documents Case” for unlawfully retaining documents related to national security, as well as in Washington, D.C. for his actions in the January 6 events that contributed to the disruption of Congressional proceedings and obstruction of the government’s lawful function of certifying election results. 

The final case against Trump is the truly sprawling Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) indictment. The basis of this state RICO indictment is the "idea that there was one, big, criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of the Georgia election,” as Frampton summarized it. The indictment articulates over one hundred overt acts that the prosecution alleges constitutes the conspiracy. 

Frampton was cautious not to make any predictions as to the success of any of these indictments, particularly in light of Prakash’s discussion of the uncertainty concerning constitutional restraints and possible defenses at Trump’s disposal. 

Two future sessions in this series have been scheduled in the coming weeks. The first, “The Trump Indictments: The Presidential Election and Congress,” will be led by Professors Payvand Ahdout and Bertrall Ross on Wednesday, October 4 at 11:45 a.m. in WB 101. The second session is “The Politics of Presidential Indictments” and will be led by Professors Cynthia Nicoletti and Frederick Shauer on Tuesday, October 17, at 4 p.m. in WB 101.


---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu

100 Years of Elizabeth Tompkins

Abigail Williams '24
President of Virginia Law Women


Just over 100 years ago, Elizabeth Tompkins ’23 left the University of Virginia School of Law with her degree and a zeal to begin the practice of law. In 1920, the Law School admitted its first three female students: Elizabeth Tompkins, Rose May Davis, and Catherine Lipop. The Law School’s decision to include women in the ranks of their prestigious class was not made from a desire for equality. Rather, Dean William Minor Lile was responding to pressure from women’s rights activists, namely Mary-Cooke Branch Munford. While Dean Lile appealed to the “chivalry” of the men in the Law School, his comments and the attitude of Tompkins’ male classmates made it clear that women were not seen as equals in the legal field.

During her time here, Tompkins wrote home to her father (who encouraged her pursuit of the law) detailing all the ways she was shut out of the collegiality that UVA prides itself on. In 1921, she wrote “[The men] are beginning to know that I am not after them, and that they have nothing I want.” Despite graduating near the top of her class in 1923 and earning a perfect score on the bar exam, she was underestimated by her peers. Dean Lile predicted it would “not be long before she deserts the profession of the law and takes up that of wife & mother.” Tompkins went on to prove him, and any others sharing that sentiment, wrong.

She was the first woman admitted to the Virginia State Bar, and she clerked for then judge and fellow UVA Law graduate R.T.W. Duke, Jr.[1] After she graduated, Dean Lile changed his tune. In 1924 he noted that “[Tompkins’] powers of acquisition and of appreciation of legal principles were fully equal to those of the men in the front rank of the graduation class” and suggested she pursue her legal career in Richmond. With that advice, she moved away from Charlottesville and began practicing with other UVA Law alumni in Richmond. She later served as a commissioner in chancery for the Richmond circuit court. Drawing on her experience at UVA Law, she became a leader at the University of Richmond and sat on the Board of Trustees. In 1969, she was dubbed “the dean” of women lawyers in private practice by the Virginia State Bar. The next year, she received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Richmond for her exceptional work.

We cannot reflect on the last 100 years of the University of Virginia without thinking about Elizabeth Tompkins’ experience. The legal field and university have come a long way since her admission in 1920, at a time when women had to be white, at least 22 years old, and have two years of education before being admitted to the Law School. As Dean Lile noted in June 1921 to a group of alumni, women’s “insistence and persistence – their crying aloud night and day without surcease” begot more inclusive changes to the legal profession. Every person graduating from UVA Law has some of that insistence and persistence; it is inculcated into our hearts and minds through our professors, fellow classmates, and the world at large. In a 1936 article about women in the legal profession, Tompkins described the profession as taking “hard, exacting work and long hours.” By persisting through that hard work, applying what we learn during our time at this institution, and reflecting on the incredible life of people like Tompkins, we can all become better lawyers and make our communities better places.

[1] https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/from-recollections-by-r-t-w-duke-jr-1899/.

Professor Xiao Wang Returns to Batten for Constitution Day Talk

Photo Credit: Andrew Allard '25

Andrew Allard '25
Executive Editor


Could recent controversial constitutional law decisions bring about renewed interest in direct democracy? Through his research, Professor Xiao Wang has found that not only is a new wave of grassroots democracy already here, but also that this response finds precedent in U.S. history.

Last Monday, in celebration of Constitution Day, Professor Wang returned to his alma mater, the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, to present his research to a packed room of students and faculty. Professor Wang, an Ohioan, opened with a recent example from his home state, where a referendum to be held on November 7 will decide whether to enshrine reproductive rights, including abortion, in the Ohio Constitution.[1] In August, a second proposed amendment supported by the Republican Party of Ohio would have made it more difficult to amend the state constitution by increasing the referendum threshold from a simple majority to 60 percent.[2] That proposal was rejected by voters.[3]

Voters today, Professor Wang explained, are using the referendum process to protect abortion rights in response to the Dobbs[4] decision in 2022. Both the decision itself and Ohio officials’ efforts to entrench the status quo garnered backlash from the public, with one commentator noting, “[O]ur courts have been stacked, our lawmakers have been captured by special interests, our politicians are riddled with corruption, and now our own majority voter power over our constitution is being assaulted.”[5]

In this country that so reveres its Constitution and the rule of law, such a strong rebuke of the legal system is rare. But, as Professor Wang points out, it is not without precedent. Professor Wang’s research suggests that Ohio’s constitutional referendum process grew out of popular dissatisfaction with the courts. As Professor Wang explained, at the turn of the 20th century, the Supreme Court produced some of its most controversial opinions, including Plessy v. Ferguson[6] and Lochner v. New York.[7] In 1912, seven years after Lochner, Ohio held a constitutional convention, during which it adopted its modern referendum process. Proponents of the new referendum process explicitly criticized the courts and judicial review. As one representative put it, “No such power was ever given to the courts. They have simply taken it.”[8]

Ohioans were not alone. Of the twenty-six states that today have ballot initiative or referendum processes in their constitutions, twenty-one enacted them between 1898 and 1918, Professor Wang explained. “You see this sort of popular resentment of the Supreme Court—this idea that these people might interpret the law, but we don’t have to adhere to every one of their court cases. We can have a voice in this.”

But in spite of the tradition of popular constitutionalism in some states, challenges to direct democracy have proliferated in recent years. For example, Amendment 4 in Florida—adopted by 65 percent of voters[9]—sought to end felony disenfranchisement “upon completion of all terms of sentence.”[10] Within less than a year, the Florida Legislature adopted a new law that continued to withhold the right to vote from felons until they paid all outstanding legal financial obligations, without providing a reliable means of determining these obligations—effectively limiting the scope of Amendment 4.[11] Even more astoundingly, in Mississippi, after 73 percent of voters approved an initiative legalizing medical marijuana, the Mississippi Supreme Court struck down Mississippians’ constitutional right to vote in ballot initiatives altogether.[12]

Professor Wang believes that these efforts to stymie popular initiatives have undermined the public’s confidence in government. “It totally makes sense why most people are disillusioned and disengaged.” But Professor Wang, undeterred, suggested that direct democracy can supplement the courts’ role in constitutional interpretation. “The way that we understand [the Constitution’s] relationship to us, what we owe it and what it owes us, how we read it—that constantly changes.”

Noting that defining the Constitution is an ongoing conversation, Professor Wang suggested that legislative change, judicial reform, and direct democracy can all contribute. In closing, Professor Wang implored students to remain involved in that conversation. “Please, for the time that you’re here and the time that you’re out of here, never forget that part of you that wants to see policy change. Use it to make a difference.”


---
tya2us@virginia.edu

[1] Julie C. Smyth & Samantha Hendrickson, Voters in Ohio reject GOP-backed proposal that would have made it tougher to protect abortion rights, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-rights-constitutional-amendment-special-election-227cde039f8d51723612878525164f1a (Aug. 9, 2023, 9:26 AM).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 213 L. Ed. 2d 545 (2022) (finding that there is no constitutional right to an abortion).

[5] David Dewitt, Ohio government is already captured by radical special interests. State Issue 1 would make it worse, Ohio Capital Journal, https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/06/29/ohio-government-is-already-captured-by-radical-special-interests-state-issue-1-would-make-it-worse/ (June 29, 2023, 4:30 AM).

[6] 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (creating what became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine).

[7] 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (striking down a New York statute restricting working hours for bakers on the basis of a Fourteenth Amendment freedom to contract).

[8] C. B. Galbreath & Clarence E. Walker, Fifty-second Day, in Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio 1087, 1091 (E. S. Nichols, ed. 1912).

[9] Brennan Ctr. for Just., Voting Rights Restoration Efforts in Florida (Aug. 7, 2023), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida.

[10] Fla. Const. art. VI, § 4.

[11] Brennan Ctr., supra note 8.

[12] The Mississippi ballot initiative procedure, adopted in 1890, limited the total number of signatures that could be counted from each of the state’s five Congressional districts to one-fifth of the total number of required signatures. After the 2000 Census, Mississippi lost a congressional seat, leaving it with only four. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that this rendered the state constitution’s ballot initiative procedure inoperable. See Initiative Measure No. 65: Mayor Butler v. Watson, 338 So. 3d 599, 607-08 (Miss. 2021).

Titan of Torts Awarded Prosser Prize from AALS

Noah Coco '26
Staff Editor


Astute 1Ls may have noticed one particular name repeated like a constant refrain in the notes and footnotes of their Torts casebook. Some may even see that same name printed on the cover of their own. That name is Kenneth Abraham. A “luminary in the field” of torts according to one of his colleagues, Professor Charles Barzun ’05, this titan of tort law walks among us on our hallowed Law School grounds. In recognition for his extraordinary contributions to the field, he was recently awarded the 2024 Prosser Award from the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Section on Torts and Compensation Systems. The Prosser Prize is the AALS’ highest award in the field of torts.

Picutred: Professor Kenneth Abraham
Photo Credit: UVA Law

Professor Abraham will be joining a long list of esteemed torts scholars, including former Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the latter of whom Abraham actually studied under while attending Yale Law School. A review of Professor Abraham’s career leaves no mystery as to why he was selected as a recipient of the 2024 Prosser Award. Throughout his career he has authored over seventy law review articles and six books, and his casebook Insurance Law and Regulation has been a staple among law school insurance law courses. His contributions to the field of insurance law have been particularly influential since the publication of his first book in 1986, “Distributing Risk: Insurance, Legal Theory, and Public Policy.”

Professor Abraham is no stranger to awards for his scholarship and teaching prowess. He was previously awarded the All-University of Virginia Outstanding Teacher Award, the Distinguished Faculty Achievement Certificate from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, the American Bar Association's Robert B. McKay Law Professor Award, and he was first among all law professors to be elected an Honorary Fellow of the American College of Coverage Counsel.

It might be expected that such a prominent torts dignitary’s first words as an infant were “duty, breach, cause, and harm,” but Abraham’s entry into the field was not preordained. He enrolled at Yale Law School in the 1960s in an atmosphere with “politics and public policy in the air,” said Abraham. While in law school, he took a year off to be on active duty with the US Army Reserve, a decision he made in order to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam War, and I am sure to also avoid a number of corollary tortious acts. Following his graduation from Yale Law School in 1971, Abraham joined a two-person law firm in Hackensack, New Jersey, that focused on general civil practice. He spent his time at the firm drafting wills, facilitating real estate transactions, and handling small personal injury cases, a far-cry from the heights of torts fame he would later achieve.

Torts was, in fact, Abraham’s favorite 1L doctrinal class in law school, but it was not until his first Visiting Assistant Professor position at Case Western Reserve Law School that his foray into torts scholarship began. Even then, it was not necessarily because of any innate passion for elucidating liability, but simply because the law school was in need of a torts professor. After teaching at Case Western Reserve Law School and subsequently at the University of Maryland School of Law for several years, Abraham accepted a teaching position at UVA Law in 1984. And now, this year marks his thirty-ninth year on faculty at the Law School.

In addition to his contributions to the fields of torts and insurance law at large, he has equally established his impact on the Law School grounds through his interactions with faculty and students. Professor Barzun reflected on the past fifteen years teaching torts alongside Abraham at the Law School and the innumerous questions that Abraham has provided insight into over this period. “What I always love about Ken’s answers,” Barzun said, “is that he would not only tell me what I could say or how to think about the problem, but he would often reassure me that it was okay if I did not know the exact answer.” Professor Barzun continued, “instead of dwelling on it, he’d encourage me to step back and look at the big picture in order to see the deeper themes at work in the doctrine.”

Abraham continues to teach torts to 1Ls, guiding them from their first day of wondering “What’s a tort?” (I cannot imagine that I was the only one) until (hopefully) mastering the rituals of discerning duty, breach, cause, and harm. Ashley Ramsay ’26 is currently taking his 1L torts class and similarly reflected on Abraham’s ability to “challenge the class to think beyond how the Court came to its conclusion in a case and instead, push us to think critically about how the driving principles and philosophy of tort law influences the ultimate holding.”

The next time you pass Professor Abraham in the hallways, remember to congratulate him on the award, ask whether res ipsa loquitur is a useful construct, or give him a recommendation for a great mystery novel, which I hear is one of his pastimes.


---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu

Professor Wang Gives Inside Look at Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

Olivia Demetriades '26
Staff Editor


On Tuesday, September 19, UVA Law Professor Xiao Wang addressed a crowd of interested law students in the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Information Session. He spoke about the clinic’s structure, some exciting potential cases, and the application process. 

A recent addition to the faculty, Professor Wang is taking on the role of director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic this year. He left chilly Chicago and his role as the director of the Appellate Advocacy Center at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law for warmer weather in Charlottesville. At Pritzker, he supervised the Federal Appellate and Supreme Court clinics. Professor Wang also directed the National Appellate Clinic Network, a project that fosters digital collaboration and the sharing of resources between law students and faculty across the country to advance appellate clinic practice. He plans to introduce this program to the UVA Law community.

During the information session, Professor Wang extolled the benefits of participating in the clinic. While students can expect to greatly improve their written advocacy skills with the countless drafts of briefs they willwrite (and, of course, rewrite), they can also expect to play a role in some pretty influential decisions.

“Supreme Court opinions are breaking news,” Professor Wang said. “And by ethics rules, we don’t represent Chiquita or IBM. We represent the people that Chiquita and IBM allegedly oppressed. That’s a really powerful thing to get the chance to do in your third year of law school.”

The clinic, which is open to 3Ls (1Ls and 2Ls sit tight!), seeks to introduce students to all aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court practice. Students who participate get the chance to work directly with experienced litigators from Covington & Burling, Vinson & Elkins, or with Professor Wang himself as they conduct research, look through the case records, and write and edit briefs. Given the small number of writs of certiorari the Supreme Court grants each year, it can be difficult to find cases in need of litigation, so students should expect to play a role in the case identification process as well. Professor Wang mentioned an upcoming case students will work on in the spring that involves a question of mistaken identity and a previous case he worked on with Northwestern law students about food labeling to give students a sense of the wide variety of cases they may contribute to.

For this academic year, the clinic will be offered in the spring only. Professor Wang said he anticipates it to have between twelve and sixteen students who will be split into four smaller groups to work on specific cases. The clinic will have a seminar component that meets once a week to allow time to talk about the rules and procedures of the Supreme Court and discuss the cases students are working on. The four-credit clinic will be graded on an H/P/F scale, though it typically is a yearlong, eight-credit commitment. 

Students hoping to secure a spot in the clinic can also look forward to an array of accomplished guest speakers. Previous guests of clinics Professor Wang taught at Northwestern include the Director of the National Association of Attorneys General and the hosts of 5-4, a podcast that offers progressive insight into landmark Supreme Court cases.

3Ls who wish to participate in the clinic this spring should apply by sending Professor Wang a resume, unofficial transcript, and brief letter of interest to x.wang@law.virginia.edu by October 4 as well as ranking the clinic in the lottery system. In their application materials, they should highlight any areas of law or specific issues they are passionate about. The clinic has a limited number of seats, so students should rank the clinic as their first choice for the highest chance of being considered. 

Yoojin Lee ’26, a 1L who attended the information session, was drawn to the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic because of the broad range of cases. She said she is interested in big tech and antitrust law but hasn’t seen these topics addressed in other current clinics. In fact, Professor Wang encouraged students to bring their own interests into the clinic because they may play an important role in finding relevant cases for which they could petition for certiorari.

Professor Wang offered a few pieces of advice for interested 1Ls hoping to maximize their chances of securing a highly-coveted spot in the clinic: “Do well in your classes and find opportunities to refine your writing abilities.” He assured the 1Ls in the room that it is okay not to know what exactly they want to do within the legal field—a much-needed reminder for any 1L, not only those hoping to dabble in Supreme Court litigation.


---
ojd5xy@virginia.edu

Miller Center Hosts Panel on the Future of Affirmative Action

Garrett Coleman '25
Managing Editor


After Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College,[1] race-conscious diversity-initiatives in undergraduate admissions were drastically curtailed. To explain the Supreme Court’s prior jurisprudence and the impact of SFFA, the Miller Center at the University of Virginia hosted a panel discussion titled, The evolution of affirmative action—and its uncertain future, on Friday, September 15. The panelists, introduced by Dean Christa Davis Acampora of the College of Arts and Sciences, included Professor Kevin Gaines, senior fellow at the Miller Center; Eugene Hickok, former Unites States Under Secretary of Education; Professor Barbara Perry, Co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program; and the law school’s own Professor Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, also a senior fellow at the Miller Center.

Photo Credit: Miller Center.

Professor Perry, who served as moderator, began the discussion on a history of the term “affirmative action” itself. First introduced by President John F. Kennedy in an executive order, the early mission was well-presented by a commencement address President Lyndon B. Johnson gave to Howard University in 1956. In it, President Johnson gave the metaphor of chaining someone down for decades, only to free them and demand they compete with the rest of society.

Adding to that historical context, Professor Gaines explained the response to affirmative action in the various conservative movements since the civil rights era. It was President Richard Nixon who first successfully implemented affirmative action through the Philadelphia Plan, which was an executive order that addressed the exclusion of Blacks from the skilled labor unions in Philadelphia. But Professor Gaines also implied that President Nixon’s support for affirmative action waned as large swaths of the conservative base grew sour to the idea. This then takes us to the conservative revolution ushered in by President Ronald Reagan, which brought with it a distinctly colorblind approach to race in America. Accordingly, affirmative action becomes another form of impermissible discrimination, rather than a remedy. By the end of the panel, Professor Gaines made an interesting observation on a footnote within Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion in SFFA, which said that the Court was not addressing admissions for the military academies. Professor Gaines found this interesting because the U.S. military has been “the showcase example for racial integration” and its benefits.

At this point, the conversation shifted to cover the legal landscape prior to SFFA. After providing background on Equal Protection for the audience, Professor Robinson dove into the two Fisher cases.[2] The unique aspect to these cases was that the school could provide clear evidence that there were no less restrictive means to achieve their goals. With the state of Texas having outlawed affirmative action several years earlier, the state universities were consistently unable to meet their diversity goals solely through race-neutral means. This allowed the school to provide “tangible evidence” that the diversity goals necessitated some consideration of race in their holistic review pathway, supporting their conclusion that the plan was narrowly tailored. But, while this iteration of affirmative action survived equal protection scrutiny, Professor Robinson said that the Court’s opinion was a “ratcheting up of the legal standard” that schools would have to meet in the future when compared to the Grutter standard.[3]

Professor Robinson also touched on Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in SFFA, which she called “a beautiful opinion that really challenges the majority’s description of what the Constitution means.” That majority reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, tying back to Professor Gaines’s comments on the Reagan Revolution, is a fundamentally colorblind one. On the other hand, jurists like Justice Sotomayor would achieve equality by first acknowledging race. And Professor Robinson argued that this is consistent with the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, as evidenced by congressional action to create the Freedmen’s Bureau, which explicitly acknowledges race.

The last voice to chime in on this panel was that of Eugene Hickock, who worked to implement the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in the second Bush Administration. He characterized that act and movement as one that dealt with academic disparities across racial lines as early as possible in the developmental cycle, and opined that President George W. Bush does not get enough credit for that legislation’s impact. This is even more true given that the law was not going to fully take effect until the years after his administration had ended.

Absent from this discussion were hints about how the school would proceed in light of SFFA. Given the academic character of this discussion and absence of admissions officials, this did make sense and made for a more focused panel.

Professor Berry ended the event with a quote from Justice Charles Evans Hughes, which he gave when the first cornerstone[4] of the Supreme Court building was laid in 1932: “The Republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith.”


---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

[1] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023) (hereinafter SFFA).

[2] Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013); Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. 365 (2016) (approving the two main admissions policies of the university, one of which was a top 10 percent plan specifically implemented to increase diversity, the other being a holistic review process that took race into consideration as one factor among many).

[3] Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

[4] https://supremecourthistory.org/homes-of-the-supreme-court/#:~:text=When%20the%20cornerstone%20was%20laid,the%20symbol%20of%20its%20faith.%E2%80%9D.

UVA Alumnae Inspire Future Public Defenders

Brooke Boyer '26
Staff Editor


On September 14, Maggie Birkel ’18, Lindsay McCaslin ’09, and Erin Seagears ’20 returned to the Law School for the second installment of the “Real Deal” panel series on public defense. Students joined the alumnae in the Purcell Reading Room to gain a glimpse into their lives as successful public defenders, including the highlights of their careers, the challenges of public defense, and the wisdom they have to offer.

After graduating from UVA Law, Birkel, McCaslin, and Seagears pursued their long-held passions for working in public defense. Birkel is now the Deputy Director at the Second Look Project, an organization founded to provide legal support for individuals who received extreme sentences as young people in Washington, D.C. Before becoming involved in the Second Look Project, Birkel was a George Kaiser Family Foundation Women’s Justice Fellow at Still She Rises, the first public defender office that exclusively represents women.

Pictured (left to right): Maggie Birkel '18, Erin Seagers '20, and Lindsay McCaslin '09.
Photo Credit: Brooke Boyer '26

McCaslin, on the other hand, is an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Norfolk, Virginia. Her work entails representing her clients on a variety of charges and advocating for them in suppression hearings, jury trials, and at sentencing. Prior to this position, McCaslin was a state public defender in Virginia.

Last but not least, Seagears is an Assistant Public Defender in the Juvenile Division for the Maryland Office of the Public Defender. She was set on juvenile work from the first day of her law school career. Previously, she clerked for the Honorable John Nugent on the Baltimore City Circuit Court. While each of these women followed different career paths, their experiences and advice share several similarities.

Being a public defender requires more than the skills one learns in law school. As McCaslin and Seagears expressed, there is a lot of social work on the side because they regularly work with children and families. Emotional intelligence, or the ability to understand others’ emotions and manage one’s own, is also a critical skill for those working in public defense. The work undoubtedly bears an emotional toll, but each of the women contend that it is important to remain strong and rational while representing their clients.

The reality of being a public defender can be frustrating due to what McCaslin called the “backward” nature of the justice system. For example, Birkel stated that it is challenging to interact with people who “do not treat her clients like humans.” Many of her clients have been incarcerated for years, and it is disheartening for her to see that the law is not always applied in a way that is balanced and just. Seagears expanded on this point, expressing that the judge she gets on a particular case is a matter of pure luck. McCaslin agreed that it can take extensive effort to show a judge that a “kid is just a kid” at the end of the day. Because of this, leaving the fate of their cases in the hands of a judge can feel hopeless at times.

Despite the challenges and frustrations that come with working in public defense, Birkel, McCaslin, and Seagears unanimously agreed that it is an incredibly rewarding and fulfilling career path. It is an opportunity to make an impact in the lives of individuals and in the justice system itself. According to Birkel, working on cases for one to two years has resulted in the creation of deep relationships with her clients: “I know about the worst times of their lives and the best times of their lives.” She additionally spoke of the sense of community that has developed among her coworkers because they possess the same core values and work together toward a common goal. McCaslin has gratefully witnessed progress spurred by public defense work, including the passage of major legislation expanding children’s rights. Finally, Seagears answered without hesitation that advocating and fighting for her clients is the best part of her job.

For students interested in public defense, the alumnae gave advice on how to best prepare for and ultimately secure a job after graduation. Seagears and McCaslin encouraged students to take advantage of any opportunity to pursue public defense work during summers, winter breaks, and other extra free time because it is essential to show employers your dedication to that line of work. Only having experience in Big Law, therefore, will not be particularly convincing on a resume. McCaslin recommends taking advantage of the clinical experience UVA Law has to offer, such as the Criminal Defense Clinic and the Child Advocacy Clinic, in order to start building crucial skills early.

Birkel noted that “cold emailing” alumni and others in the UVA support system is a highly useful tool for developing connections and learning from those who already work in the field. Although it can be nerve-wracking to send an email to a stranger, those involved in public defense are thrilled to help other UVA Law students become involved in it as well.


---
ews6tm@virginia.edu